morial in Shem and Ham's race, illustrious women have burned to accompany the souls of their husbands; and slaves have been killed to attend their royal masters; a belief in the immortality of the soul is by no means a vulgar error, but a conviction impressed on the heart. The consent of all nations, next to the creation, is allowed by Justin Martyr to be the strongest proof of the being of God; and consent in regard to the soul, is to us equivalent to mathematical demonstration.

In bishop Butler's analogy, the proposition, that "matter cannot think," is fairly demonstrated. Dr. Priestley, on the contrary says, “This is an argument which derives all its force from our ignorance." Disquisitions, p. 82.

"The doctrine of a separate soul, most evidently embarrasses the true Christian system, which takes no sort of notice of it, and is uniform and consistent without it." Disq. p. 124. "Persons who attend to the scriptures, cannot avoid concluding that the operations of the soul depend upon the body; and that between death and the resurrection, there will be a suspension of all its powers." p. 124.

"It was unquestionably the opinion of the apostles and early Christians, that whatever be the soul, its percipient and thinking powers cease at death, and that they had no hope of the restoration of those powers, but in the resurrection of the dead." P. 224.

"The doctrine of the Revelation concerning a future life, depends on the resurrection of the dead, and has no other foundation whatever.No other

ground of hope is so much as hinted at in any part of the Old or New Testament." P. 252.

These bold, strong, and unqualified assertions of Dr. P. and which abound in the Unitarian writers, remind me of those men skulking about the corner of Serjeant's Inn, waiting to be hired as bail: they will enter into recognizances without hesitation for any sum of money which the court may require. The Doctor was reminded during the first sale of his work, that those texts which speak of the separate existence of the soul were neither ill-translated, nor misunderstood. "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Gen. ii. 7. To trans. late now Nishomah Chajoim, in any other way than the authorised version, would throw the Bible into a state of confusion. The Doctor was reminded, if God be a Spirit, how could man be created in his image, unless the soul be distinct from the body. What could our Saviour mean by saying, "fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ?" What could Paul mean by being absent from the body, and present with the Lord? Or Peter by putting off the house in which his soul resided? What could St. John mean by the souls of the martyrs which he saw under the altar? Suffice it to say, the full force of Scripture and reason had no effect on the Doctor, because "God sends strong delusion," on men who are resolved to be deluded. Though bounds, impervious bounds are set to the mind in its efforts to penetrate the veil of futurity, yet this presumptuous

mortal has suffered his proud imagination to penetrate a fancied futurity, to rob a suffering race of their only hope; for resurrection of the material soul and body can be no other than a new creation.

But the point now is, how you, Rev. Sir, can quote such a book, and about twenty times in the most honourable manner, without the least caution against its horrible principles.

Page 17. "Most competent judges agree that the earliest of the gospels, in its present form at least, was not written till the year 63 or 64." What is your motive for saying this? Is it to weaken the force of those gospels? If so, it fails, for most of the Apostles and seventy were then alive, and the long lives of St. John, Ignatius, and others, is noticed to demonstrate the cares of Providence over the church. The fact is, every apostolic man, on leaving Jerusalem, had his gospel with him. "Bring the books, said Paul, but especially the parchments," engrossed in a text hand for public reading. Eusebius says, that about sixty persons wrote gospels, and that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written about the eighth year after the ascension, in the Syro Chaldaic language, the then language of Judea. This agrees with what Luke, i. 2. says, that many who were eye-witnesses and Ministers of the word had taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Chrysostom confirms this opinion; Theophylact adds, that St. Mark wrote about the tenth year, adding, the time when Luke wrote is less certain, but he estimates it to be about the fifteenth year, and

the ACTS were written after St. Paul went to Rome. Tertullian joins his testimony to these facts. Consequently Eusebius, who fixes the times of the several gospels, must be understood of authorised copies being delivered to the churches for public reading; for Tertullian affirms, that the churches to which the apostles wrote, had, in his time, still preserved their own autographs. These, Doctor, are brilliant testimonies! who then are your competent judges ?

P. 20. "The two first chapters of Matthew are destitute of authority."-How then did they find their way into every corner of the Christian world? Is it likely that the Evangelist, writing the gospel of the Lord Christ, should abruptly begin by saying, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, &c. Was there ever a biographer who began his work in this way? This is truly, Sir, a far fetched, and feeble stroke at the divine assumption of the human nature.

From p. 3, to p. 30. You often assert, "that the three Evangelists are totally silent as to any intimation, that our Saviour either possessed, or did any thing that another man might not do, if God were with him." Why wonder at this? There was no man in Israel that entertained a doubt but that the Messiah was "from everlasting;" and "over all God blessed for ever," except the Sadducees. Therefore the sole testimony of the Evangelists was to prove that the Saviour was the Messiah. Why wonder, I say, at this? It is like wondering that Sir Isaac Newton did not begin his Principia relative to the solar system by first prov

ing that there is a sun.

The prophets had asserted his Divinity with a full blaze of elo

quence.

P. 29.

"That our Saviour pre-existed at all before his human birth, was not believed by the apostles Peter and Paul." On the contrary, Doctor, I see their writings full of his pre-existence. The latter of these has generally been thought to have a strong share of common sense. He says, "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, &c." He was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant; he was rich before he was poor. The second Adam who brought the free gift, is the Lord from heaven. The mystery of our redemption was hid in Christ before the world began. Now, Sir, suppose one of our lecturers on anatomy should use the like language concerning the birth of a prince, would not your Unitarian Reviews roar off against him, and deem such a surgeon fit to be confined in an hospital? Yet this apostle must be regarded as a lunatic for using the above language in order that Unitarianism may have a plausible defence.

P. 41. "In the second Epistle to the Corinthians, [as in the first] there is nothing to prove that the apostle regarded Jesus Christ as a. being of superior nature to that of man." Was it not then a kind of hypocrisy in Paul to urge charities by the example of him "who was rich, yet for our sakes became poor." Pray, Sir, where did his riches lie, if they were not the riches of glory?!! Was it honest to say that the Israelites tempted Christ ? Was it wise to call this Saviour, "the image of