would certainly have enhanced the merit of the performance. This has been done in the introduction to Taylor's work, but we conceive that the problem is ftill capable of improvement and fimplification.

II.

THEOLOGY.

ART. VI. A Letter to Dr. Pricftley's Young Man; with a Poftfcript concerning the Rev. D. Simpson's Efay, &c. in Anfwer to EvanJon's Diffonance and Volney's Ruins. By Edward Evanfon. 8vo. 120 pages. Price 25. Ipfwich, Jermyn: London, Law. 1794.

As Mr. Evanfon, from his own acknowledgment, has in this controversy taken new ground, on which he stands alone, unfupported by any learned theologians, ancient or modern, it may be proper, before we enter upon our account of this reply to Dr. Prieftley, to ftate, in the author's own words, the foundation upon which he refts his faith in chriftianity. Obferving,' fays he, p. 4. from St. Paul's mode of preaching, that the faith of a wife and rational chriftian ought to ftand, not in the wifdom of man, but in the power of God, I turned my attention more efpecially to the only fupernatural proof of the actual interpofition of the deity in the establishment of revealed religion, which remains clear of doubts and diftruft, as depending not at all upon the truth and infallibility of erring, deceived and deceitful man, but folely on the power of God; I mean the teftimony of prophecy. Here, I thank that God whom I faithfully endeavour to ferve, I perceived a foundation for my faith in Jefus perfectly firm, fecure and fatisfactory : and have built it accordingly upon this rock.'

Notwithstanding the firmnefs of this writer's faith in christianity, on the teftimony of completed prophecy, he is of opinion, that no hiftorical relation of miracles is a fatisfactory ground of belief. With refpect to the jewish history, he declares, that, were it not for the teftimony which the fpirit of prophecy bears to the general truth of the Pentateuch, and the divine authority of the jewish religion, he should have been fo far from confidering them, with Dr. P., as equally entitled to belief with the hiftory of the invafion of Greece by Xerxes, that he should have referred them to the fame clafs with the Romulus and Remus of the Romans, and all those wonderful circumftances, which are faid to have attended the origin of every other nation recorded in ancient history. He compares the ftories of Jonah and Balaam's ass, with the african miracle ftated by Mr. Gibbon, of the orthodox chriftians, who spoke diftinctly and perfectly well after their tongues had been cut out by their arian antagonists. The miracle of the fun ftanding ftill at the command of Jofhua, he confiders as wholly irreconcilable with philofophy. Some of the miraculous facts recorded in fcripture, he thinks, may be not unreafonably confidered merely as uncommon effects of human kill, or as illufions of the magic art; and others as only the accidental effects of natural caufes fagaciously obferved, and artfully mifreprefented as immediate interpofitions of divine power. Dr. P.'s affertion, that we believe the chriftian miracles on the evidence of the thousands and tens of thousands, them. felves as competent witneffes of the fact as the writers themselves, by whom they were credited, Mr. E. exprefsly contradicts; and remarks, that to fome of the miracles the apoftles only could be witneffes; that

D 3

the

the moft public of them could be feen only by part of the inhabitants of Palestine, chiefly in Galilee, or in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem; that of the crouds who followed our faviour, and were witnesses of his wonderful actions, so very few were effectually convinced by them of the divine power and authority of his commiffion, that, immediately after his death, the whole number of thofe who believed in him amounted to only 120; and that the moft important of the miracles, the refurrection, was not manifefted to the people in general, but only to a few chofen witnesses. The only fatisfactory ground on which any of the jewish and chriftian miracles can be believed, the author maintains to be, that they were the completion of a preceding prophecy.

Mr. E. next proceeds to confider what Dr. P. advances in favour of the canon of the chriftian_fcriptures, and particularly of the gofpels of Matthew, Mark and John. He afferts, that it is impoffible to prove the authenticity of any of the evangelical hiftories by external evidence alone, without the internal teftimony of prophecy. Finding that all the external evidence confifts of the writings of a feries of men, who are all of them either the fathers, or interefted fons, of a -church, whofe fuperftition is an apoftacy from the religion of the gofpel; perceiving them all, from Juftin Martyr to the roman catholic apostle St. Auftin, to be grofsly fuperftitious, credulous, and fabulous, and most of them calumniating the individuals of the feveral fects of profeffed chriftians who differed from them, with equal malice, uncharitablenefs, and falfehocd; he declares, that the teftimonies of fuch writers, and fuch hiftorians, afford no fatisfaction to his mind upon any point in which their own caufe, or, which is the fame thing, that of their church, is interested; as it certainly is in the canon of the chriftian fcriptures, which their at length predominant fect thought proper to felect and authorize.

With refpect to the authorities to which Dr. P. refers for the time when the gofpels were written, our author remarks, that when Papias, who, according to Eufebius, wrote in the year 116, fays, "Matthew compofed a writing of the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able;" he affords very flight ground for the affertion, that it appears there was not any difpute about this gofpel; and that the utmott that can be inferred from it is, that Papias himfelf made no difpute about it; but that, perhaps, he was little able to form any judgment concerning it, because his concluding words feem very strongly to imply, that neither he himself, nor many of his acquaintance, were capable of reading the language in which it was written. The evidence of Papias, that this gofpel was written in hebrew, and that in the year 116 there was no tranflation of it into greek, proves, that this gofpel could not then be " read in all christian churches," becaufe few of any congregation could have read or understood it. The tettimony of Papias is rejected by Lardner and Dr. Priestley with refpect to the language in which the gofpel afcribed to Matthew was written, but infifted upon with refpect to the first author of that gofpel.

Thofe early teachers of chriftianity, who falfely pretended to the power of working miracles, Mr. E. obferves, muft have been more than credulous; while the people were credulous, they were downright cheats and impoftors, The paffage in Tertullian, which Dr. P. un

derftands

Herftands to mean only the relation of a hearsay story, Mr. E. maintains can only exprefs the writer's perfonal knowledge of the fact. The paffage is as follows:

P. 26. De meo didici. Scio feminam quamdam vernaculam Ecclefiæ, forma et ætate integra functam: poft unicum et breve matrimonium; cum in pace dormiffet, et morante adhuc fepultura, interim oratione prefbyteri componeretur, ad primum halitum orationis manus a lateribus dimotas in habitum fupplicem conformaffe, rurfumque condita pace, fitui fuo reddidiffe. Eft et alia relatio apud noftros. In cœmeterio, corpus corpori juxta collocando fpatium receffu communicaffe. Tertulliani De Anima, c. 51."

In defence of his affertion, that the church might have had forty gofpels inftead of four, had the chofen to preferve them, Mr. E. refers to Luke's introduction to his gofpel, which fpeaks of many who had written evangelical hiftories; and conjectures, that, as the fame motives must have continued to operate, many others might be written after Luke's; which he remarks is the more probable, as the fathers inform us of the gofpel of Peter, two gofpels according to the hebrews, the gofpel of the monians, that of the egyptians, and the tradition of Matthias. Origen's teftimony of the tradition that the first gospel was written by Matthew, it is remarked, is admitted; while what follows, that it was written in hebrew, is rejected. That the gospel of Matthew is alluded to by Clemens Romanus, who wrote in the year ninety-fix, Mr. E. denies; he fays, that, in quoting the words of our faviour, he expreffes himself more nearly after Luke than any other of the evangelifts; and adds, that his credulity in believing the fable of the phoenix invalidates his teftimony. Concerning the teftimony of Ireneus, that Matthew wrote his gofpel for the hebrews in their own language, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gofpel, and founding the church at Rome, on which chiefly Lardner grounds his opinion, that Matthew wrote about the year 63, 64, or 65; it is affirmed, that, as the first part is rejected, fo the latter parts cannot be true, because Paul founded the church at Rome when he was fent prifoner thither by Feftus, and Peter was certainly not then at Rome, and probably not at all. 'Eufebius, who is followed by all the later fathers, affirms, that Matthew wrote his gofpel in the eighth year after our faviour's afcenfion; but this was the period when Luke lived with Matthew at Jerufalem, and must therefore have feen his gofpel; which, it is generally agreed, could not have been the cafe. In fine, it is concluded, that no credible teftimony has ever been produced that Matthew wrote a gofpel. In reply to Dr. P.'s endeavour to account for the verbal fimilarity between the first three evangelifts, without fuppofing any two to have copied from a third, from the fuppofition that there were imperfect but authentic accounts equally in the hands of them all; and that from these scattered writings, as well as from their own recollections, and other evidence, the three gofpels might be compofed, Mr. E. exclaims, If there witneffes were thus infufficiently informed of the fubftance of their own teftimony, as to have derived it partly from the imperfect accounts of unknown, uncertain writers, partly from evidence of fome other kind, but still different from their own recollec tions; for God's fake, upon what rational foundation does the truth of our religion ftand; or what court of equity in the world would admit the authority of written evidence so circumstanced?'

D 4

Having

Having thus given the fubftance of Mr. E.'s reply to Dr. P. on the general topics of miracles, and the authenticity of the first three gofpels, we must decline entering into the particulars of his reply on the fubject of the diffonance of the four gofpels; because it turns upon a variety of minute particulars, the abridgment of which would extend this article to an immoderate length. At the fame time we wave all peremptory decifion on a question, which cannot be determined without a minutenefs of difcuffion, of which our plan by no means allows. We cannot conclude this article, however, without remarking, that the author treats Dr. P. with a degree of ridicule and contempt, from which his high and well-earned reputation, both as a writer and a man, ought to have protected him; that he difcovers too much difpofition to cavil about trifles, and to treat with levity fubjects of high importance; and that he pronounces an ultimate judgment on the general question in a tone of triumph, which ought at least to have been deferred, till it had appeared, what other learned advocates, in different churches, might have to offer in defence of those parts of the chriftian code which are here fo boldly attacked.

The poftfcript feems principally intended to clear the author from fome perfonal cenfures, and to repeat to a minifter of the church of England his ideas concerning this church, as a part of that antichrift, the deftruction of whom is foretold in the chriftian prophecies.

ART. VII. Difcourfes on the Evidence of Revealed Religion. By Jofeph Prieftley, L. L. D. F. R. S. &c. 8vo. 420 pages. Price 6s. in boards. Johnfon. 1794.

AFTER the numerous tracts, under various forms, which have appeared on the fubject of this volume; and after the different pieces which Dr. Priestley himself has written upon it, the publication of thefe difcourfes may perhaps by many be thought unneceffary. This prepoffeffion cannot be more effectually obviated, than by giving the author's reafons for the publication in his own words. Pref. P. vii.

The fubject of thefe difcourfes is one on which I have addressed the public feveral times before, as in my Inftitutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, feveral parts of my Hiftory of the Chriftian Church, my Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever, those to the Philofophers and Politicians of France, and thofe to the Jews; befides the first part of the Conclufion of my History of the Corruptions of Christianity, addreffed to Mr. Gibbon, my Difcourfe on the Refurrection of Jefus, and the large Preface to my Philofophical Works in three volumes. But the fubject being of the greateft importance, and efpecially at this time, I have thought it not fuperfluous to compofe, and publish, thefe difcourfes, intended more particularly to illuftrate the evidence arifing from the miracles that have been wrought in favour of the divine miffion of Mofes and of Chrift; fo that, though. my object be ultimately the fame, the ground that I have taken is confiderably different from any that I have been upon before.

The late revolution in France, attended with the complete overthrow of the civil eftablishment of chriftianity, and the avowed rejection of all revealed religion, by many perfons of the first character in that country, and by great numbers alfo in this, calls the attention of perfons of reflection in a very forcible manner to the fubject. It now more than ever behoves all the friends of religion to fhew that

they

they are not chargeable with a blind implicit faith, believing what their fathers, mothers, or nurfes, believed before them, merely because they believed it; but that their faith is the offspring of reafon : that christianity is no cunningly devised fable, but that the evidence of the facts on which it is built is the fame with that of any other facts of antient date; fo that we must abandon all faith in history, and all human teftimony, before we can disbelieve them.

The great problem to be folved is, how to account for present appearances, and fuch facts in antient hiftory as no perfon ever did, or can deny, viz. the actual existence of chriftianity, and the state of it in the age immediately following that of Chrift and the apoftles. Unbelievers must think that they can account for the facts without admitting the truth of the gospel hiftory. On the other hand, the chriftian fays that, if this hiltory be not admitted, the well known ftate of things in the age immediately fucceeding muft imply more miracles, and those without any rational object, than that hiftory fuppofes. The like, he says, must be the cafe with respect to the hiftory of the jews in the Old Teftament. If the Mofaic history be admitted, that of the jews in that age, and from that time to the prefent, is natural; but on any other fuppofition moft unaccountable; that whole nation thinking and acting as no human beings ever did, or poffibly could, think and act. Whereas, it must be taken for granted, that the jews are, and ever have been, men, as well as ourfelves. This is the ftate of the argument between believers and unbelievers in revelation, that I have frequently held out, and no perfon can fay that it is an unfair one. Least of all it is fuch as a man who wishes to be governed by reason, and who would account for all appearances in the moft natural manner, can object to.

The prefent times are, no doubt, exceedingly critical with refpect to christianity; and being fully perfuaded of its truth, I rejoice that they are fo. Whatever will not bear the test of the most rigorous fcrutiny must now be rejected; the great fupports of fuperftition and imposture, viz. human authority, power and emolument, being now, in a great measure, withdrawn. This will be the means of purging our religion from every thing that will not bear this rigorous examination; but it will contribute to the firmer eftablishment of every thing that will bear it. And what can we wish for more? It ought not to be any man's intereft to maintain an error, and to take an idle tale for undoubted fact. But if revealed revelation be true, if Mofes was commiffioned to teach the unity of God, and the purity of his worship; and if Jefus Chrift was commiffioned to confirm the fame, and to announce to mankind the ftill more interesting doctrine of the refurrection of the dead, and a future ftate of righteous retribution, it is of infinite confequence that all men fhould be apprized of it; fince their conduct here, and their expectations hereafter, are nearly concerned in it. Compared with truths fo momentous as these, all other knowledge is a trifle.'

The first of thefe difcourfes abounds with juft, and truly philofophical ideas, on the importance of religion to enlarge the mind of Comprehenfion of mind, from which arifes the fuperiority of man, both for enjoying and communicating happinefs, is here fhown to depend in great measure upon the belief of divine revelation. A chriftian, it is faid, is fuperiour to other men, because his compre

henfion