:)Bd(: Evanson, Edward, 1731-1805 Arguments against and for the sabbatical observance I I ERRATA. •P. 3o» /. 14, yor OJe, reai our 31. 34, being. been 42» .8, ufefulnfes, ufefulnefs 43. 25. Eph. Ep. 57» 22, convey. conveys 69, 34. dirived, derived 71. 31, alleded. alleged 73> 26, in, is 82, »8, meditation, , mediation S4, »7. cnovinced, convinced 100, 28, acca(ions, occafions 118, 21, latvcy laivs i34> Note, offere. cfferre 149. II. caleaadr, calendar 157. 26, dele the «f //le <« THAT YOUR FAITH SHOBLD NOT STAND IN THE WISPOM or MEN, BUT IN THE POWER OF COD. PAUL. IPSWICH: Printed by ^. Jermyn, BookfelUr, i^LD BY B. LAW, NO. 1 3, AVK-MARY LANE ; AND J. JOHNJOK) > KO. I7> ST. Paul's church-yard, London. ERR ATAo •?. 9, /, I, for upon, read on 62, 25, aufe, caufe 69, 30, ziv, viz 755 la ft, fuccedcing. fucceeding 9i> I q, afttr remarking, irfert on 105, 14, for diftnterefted 1 rfrtf/ difinterefted 312, 2S, ogainft, againft PREFAC TX ^HENy from z flrong perfuafion of the great importance of the queftion, I thoogbt it my duty both as a Man and a Chrif^ tian to fubmit to public consideration my ideas of the l^ijfonance of the four generally received Evangelijis^ confcious that I flood alone^ an- fupported by the opinions of any learned theo- logians ancient or modern^ and well con¥in» cedj by going to the very fource of the argu- ment myfelfy that all the external evidence which the cafe admits is fo fcanty and defec- tive^ that though men of great abilities aod in- genuity may declaim much and write volumes and volumes upon the fubjecflj it is not poffible, for them to prove the authenticity of any of the evangelical hiflorieSsUpon that ground only 3, to the fatisfa6tion of any candid j unprejudiced mind, I exprefied my hopes,, *that, if any Gentleman fliould attempt a refutation of my argumentSy he would ef^dl it in a manly y ratio- nal jnanner^ by clearly reconciling the fever ai (^bjeSfionable paffages^ as the fcriptures really exiji, imthout recurring tO' any human axithority or to coiijeBures unwarranted by the Gojpels themfeives, Inftead of complying with this reafoaable requeft, however. Or, Prieftky^ in the letters to * Pref »ce, p, q.. n PREFACE, to which I have replied in the following pa- ges, has thought fit to recur to hardly any- thing elfe. He has endeavoured principally to overpower me by the mere human authGrky of the names of Serapion, Origen, Eufebius, Jerom, Auftin, Jones, Lardner, Michaelis and himfelf; and has invidioufly reprefented me as pretending to greater fagacity than all the com- mentators of fo many centuries : whereas, God knows, I pretend to nothing but common fenfe and common honefly and fuch a degree of learning as, I am happy and thankful to be confcious, enables me to inveftigate for my- felf all the records that are acceffible to wri- ters of fuperior talents; and to form as juft a judgment of the cafe as it is in their power to do. If I have any advantage, it is only this, that having been induced many years ago, by a train of peculiar circumftances to abandon entirely not only the eftablifhed church but the clerical profeffion, and having ever lince kept myfelf unconnected with every religious fe(ft or party, I have perhaps viewed the fame objects in a more impartial, difinterefted h"ght, than it is poffible for men of the clerical order, of any desomination, to view them in. The motives vvhich had led me to fuch an inveftlgation I fully explained in my preface; and flated the particular prophecies of the A- poftle Paul, which compared with other pro- phecies of the Gofpel, that have already re- ceived their completion, feem to make it as certain PREFACE* iU- certain as that the word of God is true, that feveral of the canonical fcriptures of the or- thodox Church of Conftantine mud: be fabu- lous and falfe. And lince the Dodor has quo- ted * the lafl: fentence I here allude to, he muft have read that preface. Yet he pafles by what I have there urged as the inevitable confcquence of St. Paul's predidtions, without the leaft notice of any kind. And inftead of paying the llighteft attention to the account I ha^e there given of myfelf, he has thought proper to declare, " that it does not appear by what particular train of thought I was ori- ginally led to entertain the doubts which pro- duced the work he animadverts on," and there- fore, amufes himfelf and his readers with in- venting motives for my condu(ft and account- ing for my work in his manner. But, how- ever fuperior Dr. Prieftley may be to me in other kinds of knowledge, I muft infift upon it, that I underftand what are the perceptions and workings of my own mind better than he does : and ftill abide by that account of the matter, which I have before given, as the on- ly faithful and true one, though it happens to be materially different from Dr. Prieftley's. The Dodor blames and very patheticall;/ laments the ungrateful rudenefs and infult with which I have turned three old friends out of doorsj and hopes his affectionate defence ot them * Letter ili. p. 4C. ?> P R E FA C E. tTicm v/III recoinmend h'm to the favour of their holy authors. But, if he had not been too much fhocked and offended with my in- decent behaviour to retain any fentiment of csndour towards me, he would for one mo- ment, at leafl, have put himfelf in my iituati- on and coniidered that, v/hatever he might think of thofe writings, inftead of friends they appeared to me to be palpable cheats and im- pofcors, who under the difguife of friendfhip were deceiving and defrauding myfelf and -the whole human family in affairs of the utmoft importance to us. It is a common EngliOi proverb that ex- tremes frequently meet. Yet furely it is not poffible that the philofophic, proteftant, uni- tarian Dr. Prieftley (liould ever form a coa- lition with the orthodox Roman -Catholic. There are fome circumftances, howevcr,which leem to make it not improbable, that were it not for the dodtrines of the trinity and tran- fabftantiation, and the ufe of the furpliee, the Dod:or would make a very good Roman- Ca- tholic pneft„ His hypothciis of a poffhumous irate of difcipline to correct and purify the dif- poiltions of the vicious part of mankind, after they have ceafed to be men, has always appear- ed to me very fimilar to the purgatory of the Church of Rome. And the reprefentation he bas given of the late Y^v, Price*, as interefting himleiffmce his death in the concerns of this world * See his fiiriT.on on i:i» dc3.th. PREFACE. ^ world and pleafed with the gradually augmen- ting packets of news, which his furviving au- ditors are to carry him, as they die in their turns, together with the earnell: defire he er- prelles, by defending their fuppofed writings againft my indecent attacks, to gain the appro- bation of Matthew, Mark and John, ieems to argue that he admits alfo, with the fame church, an intermediate ftate of paradifc for the fouls of the good and virtuous. When I iind him placing implicit and unlimited con- fidence in the decifions of t&e Cburcb, and the teflimony of its Chrijiian, as he calls them, buty as I call them, Antichrijiian Fathers^ and by declaring * our Faith in the Go/pel hijlory to he independent of the authenticity of any books, re- ferring every thing ultimately to the oral tra- dition of the Churchy methinks I hear the lan- guage of another learned Cardinal. And when he takes pains to irritate the paffions and in- ftigate againft me the angry refentment of the bigotted and fuperftitious, by repeated accufa- tions of fuch indecent levity as mufi: fhock the feelings of my readers, and of fuch impropex- ridicule and farcafm as are more inexcufabk in me than in an unbeliever, I can fcarce forbear exclaiming in the words of the witty poet, Hei naihi! fi fueris tu LEO§, qualis eris I After all, why fhould Dr. Prieftley or any other reader be fo violently hurt and offended ; and ♦ Preface, p. lo. § Pope, as Cjefar is ufed for Eniperor- vi PREFACE. and experience fuch unpleajing feelings on ac- count of a performance which he tells the public is fo trifling, weak and groundlefs; which he alTures us, at prefent, makes no im- preffion upon (for fo I underlland does not Jiagger) the learned ; and which he confident- ly predids, " after fometime will have no more efFed: than Mr. Whifton's new canon of the New Teftament ?" I too could prophecy^^ — But, as we neither of us lay claim to plenary infpiration, I am perfuaded we fhall both adl more wifely in fupporting our opinions by fair reafoning and fatisfadtory demonftration, than in advancing mere, though confident, aifertions refpeding the paft, the prefent or the future. The Dodlor has clofed his preface with an apology, which was quite unnecefl^ary, for depending upon Lardner and Michaelis for his quotations from the Chrijiian Fathers. I only wifh with all my heart, that the lofs of that paternal colledion had been the grcatefl injury he had fuftained by the infamous riot at Birmingham. But I am aftonillied at fuch a prodigy o^ filial affetlion ', and find myfelf ut- terly at a lofs to conceive how any man of learning and common fenfe could have been oc^ ciipiedxn coUeding the Fathers of the Church, even fuppofing him to have taken the Mothers into the bargain, for MORE THAN TWEN- TY YEARS!!! A LETTER LETTER T o DOCTOR PRIESTLEY'S YOUNG MAN. SIR, AS Dr. Prieflley Informs us you reprefent all the young perfons who may happen to read my ireatife on the Dijfonance of the four generally received Evangelijls, I know not how he can have attained the happinefs of finding " that, in his former letters, he was able to give you fatisfadtion, in his reply to my objedtions" againft the obfervance of Sunday as a Sabbath ; but I am well pleafed to find he thinks fo; becaufe, I alTure you, he gave me en- tire fatisfadlion alfo, by conceding the only point I ever thought worth contending for, viz. that the obfervance of a Sabbath is not a duty of the Chrifiian Religion. For you recoUcdl:, Sir, chat in thofe let- ters he fays, * " every man fhould be left at per- fedt liberty to work or reft (on the Lord's day) as he pleafes," and that in his opinion, *'harveft work ought not to be neglcdted on that day, in our un- •ccrtain climate." That were he a minifter amongft B farmers, * Pages 57 and 58. [ 2 J farmers, he would adopt the plan, I propofed to be purfued at all times, of having " public worfhip early in the morning and late in the evening, and exhort his hearers to make the moll of the middle part of the day, in taking care of their hay and corn." Now, Sir, however young you may be, you muil be fenlible, that whatever right farmers have to break through the cuflomary fabbatical reft in one feafon of the year, for their peculiar profit or convenience, the very fame right have they and every order of men to employ the leifure hours of Sunday for fimilar purpofes in every feafon of the year, without the licence of their preacher or a bull of indulgence from any Dodtor either of Eng- land or Rome. That, therefore, by the Dodlor's own confeffionjthe obfervance of a fabbathamongll Chriftians is an inftitution of mere fuperftition, not an ordinance of the Chriftian religion; for if it were the latter, no man could have the authority to vio- late or difpenfe with it on any occafion. And as it never was, and I am confident never will be ob- ferved in any nation, where it is not confidered as a religious duty, I look upon the argument between us, on that fubjett, as fairly brought to a conclu- iion* : for as to a few obftinately perverted quo- tations and mifreprefentations of fadts, as well as his perfonal abufe of myfelf, they are not, of them- fclves, defervino; the leaft notice. In ♦ To g;o at once to liic fountain of all lav/, there are only two original rules of action, the law of nature, and that of revelation. The firll is unl- veri"al, eternal and immutable, rlftngout of the nature of things, which be- <.aufe they are, are under natural and neceffary obligations. The laws of tevelation are pofitive, and are to be obeyed precifcly as they are enjoined : thofe given to individuals, by individuals, and by no body elfe: thofe given oecafionally, ori thofe occafjons, and on no other in the world : thofe given to tV" Jews, by the Jews, and by no other people under heaven : thofe given *oj- a time>forthat period, and for no otlier: thofe given to the Apollls*, [ 3 1 In the firfl of his' letters to you part the fccond and the firft appendix, the Dodor combats what I have advanced rcfped:ingthe nature of the evidence arifing from miracles in general and from thofe re- corded in the evangelical hiflories in particular. But before I reply to his arguments on that fub- jedt, it is neceflary to point out to you a grofs mif- reprcfentatlon of what I have faid, even according to his own quotation from my book. How it fhould have {o happened, I pretend not to determine; but in the following pages I iliall have occafton to ob- ferve to you many inftances of a iimilar kind. 1^»S» He tells you that I fay '' the evidence of miracles is not to be depended upon, becaufe they make a cott' fiderahle part of the narration, the truth of which is quejiiofied." Yet if you turn back to his own ex- tradt from my book, p. 3, you wHl fee that my words arc, that " the miraculous a5fs there and there only related cannot prove the truth and authenticity of thofe hiftories, hccaufe the authority and credibility of the hi/iories jnu/l be firmly eftablijhed before the mi- racles contained in them can reafonably be admitted as real fa5ls" When therefore he argues that " if the narrative be fufficiently authenticated, the truth of the miracles is as well eftablifiied as that of any other fadis," &c. He is not contending w^ith me, but with a phantom of his own imagination. In the very next paragraph, he tells you that I fay, by the Apoftks, who havs nofuccciTors: and thoi'e given toail Chriftians, by all Chriftians, and for the reafons afligned by the lawgiver, and for no other In the world Robinfon's Ecclelialtical Refearches, p. >^i, 14=. An argument Hated with remarkable neatnefs, perfpicuity and irrefraga- ble ftrength, which at once overthrows, as etfeftualiy as if the author had written a thov.fand volumes for the purpofc, the obfervariCe of a Sabbath under the Ootpel ; a Priefthood elevated above and diftinguifhcd from the people ; and every other religious ordinance which Is not ■.'xprclily enjoined- in the authentic fcript\.ir';s of the New C8T«nan». [ 4 ] fay, **' miracles could only be defigncd to excite at- tention, till the proof of completed prophecy can be applied." Whereas his own extract will con- vince you, that I have faid, they were not only intended to gain the nezv religion attention from the world, but alfo to be aprefent tejiimony of its divine origin and authority. So that his argument in that and the fucceeding paragraphs upon that fingle proportion is what I have no concern with. Both the Dodtor and I publicly avow our iincere belief and firm convidiion of the truth of the divine revelation by Jefus Chrift. The great difference is the foundation on which we have built our refpec- tive ccnviftion and belief. For my part, finding that all the hiftoric evidence exifting, except thofe fcriptures which compofe the volume of what is called the New Teftament, confills of the writings of a ferles of men, who are all of therfi either the Fathers or interefted Sons of a Church, whofe fu- perftition is an evident apofiacy from and contra- didtion to the pure and plain and beneficial religion of the Gofpel; perceiving them all, from JulVm Martyr to the Roman-Catholic apollle St. Auftin, to be groflly fuperftitious, credulous and fabulous, and moft of them calumniating the individuals of the feveral fedts of profeffed Chriflians, who dif- fered from them, with equal malice, uncharitable- nefs and falfehood; the teftimony of fuch writers and fuch hiftorians afforded no fatisfadtion to my mind, upon any point in which their own caufe or, which is the fame thing, that of their church is in- terefted, as it certainly is in the canon of the Chri- ftian Scriptures, which their, at length, predomi- nant fedt thought proper to feledfc and authorize. Obferving alfo from St. Paul's mode of preaching the [ 5 ] the Gofpel to the Corinthian5§, that the faith of a wife and rational chriftian ought tojland not in the wifdom of man, but in the power cf God, without re- lying upon the wildom and fagacity of Michaelis, Jones, Lardner, Molheim, the reformers from Po- pery, the learned Roman-Catholic writers, or upon the fuperftitious folly and falfehood or, as it is fometimes called, the pious fraud of the Fathers of the Church, I turned my attention more efpecially to the only fupernatural proof of the adtual inter- poiition of the Deity in the eftablifhment of reveal- ed relio;ion, which remains clear of doubts and dif- truft, 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 tefti- mony of prophecy. Here, Sir, I thank that God whom I faithfully endeavour to fcrvc, I perceived a foundation for my faith in Jefus perfectly firm, fecure and fatisfadtory : and have built it accord- ingly upon this rock. Dr. Prieilley, on the con- trary, thinking flightly of the evidence derived from completed prophecy, as indeed he muft do, lince he aflerts* that an apoftle of Jefus Chrift, un- der the freih and immediate influence of divine in- fpiration, could evidently mifapply the prophecies of the old covenant, has chofen to found his chriflian faith upon the hiftoric evidence of a feries of, at leaft, fallible writers from Serapion to Michaelis. His faith, therefore, is fo far from Jlanding in the power of God, that, with him, even the certainty of any miraculous difplay of the pozver of God de- pends entirely upon the truth and infallibility of human wifdom and perception. He accordingly tells you, -|~ that " the proper and univerfally fatif- fadory «j I Cor. ;;. 5. * p. 4fi. t P- 4- [ 6 ] la^ory evidence of all paft events, miraculous as well as others, is the teftimony of perfons who were cye-witnefles to them." And, " that the evidence &i the truth of chriftianity is of this fatisfaftory kiwd,'^ &c. Again, J " It is not becaufe four per- fons though the molt unexceptionable evidences affert that Chrift and his Apoftles wrought mira- clesy that we believe the fafts. We believe them on' the evidence of the thoufands and tens of thou- fiands, themfelves well acquainted with the fafts, by who-m it cannot be denied that the contents of thefe books were credited." Again, p. 12, fpeak- m^ of the books of the New Teftament, he fays, *'*'they v,fere publifhed in the lifetime of thoufands and myriads, who were as competent witnelTes of the fa£ts as the writers themfelves/' &c. And in liis appendix, p. 167, he intimates that our belief of the deliverance of the Ifraelites from Egypt) with their pajfage through the redfea, depends upon the feme kind of conviftion that we have for our be- lief of the invafion of Greece by Xerxes. Now, Sir, Bow your mind may be conflituted I know not; But to mine fadts of different natures, to render th^m credible, require very different kinds of tef- timony. With refped: to Xerxes's invafion of Greece, as the Greek hiftorians, who have record- ed it, could have no fuppoleable motive to falfify as to the main fad: itfelf, though they might in fome of their embelliihments of the ftory, and as the truth or falfehoodof it is of no kind of confe- q\ienee to rne, I readily acquiefce in a perfuafion that it really did take place ; though I do not give im- pFicit credit to every extraordinary circumftance, with whtich the flory is related. But for the mira- culous %. p. 7 and E. r 7 ] culous fads recorded of the Exodus of the Ifrae!- ites, were it not for the tejlimony which the ffirit t&f prophecy bears to the general truth of the Penta- teuch and the divine authority of the Jewifli reli- gion, I fhould have referred them to the fameclafs with the Romulus et Remus of the Romans, and ail thofe wonderful circumflances which are faid to have attended the origin of every other nation re- corded in ancient hiftory, and which, I fhould imagine not even Dr. Prieftley himfeif can giy.e credit to. Upon the ftrength of the hifloric evidence be has thus ftated to you, the Dodtor, in an alTumed tone of pious folemnity, affures you (p. 179) that he believes and regards with reverence thofe mira- cles peculiar to the Gofpel attributed to Sl, Mat- thew, which I rejed: as incredible. And fmce his capacity of belief is large enough to admit alfo the miraculous hiftory of Jonah in the whale's belly, one muft conclude that he believes too the ftory of Balaam's afs fpeaking and reafoning with her rider. Be fo good then as to afk thisDoftor of eafy faith, whether he believes the African miracle fo ftrongly and judicioufly flated by Mr. Gibbon, that a number of the orthodox, whofe tongues their inhuman Arian antagonifts had cut out, fpokc diftindtly and perfectly well, after that cruel ope- ration, without any tongues at all ? Since, as he tells you, human fiature has been the fame in aliases], and (p. 6) that " if the evidence o{ fight was fuffi- cient to convince the fpedtators that the miracles were real, a fufHcient evidence that thofe fpeda- tors were convinced, that is the evidence of tefii- ??io?iy, can be all that is neceflary to convince others; for this places ihcm pre cifely in the fituation of iholf "U'ha C 8 ] who were the Jpe5lators :" he certainly, according to his own principles, ought to believe it; becaufe the fad: was attefted by great numbers of eye and ear- witneffeSjboth in Africa and at Conflan' inople,whofe /^/wo^jvis recorded not only in the writ! ngsof private individuals, but even in the public annals of the eaft- ern empire. Now, notwithftanding all this evidence of tejiimony, I really findmyfelfyo cotijlituted, that I cannot believe it. And I am ftronp;ly inclined to think, that Dr. Prieflley, in this inftance, is as in- credulous as myfelf. Yet, Sir, the evidence of tejii- mony to the truth of the miracle of Balaam's afs is far lefs fatisfadrory. For, from the circumftances of the ftory, it does not appear, that any perfon was fenfible of the fa6t except Balaam and the afs herfelf; and they have neither of them left any written account of the tranladlion : or if the pro- phet's fervants and the meffengers of Balak were alfo ear-witneffes of the wonderful fadt, they were very few indeed in comparifon of thofe who atteft- ed the African miracle. Befides they were all Midianites or Moabites, who at that time were hof- tile to and had no communication with the Jews. Yet it is a Jewilh hiilory alone, in which xh^xjin- gular miracle is recorded. Afk him alfo, Sir, as a philofopher, whether he really believes that the fun and moon ftood flill at the command of Jofhua ? in order for the firfl even to feem to do fo, he knows that the rapid diurnal revolution of the earth, at the rate of a thoufand miles an hour, m\ifl have been inftantaneoufly ar- refted and our globe have continued motionlefs for the fpace of twelve hours. Alk him then, what effefts he imagines the fudden flop and as fudden return to fuch a violent motion from a flate of reft would C 9 ] would have had upon every thhig and creature up- on the furface of the whole earth ? And, it he be- lieves the Almighty was as eager for the extirpa- tion of the Amorites as Joihua himfclf, whether it be not more probable, that he would have deftroy- ed them by lightening, earthquakes or various other modes of dellruction, at all times in his power, and not unf requent in the ordinary courfe of his pro- vidence, than that he fliould have hearkened to fo mad and ignorant a requeft; arrefted the career of the planet we inhabit, and miraculoufly counter- acted the fliocks which fuch a violent double change mull have naturally occafioned on its furface; only to gratify the Jewifli General with the pleafure of butchering his flying enemies twelve hours longer than day-light would have otherwife permitted him to enjoy? Be pleafed alfo to obferve. Sir, that amongfl the miraculous facfVs recorded in the fcriptures there are fome, which a wary, refled:ing, unprejudiced mind might not unreafonably confider as only un- common effedts of human fkill, or the mere illufi- ons of what the ancients denominated the magic crt, cunning artifice and a kind of dexterous leger- demain. For the very fame evidence of teJlir4ony which affures us of the miracles wrought by Mofes to prevail upon Pharaoh to difmifs the Ifraelites, affures us likewife that, in the three firfl inftances, the Egyptian magicians performed the fame: and therefore it is highly probable that their king fup- pofed Mofes and Aaron to be only magicians of fuperior ikill. There are others, which might be fulpeded of being only the accidental effetfts of natural caufcs fagacioufly obferved and artfully mifreprefented as the immediate interpofitlon of C divine C 'o ] divine power, to anfwer the purpofes of the chief| after of the hiftory. Of this kind are the extra- ordinary flight of quails, the fupply of manna, the deftrudtion of Korah and his fadiious party, and ibme others. Nay Jofephus, though a Jew, la- bours to account for the paffage of the Ifraelites through the red fea by the favourable concurrence of natural circumftances, which happened at that time to occaflon a temporary dry path in that part of the channel ; and intimates that iimilar circum- ftances have been known repeatedly to produce iimilar efFeds, in other places, lince the time of Mofes. Now, Sir, with all thefe rational caufes of doubt and uncertainty, confidering farther that the human fpecies taken colleftively has acquired its prefent extenfive knowledge by flow degrees and througK the accumulating experience of a long fucceffion of ages; that therefore all human records of far dif-= tant times are records of ages of ignorance, which in their very nature are ever ages of credulity; and that it is, in many cafes, impoflible for us to deter- mine how far it was the intereft of the human agent in the fuppofed miracle to deceive the people, or of thofe who compofed the hiftories to favour that de- ception by appearing to believe the fadt themfelves ; I leave it to you to judge whether the miraculous fadts alone recorded in any ancient hiftory, efpeci- ally where the authenticity of the hiftory itfelf is not clearly and fatisfadtorilydemonftrateduponpther grounds, can furnilh a proper and fecure founda- tion to any rational mind for a belief in a fuperna- tural revelation from heaven? and whether, ac- cording to the plain didlates of reafon, the faith of every profeffed Chriftian, which is built only upon the [ " ] the ground of the Dod:or*s evidence of tejlimonyy does not Hand upon a doubtful, infecure founda- tion exadily fimilar to that of the belief of thole devout Catholics, who are as firmly convinced of the truth of the African miracle of the tonguelefs orators and of the wonders WTOught at the tomb of Matthew of Paris or at the Ihrine of our Thomas a Becket, as Dr. Prieltley can be of the flory of Balaam's afs, Jolhua's fun and moon, Jonah's whale or the wonders peculiarly recorded in the Gofpel attributed to St. Matthew. With refped: to the thoufands and myriads who re- ceived the Gofpels, becaufe they were eye-witnefles of and as well acquainted with the miraculous fad:s as the apoftolic authors themfelves, it is ailonilhing that even a profeffional Divine, in any place but his pulpit where he is fecure from contradidtion, fhould prefume to carry the ulual technical cant and declamation to fuch an abfurd extravagance of hyperbole! Why^ Sir! Young as you are, you muft have learned from the four evangelical hif- tories themfelves, that to fome of the miraculous fadts they relate the Apoftles alone could be wit- neffes; that the moft public of them could be feen only by part of the inhabitants of Palelline, chiefly in Galilee or in the neighbourhood of Jeru- falem : and that of thofe crouds who followed our Saviour and were witnefles to many ot his wonder- ful a of the ienfes of themfelves or other fpeftators, of of a due degree of information or veracity in the compilers of hiftory mud neceffarily render dubi? Gus and uncertain. It is by no means, therefore^ contrary to nature, as hath been aiferted, that the nation of the Jews, notwithftanding the numerous miracles recorded in their hillory and the occafion- al fupernatural interpofition of divine power of which they themfelves were witneffes, fhould not have been prefervcd from imitating the example? of the furrounding nations and continually apofla^ tizing to idolatry whilft in their own kingdom ; and yet that, upon their fo forcibly feeling the fevers completion of the prophecies ia their Babylonifh captivity, they fliould then have been thoroughly convinced of the truth and divine origin and au» «hority .of the Mofaic covenant, and from that tims T) If [ ^8 ] to this have maintained a fixed averfion to every fpecies of idolatry and per fevered in the worlhip of the only true God. And, fince, fimilar caufes always produce fimiiar effedts, I have not the leaft doubt that, though the hiiloric evidence of the miracles of the Gofpelj which Dr. Prieflley affirms to be fo all-fufficient, has been unable to prevent the almoft univerfal apollafy of profeffed Chrif- tians from the rational religion of the Gofpel to an idolatrous, abfurd, blafphemous fuperftition and to preferve more than a very fmall renanant of pure Chriftian faith within the whole extent of Chrif- tendom, yet the now faft approaching completion of the unaccompliihed Chriftian prophecies will feverely enforce a convi [ ^9 ] is. For, though out of the myriads of the prive- leged order of clergy of the different and difcor- dant churches eftabliflied and fe(?ts tolerated within the Britlfh empire, I know not one who pretends to be able to give a rational, fatisfadtory explana- tion of the prophecies of the Gofpel, 1 am bold to aflert, that without a competent underftanding of thofe particular, important paffages of fcripture, fo far as they have already been fulfilled and con» fiflent general ideas of the purport of thofe Vv'hich ftill remain to be accomplilhed,it is not poffible for themfelves to underftand properly the nature and intent of that Gofpel which they are maintained avowedly and folely to teach to others. Indeed your own reafon, if you will confult it without pre- judice and partiality, will inform youthatajult conception of the meaning of thofe predidlions, which defcribe the very circumflances wherein the culpable errors and deviations of the fatal apoftafy confift, and which lead us to the knowledge and expedtation of the final accomplifhment of the great benevolent fcheme of divine providence in the ef- tablifhment of the Chriflian covenant with man- kind, mufl neceffariiy elucidate and explain the nature and intent of that revelation of God's will to a degree abfolutely unattainable by any other means in our power. Having thus, Sir, endeavoured to vindicate my- felf againft the Dodtor's animadverfions upon what: I had advanced refpedting the great and effential difference between the evidence deduced by learn- ed and rhetorical arguments from the hifloric tef- timony of miracles and that which arifes to the mind from an attentive contemplation of the pro- phecies and a comparifon of them with the cor- refponding [ ^o ] jrefpondihg eventSj 1 proceed to confider what he jbas aflerted in favour of the canon of the Chriftiart fcriptures and particularly of the three gofpels,i which I have feen caufe to rcjed; out of my creeds He begins his fecond letter to you with an ex- traft out of my book, preceded by a curious re-^ mark, that *'I feem not to confider that the au- thenticity of my favourite Gofpel of Luker^fts on the very fame foundation with that of the othef Gofpels." YoUj Sirs, I hope underiland me better than Dr* Prieilley appears to do. But I fuppofe his mifapprehenfion of my argument and this remark proceed from the ftrong perluafion he writes under of the all-fufficiency of hiftorical evidence^ which in his opinion ftands in need of no confirmation by evidence of any other kind; and therefore he does tiot take any other into the account* I aiTure you^ however^ that in this important difcuffion I haVe no javourite but truth i and that the fole caufe of the preference I have given to the hiftories of Luke was that, after having "frequently confidered every paffage of them all with that attention," with which he tells* you I have acknowledged myfelf to have confidered a particular paflage of the Gofpel faid to be John's, I found more of my favourite and much more of probability and confillency in them than in any or all the other. Of the veracity of the Dodior's afTertion concern*- ing the early period at which the books that com* pofe our prefent canon of fcripture were read in Chriffcian congregations I will leave you to judge when I come to give a concife reply to all his ge* tieral arguments on that fubjedV. But let us firft take notice of the authorities he has produced, for what • Appendix p. 1 69. ivhat he has thought fit to affirm with fo much con* fidencc. For by his manner of giving you quota- tions out of books, as if they were to pafs not only for argument but even for proof and demonftra- tion, he feems to attribute to every writer of re- nown greater infallibility than even Catholics al» low to the Pope. In page 13, he quotes Eufebius to fix the pre- cife date at which Papias wrote and to inform you that he ** was acquainted with the daughters of Philip*" Now thefe three ladies, being mention- ed in the Adts as propheteffes and confequently at that time not infants, muft have been pretty an- tiqviated virgins in the year 116. I do not how- ever objed: to the Doctor's introducing them on that account; for I would juft as foon build my faith in revealed religion upon what they or any other old women might tell us, as I would upofi the tradition of Papias or even of Eufebius him* felf. But the Dodor does not fay what was the refult of Fapias's inrercourfe with thefe old ladies. He only tells you that this very Papias "mentions the Gofpel of Matthew" without mentioning "any difpute about it:" "yo that," adds the Docflor, " there cannot be any reafon to doubt, that the Gpfpel which zve now have that bears his name, zvas the fame that we now have, and as it zvas orio-inally publi/hed." What a wonderful adept muii: your friend the Doftor be in the art of Logic ! Did you ever read or hear of fo mafterly a fyliogifm ? I frankly con- fefs I never met with one like it. What clofe connedtion between the major and minor propoli* tions! What perfpicuity and irrefiftible conviction in the confequence ! For my part, I am too forci- bly imprefled by it to attempt any kind of rf pl\. Bat Btft you will perhaps wonder why the Dodor, who, upon almofl every other occafion, has either jeferred to the page or quoted the words of his author, has not told you in this cafe what the words ©f Papias are faid to have been. I will fupply this deficiency. Sir, and then you will be no longer at alofs to account for this Angular omiffion. The w^ords of Papias quoted by Eufebius * are Matthew compofed a writing of the oracles (meaning without doubt the dodtrines of the Gofpel) in the Hebrew language : and every one interpreted them as he was able. You will be pleafed to obferve, Sir, on what flight grounds the Dodtor has ventured to fay that, from the manner in which Eufebius tells us Pa- pias mentioned the Gofpel of Matthew, "it appears, there was not then any difpute about it/' Sure- ly the utmofl: that can reafonably be inferred from it is that, Papias himfelf made no difpute about it. But perhaps he was little able to form any judg- jnent concerning it; becaufe his concluding words feem very ftrongly to imply that neither he him- felf nor many of his acquaintance were capable of leading the language in which it was written. At leaft, fo far as his teiliimony goes, it is pofitive evi- dence that the Gofpel which Matthew was faid to Jiave written, was written in hebrew; and that in the year ii6, there was no tranflation of it into greek : confequently, that this Gofpel could not then be read in all Chrijlian Churches, as the Doftor jepeatedly affirms they all were, even in the firfl century; becaufe few of any congregation could liave read or underftood one word of it. This obfervation may ferve to convince you, Sir,. c€ what you will be fiill more convinced, if you pay * HifU Eccl. 1. ili. c. 39. t ^3 ] pzj the attention they ckferve to the annotauoss of the learned, candid and judicious tranflator of Michaelis, that the uncommon induftry and great •erudition of that worthy and ingenious Germa© ProfelTor have too often been mifapplied in endea- vouring to eftablifli error for real fadt; of which his maintaining that tranflations of the New TeJIa- ment exifted in the firll century h one very ftrik- ing inftance. In dired: oppofition to this evidence of Papias confirmed by that of every other early writer Dr- Prieflley informs you, p. 43, that Dr. Lardner and he are both of opinion that thisGofpel bears no marks of a tranjlation: (in which I perfedtly agree with themi) and that it is moft probable that Matthew, like the reft of the apoftles, wrote in greek; and that be himfelf or fome one under his infped:ion tranllated It into hebrew. This, Sir, is one inftance and, as we proceed, I Ihall have occafion to remark to you other proof that this fo boafted, all-fufficient evi- dence of tejlimony deduced from the traditions of the fecond century is rejedied or admitted by thefe great critics and commentators juft as it ferves their prefent turn: and that, in the hands of pro- feffional divines, it is a mere nofe of wax, which by means of a little extenfion or compreffion they can lengthen or Ihorten at their pleafure, and fafliion after either the Grecian or Roman model, accord- ing to their feveral taftes. But though fuch modes of arguing may ferve to difplay their own hardinefs or ingenuity, I fhould think they can afford no more fatisfaftion to any well-informed, unpreju- diced mind, than mine has been able to derive from them. In page 18, the Doftor, to controvert my alle- gation C ='4 ] gation of the pretended power of working miracle^ in proof of the "falfehood and deceit of the ortho« dox chriflians of early times," is pleafed to affert that ft proves nothing but their credulity, and that in me partiiular refpe^. What he can mean by the latter claufe of the fentence I know not, becayfe credulity in pretended miracles feems necefTarily Xo imply credulity in all the religious tenets or tra* ditions for the fake of which they are pretended. But I beg, Sir, you will refled: for a moment how it is poffible that thofe early teachers of what they called Chriflianity, who fallely pretended to th^ power of working miracles, fhould be only credu' louSr The people they impofed upon may proper- ly be called credulous ; but furely the pretended miracle-mongers themfelves muft be downright cheats and impoilors. To convince you, however, that my charge of *^credulity and falfehood in this cafe is greatly ex^ aggerated," and, I fuppofe, at the fame time to retaliate upon me for having on a former occafion dete(fted him in either mifunderftanding or mifre^ prefenting a paffage he had quoted from TertuU lian, as relating to the Chriitian fabbath, he has thought fit to affure you, that I, in my turn, have been guilty of mifreprefenting the words of the fame author; for that " Tertullian does not fay that he knew the fad:," of the dead woman lift-, ing up her hands in the pofture of prayer, " but only that he was acquainted Vv^th the wppn^n, of whom it was related, fcio feminam," &c. This fame Tertullian, Sir, is a mofc unfortunate tumbling block to the Jearned Doftor, Though he calls you a young man, you can hardly be fp youqg as tp be below the third forr;i of ^ grapu C ^s ] mar fchool; and if you are not and your mafter was capable of teaching you the latin language and did his duty, you mufi: have learnt the peculiar diflinc- tion of meaning between the verbs fcio and ncvi, which correfpond exadtly tothe f^avoir and connoi- trc of the French. You mufl know therefore that/r/o jeminam never could be ufed by any Latin writer to fignify, I am acquainted with a woman-, and that, when Dr. Prieflley relates his Leeds flory in Latin and introduces it with faying yt/o/i?;;^/;/^;;^;, he mufl excite the fame fmile in the countenance of every claffical fchoiar that he would do in the faces of his fellow-citizens on the other fide of the channel, if he fhould introduce the fame entertaining {lory in their language with the words Je ffais une femme. If the Do(flor, having perhaps fince the lofs of his library been out of the habit of reading Latin, has forgot thofe idioms of the language which every fchool-boy is well acquainted with, yet his preci- pitate eagernefs to contradidl me on this occafion mull furely have quite obfcured his underftanding; or it could never have efcaped him, that no man in his fenfcs would begin a flory of a woman long fince dead and buried with faying I am acquainted with fuch a woman; he would naturally fay I was; that therefore if TertuUian had ufed the word in the fame fenfe in which, it feems, the Dodlor himfelf does when he writes Latin, he could not have ufed the prefent tenfe fcio feminam. Befides v;hen a fen- tence begins with, I am acquainted with a zvoman, it mull in every language be followed by a relative with a verb of the indicative mode, a woman who did, or of whom it is [aid that pe did, &c.; but the Doctor could not read over this fentence of Ter- tuUian without feeing that no fuch relative is ufed ; E and r ^^ ] and that the verb cxprcffing the lifting up her dead hands is in the infinitive mode depending immedi- ately upov) fcio feminam; that therefore the writer's perfonal knowledge, that the dead woman raifed up her hands, &c. is the only fenfe of which the words are capable. You, Sir, without doubt, as I was, are aftoniflied to find a writer who values himfelf fo highly upon his learning and critical Ikill, capable of either mif- underflanding or perverting, in luch an unaccount- able manner, the obvious, only meaning of fo plain and intelligible a fcntence. To convince you, therefore, that I do not misftate the cafe, I have given you in the margin a faithful copy of Ter- tullian's own words, w^ith the addition of the Ihort fentence immediately preceding, which confirms his perfonal knowledge of the fad:*.= In page 22, the Dod:or has been pleafed to tell you that, what I have faid of the poffibility of the Church's having had forty Gofpels inftead of four if fhe had chofen to preferve them, '* is advanced from mere imagination without even the appear- ance of any authority.'* Now Sir you know that Luke aflures us, many had written evangelical hif- tories before the date of his own, that is within the firft thirty years after our Saviour's death. What number then Ihall we underftand by many P- When I coniider that Chriftian churches were before that time * Dcmeodidlel. Scio feminam quamdam vernaculam Ecclenae, forma Ct aetate Integra fun£lam: port unieum et breve matrimonium; cum ia pace dormiflet, et morante adhuc fepultura, interim oratione prefbyceri componeretur, ad primum lialit\im oraiionis manus a lateribus dimotas ia IiabitufTi fupplicem conforrnaffe, rurfumque condita pace, fitui fuo reddl- difle. Eft et alia relatio apud noftios. In ccemeterio, corpus corpori ju^ita coUfcando fpatium receffii uommunicaffe. Tsrculliam De Anima, c. 51. [ 27 ] time founded at Jerufalem, in Samariaj Phenice, Syria, in every province of Alia minor and in many cities of Macedonia and Greece, I cannot think twenty too large a number to be intended by Luke; and, as the verv fame motives that had induced thofe authors to write their Gofpels continued to operate afterwards, it appears to me not unreafon- able to fuppofe that in the courfe of the next forty or fifty years fixteen more were written in different places, to which if we add the canonical four, my fuppoled forty will be accounted for; and v/e have not yet reckoned the Gofpel of Peter, nor the two Gofpels according to the Hebrews, nor the Gofpel of the Simonians, nor that according to the Egyp- tians, nor the traditions of Matthias, all which the Dcxflor's honoured Fathers mull have informed him were extant in the fecond century. I leave you to judge then. Sir, whether I had no appearance of au- thority for what I have advanced on this, head. In page 30, the Doctor quotes a tradition record- ed by Origen '* that the firft Gofpel was written by Matthew :" and that p^rt of his teflimony he thinks proper to admit. But he does not tell you that it follows in the fame fentence, " that it was written in Hebrew;" which part of his teftunony Dr.Lard- ner and he choofe to rejedt. He next affirms "that this Gofpel (of Matthew) is alluded to by Clemens Romanus, the earVieft of all the ChriiVian writers after the apoftles," in the Epiftle which I allow to be genuine. And again, p. 42, that "the Gofpel of Matthew as well of thofe of Mark and Luke are plainly alluded to by Cle- mens Romanus who wrote A.D.96." But I am for- ry to be forced to affure you, Sir, that no affirma- tion can be more contrary to the truth; forCleniens no [ 28 ] no where, in that Epiftle, mentions a written Gof- pel of any kind, nor in any manner alludes to thofe of Matthew and Mark. In two paflages*, quoting the words of our Saviour, w^ithout naming any particular book, he exprefles himfelf more nearly in the words of Luke than of any other of our ca- nonical Golpels ; but not fo nearly as to fatisfy any impartial reader that he quoted from any of them. A circumftance which, at leaft, proves that our four Gofpels were not univerfally received and read in all Chriftian churches in his time, as Dr. Prieft- ley aflerts they were; becaufe, in that cafe, he would naturally have mentioned the particular Gofpel in which they were recorded ; and have quoted the very words, as hath been cuftomary with all theological writers ever fince our prefent canon of fcripture hath been eflablifhed. If how- ever, as Dr. Prieftley fuppofes, the writer of the Epiftle attributed to Clemens was weakly credu- lous enough to believe the hiflory of the Phenix, had his teftimony in favour of the evangelical hif- tories been ever fo llrong and clear, it would not have had any weight with me. In page 31, the Doftor allows fo much of my in- ference from the preface to the Gofpel of Luke and other pafTages of his hiftories as to grant that the writer was entirely ignorant of both the Gofpels of Matthew and Mark and had feen neither of them. Though, by the way, this is not ealily reconcile- able withvv'hat he fays, p.3 7, that the verbally fimi- lar palTages in thefe three Gofpels are " no more a proof that Matthew or Mark copied Luke, than that he copied them;" for how could he copy what he had not feen? But he choofes, again with Dr. Lardner * c. 53 and 460 [ 29 ] Lardner, to infer from this circumftance that they all three wrote about the fame time, unknown to each other, viz, A. D. 6^, 64, or 6 -. Now, Sir, the only grounds upon which fuch a fuppofition can be founded is the fingle teilimony of Ireneus, who fays that Matthew wrote his Go/pel for the He- brews in their own language when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gofpel and founding the Church at Rome, The full part of this teftimony, that the Gofpel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, though it is confirmed by the united voice of all antiquity thefe learned critics rejedt, as we have feen before; but the latter, as it appears likely to help them out of fome difficulties in defending the authenti- city of the two firil Gofpels, though it is contra- dldlcd by Eufebius and all fucceeding writers, they are pleafed eagerly to admit. Yet you yourfelf. Sir, muft be feniible that it cannot be true; becaufc Paul founded the Church at Rome, when he was fent Prifoner thither by Feftus, as you have read in the concluding chapter of the Afts of the Apof- tles : and from the circumflances of that whole hif- tory we are as certain as we can be of any thing it contains, that Peter, peculiarly the apoftle to the circumciiion, was not then at Rome; and mod; pro- bably he never was there in his life. The only re- maining teftimony therefore of the date of the Gof- pel of Matthew, which rells merely upon the tra- dition collected by Eufebius, and is followed by all the later Fathers of the church and in the fub- fcriptions to all the copies of that Gofpel is, that Matthew wrote it in the eighth year after our Saviour's afcenfton. But this, Sir, was a period when Luke and Matthew lived together at Jerufilem; and therefore, if this teiVimony were true, Luke muii iiavc [ 3a I liaTf known of and feen and read the writing. That fhiswas not the cafe, Mills, Lardner, Pearce, and Dr, Prieilley himfelf all agree^ and it muft be evi- dent to every attentive and candid reader of their f^veral hiftories. It therefore necefTarily follows, fliat there never has been any credible teftimony prcyduced that Matthew wrote a Gofpel; and that what has fo long paffed for his was received into the canon of the church upon mere vague, un- founded tradition without any rational evidence in its favour. Indeed thefe Dodora themfelves muft Ifave been fully convinced of the infufficiency and futility of the hiftoric evidence produced on this^ occafion; oi they could never have prefumed to re- jeft one part of it and admit another, juft as they conceived beft fuited ta their particular hypo- thefis. Such, Sir^ is the univerfal unrontradiSfed fraditioi^ which, the Doftor tells you, p. 33, proves that ** the writers of the Gofpels of Matthew and John were eye-witnclTes of what they relate ;" to which fuppofition he adds *' th^^re is nothing in the narra- tives inconliflent," Yet he paffes over in profound" lilence feveral circumflances that I have pointed out, which to a reader of common underftanding feem to demonftrate that the writers of thofe two Gofpels were not Jews; and render it highly pro- bable that they were fuperftitious converts from Paganifm of the firft half of the fecond century. As to the Gofpel of Luke, in which no fuch cir- cumftances are to be found, the Dodtor is pleafed To undervalue that, becaufe " according to Luke himfelf he was only a collector of the evidence of others." And becaufe I have lliewn that Luke and Silas in the hebrew language would be the fame name; [ 31 ] name, and that we are taught in the A6ls tliat Silas, a leading man together with the apoltles amongft the dilcipks at JerufalerOj was the author of thofe two hiftories, a circumftance which fliews that he muft have been a difciple of our Lord him- felf j and that, therefore, though he modellly af- fures his readers that he had taken pains to inform himfelf of all the particulars of his narrative from the very fir ft, by means of thofe who were follow- ers of Jefus earlier than he was, yet he muft him- felf have been an eye-witnefs of many things and thofe of the greateft importance which are record- ed even in his Gofpcl ; Dr. Prieftley thinks fit to controvert what I have faid on that fubjecS:, and triumphantly concludes his remarks to you ex- .claiming, " on fuch weak arguments is this hypo- thefis founded ! " But this. Sir, is no hypothefis of mine; it is the plain obvious language of the book itfelf. And if Dr. Prieftley and other readers of the Adts of the Apoftles for fo many centuries have not read the Chriftian Scriptures with unprejudhci attention fufficient to obferve it, there is no reafoii ■why you and I Ihould give up the ufe of our un- xierftanding alfo in compliment to any groundlefs iyftem however early formed. If we do, we muft sxot prefume to underftand the plain and only fenfc •of fhe kingdom of God, nor the meaning of that pray- er which it is our duty daily to ufe : for neither the writer of the Gofpel of Matthew nor any of thofe who for fo many centuries have received it as of apoftolic authority can have rightly underftood ei« ther. Indeed fo little hath that petition of the Lord''s prayer been intelligibly explained, and fo ignorant are the generality of people of its mean- ing in the end of the eighteenth ccjitury, that a lu- ilicrous C 32 "J dicrous and popular Poet of our own times repeat- edly ufes the expreffion being fent to kingdom (ome^ to fignlfy being put to death. But let us coniider the Doctor's arguments againft Silas being the author of the Ads of the Apoflles. His firft objedion is, in p. 34 and 35, " that from Adts xvi. lo, to verfe 17, we or us occurs in almofl every verfe; but that immediately after, whenever Paul and Silas only are mentioned the ftyle changes to they and them'' But the obvious reafon of this is, that the evangelical partnerfhip (if I may be allowed the expreffion) which was firft formed by Paul with Silas was almofl: immediately afterwards extended to Timothy, fo that, till an entire feparation of Timothy from that aflbciation took place, we and us could not with propriety be ufed by the hiflorian to fignifv lefs than the whole aflbciated company; and therefore fince Timothy, cither on account of his youth or of fome other cir- cumfl;ance, was not arrefted and imprifoned at Phi- .lippi, the fubfequent narrative proceeds not in the firft but the third perfon, relating what occurred to them feverally. In the fame perfon the hifl:orian continues to write in the 19th chapter, becaufe af- ter their return to Afia Eraftus and feveral others attended upon Paul during his abode at Ephefus; and, as they are not enumerated, zve and us which could no longer have fignified the fame triple aflb- ciation that is fpoken of in c. xvi. would have had no intelligible' determinate meaning. But when in c. XX. he mentions Timothy's joining another party in his w'ay out of Greece into Afia, fo that only two of the original partnerfiiip remained, he there adopts again the firft perfon, which he could then do with perfedt propriety, and fpeak- ing only of Paul and Silas fays zve and us. That t 33 ] That this confined meaning of we and us in this hiftory is no groundlefs fancy of my own, St. Paul himfelf will fatisfy you, if, without depending up- on Dr. Prieflley's quotation, (who like many other polemic divines too often happens to omit fuch words in the fentence of the book he quotes as would militate againll: his argument) you turn to 2 Cor. i. 19, where he mofl clearly explains the meaning of the word us, at the very time of which the author of the Ads is writing in c. xvi, to be himfelf, Silvanus and Timotheus; for he reminds the Corinthians that they three only firfl preached the Gofpel at Corinth. Chrijl, fays the Apoftle, was preached among you , not as Dr. Prieftley quotes it by us, and Silvanus, &c. which might include in the meaning of the word us as many more as the Dodior may choofe to afTociate with him, but by us, by me (or as our tranflation very properly ren- ders it even by me) and Silvanus and Timotheus, evi= dently implying that no other preacher of Chrilli- anity accompanied them. This is farther confirm- ed alfo by the addrefs of both the Epiftles to the ThefTalonians written during the fame evangelical miflion into Macedonia and Greece, which runs in the names of Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus only, as it certainly would not have done, had they been joined at Troas, as the Doftor fuppofes by a fourth preacher of the Gofpel named Luke, Nei- ther is it in any degree probable that fo accurate and circumflantial a writer as the author of the Atfts would have omitted to mention fuch an acceflion to their company, if it had really taken place. The fecond objed:lon the Dodor urges is, " that it is not natural for a writer to call the fame per- ion by two ditferenr names, un.lefs he fomewherc F iignify [ 34 ] iignify that they do mean the fame perfon;" where-' as *' in two Epiftles, viz. 2 Cor. i. 19, and i ThelT. I. I, Paul mentions Silvanus or Silas, and in three Epiftles, viz. Col. iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 11, and Phil. 24, he mentions Luke; therefore Silas or Silva- nus and Luke were different perfons." You will be pleafed to obferve, Sir, that in order to ftrength- en hisownfyllogifmjDr. Prieftley thinks fit to drop entirely 2 Theff. i. i. and is again guilty of moft unfairly arguing from two Epiftles, viz. Col. and Phil, which I muft regard as fpurious and not St. Paul's till he or fome other writer ftiall have fatif- fad:orily proved the contrary; whereas the Doftor hath not even attempted to anfwer any one objec- tion I have urged againft them. By means of this unwarrantable petitio principii and his omiffion of the fecond Epiftle to the Theffalonians he ftrives to make it appear, that Paul has mentioned the name of Luke three times and that of Silas only twice ; Vv'hilft, in truth, he never names Luke in any authentic Epiftle except his fecond to Timothy, written fome years after the date at which the Adis ■of the Apoftles ends, when the dangers and diffi- culties of the times might have induced Silas and Jiis friends to exchange his ufual appellation for another of iimilar import and equally expreffive of his original Hebrew name (a circumftance which would eafily account for the tradition of the fecond century attributing thofe two hiftories to Luke not Silas); but in three undoubtedly genuine Epiftles lie mentions Silvanus, that is Silas, as the only preacher of the Gofpel in company with him ex- cept Timothy, referring to the very fame time when the author of the Ad:s informs us that they ^wo only accompanied Paul ; and yet writes of that company [ 35 3 company In the firfl perfon. Befides, if Luke and Silas be not the fame perfon, iince all the firft preachers of the Gofpel were Jews and confequent- ly had hebrew names before they adopted others of like import in Greek or Latin to familiarize thetn- felves amongft the Greeks and Romans, the he- brew name of both the pcrfons called Luke and Silas muft have been the fame or at leail of the fame import, which it is in the higheft degree improbable Ihould have been the cafe with two different Jews who affociated thcmfelves to Paul at the fame time. And as the author of the Afts bath fo circiimftantially related the dillenfion and fe pa- ration of Barnabas and Paul, if Silas, whom Paul chofe for an afTociate in his room, had ev^er left him within the period of that hiflory, he would certain- ly have related that feparation alfo and the caufe of it; which fince be has not done, we muft conclude that Silas continued with him to the laft and ac- companied him to Rome, as the writer of the hif- tory declares he himfelf did. But is it credible that a different perfon called Luke was equally af- fociated with Paul, and continued w'ith him during: cxaftly the fame period and in all the fame cir- cumllances and ficuatlons that Silas did, without being once mentioned either in the hiftory itfelf or in any of the Epiilles of Paul which refer ex- prefsly to thofe who were, particularly alTociated with him, when he iirft preached the Gofpel in Macedonia and Achaia ? As You, Sir, being young are probably free from the (liackles of interelled prejudice, I per- fuade myfelf, when you attentively coniider all thefe circumftances, you will be convinced with ipe that Silas was the author of the two hiftories called [ 36 ] jjallcd Luke's; and will learn jiiflly to appreciate the worth of that traditionary tellimony of the Fa-, thers of the Church, which Dr. Prieftley thinks fo all-fufficient and infallible. And, I have no doubt, you will with me alfo receive great fatisfac- tion in finding that two of the Chriftian Scriptures containing a refpedtable, well-written, confiftent hiftory of Chriftianity from the baptifm of John in the fifteenth year of Tiberius to the ninth or tenth- of the reign of Nero were really, as to the main of their contents, written by a Jewifh difciple, whom Paul himfelf and all the Apoftles and Elders at Jerufalem judged worthy to be aflbciated with hint in his miflion to the Gentiles, and who was fo ear- ly one of the prophets and of the chief or leading men amongfl the firil Chriftians, that he muft have been a difcipleof our Lord himfelf and confequent- 1y an eye-witnefsof the moft important tranfad:ions recorded in his Gofpel, as well as or thofe related in the Adts. In my examination of the Diflbnance of the Evan- gelifts, I have adduced what appear to me con- vincing arguments to prove that the writer of the Gofpel called Matthew's muft have tranfcribed from Luke and the author of Mark's from both of them. To thefe Dr. Prieftley does not furnifli you with direft and particular anfwers; but endea- vours to account for fuch verbal fimilariiy in all the three, by fuppofing (p. 37.) " that there might be imperfect but authentic accounts of many of the particulars, which were equally in the hands of them all, and which might be copied, with more- or lefs variation, by them all." And a little lower, *' from thefe fcattered writings, as well as from their own recollection and other evidence, might the [ 37 ] the three Gofpels of Matthew, Mark and Luke be compofed." If fuch, Sir, be the real opinion of Dr. Pricftley refpedting the only remaining tefti- mony of thofe witneflesj who are faid to have been chofen by God himfelf, and miraculoufly delegat- ed to preach the Gofpel of the new covenant to the world, it is to me abfolutely unaccountable, how he can pretend to the charadrer of a rational being, and profefs to be fatisfied of the truth of the Chriftian religion. For if thefe witnefles them- felves were fo infuliiciently informed of the fubftance of their own teftimony, as to have derived it part- ly from the imperfeB accounts of unknown, uncertain writers, partly from evidence of fome other kind, but ftill different from their own recolleftion; for God's fake, upon what rational foundation does the truth of our religion {land ? Or what court of equity in the world would admit the authority of written evidence fo circumftanced? As to what follows about abridgments, why it was introduced I know not; for it no ways con- cerns me. But (p. 39, 40.) acknowledging that there really are inconfiftencies and contradiftions in thofe Gofpels, he tells you ^'nothing can be in- ferred from them, but that the authors did not write in concert and did not copy from one another" and that, notwithflanding iucXwariationsiw their narratives, " they might all be very honed men." Now, Sir, I do not prefume to judge for you; but my mind isyo conjiituted that whenever I fee or hear two inconiiftent, contradiflory ftories or propofi- tions, I am fure one of them, at leafl muft be falfe ; and I neceflarily conclude, that he who tells me the falfehood, if he does it wilfully is not an honcil man; if ignorantly and becaufe he was himfelf de- ceived. C 3S ] cerred, that lie is ill-informed and credulous : an3 in either cafe, I can place no confidence in any-r thing he tells me, fo far as it depends upon his tef- timony alone. Yet the Do6lor exprelTes his fur- prize that I, who, he fuppofes, *' admit that the authors wrotevvithout any inlpiration at all," fhould advance fuch an argument. And again, p. 46. he tells you he is furprifed, that I fliould argue that the writer of the Gofpel afcribed to Mathew could not be an Apoftle, becaufe he did not underjland the prophecies of the Jewijl:> fcriptures; for that "Peter mifapplied the fcriptures in his famous fpeech on the day of Pentecoft, as evidently as the writer of this Gofpel.'* How this language of Dr. Prieftley may affedt you, Sir, you bell know; but nothing in my book can have furprifed him more than it furprifes me. I am not ignorant that Dr. Middleton has, I think rafhly and without due grounds, ad- vanced the fame accufation againft Peter; but I did not think it poffible for any perfon, who really believed the covenant of the Gofpel to be a revela- tion from the Deity, to have entertained fuch an opinion of the apollles of Jefus Chrift. Rather than give up any one fcripture, which he has fo long and with fuch ingenuity of argument been accuftomed to expound and adapt to his own religious fyftem. Dr. Prieftley calls the Apoftles indeed honejl men; but reprefents them as weak, ignorant, credulous, misinformed and mijiaken even about the very fcriptures upon which the truth of that Gofpel they taught is founded. And can you think. Sir, that they * will approve his conduB F Surely whenever Matthew, Mark and John Ihall awake from the lleep of death, they will acknow- ledger * See his Preface, p. S and 9. I 39 ] ledge that I, who deny the Icrlptures attributed to them to be theirs, becaufe they appear altogether unworthy of them and unlike what mull: veafona- bly be expedled from the miraculoully informed delegates of heaven, have confulted their honour and reputation much more than he, who merely to defend the teftimony of uncertain oral traditioti colledled and recorded only by the credulous, fu- perflitious and fabulous Fathers of the apoftate Church, perfifts in maintaining that they werewrit- ten by them ; although to account in any manner for the abfurdities, improbabilities and inconfiilen- cies they contain he is foiced to hold out their fuppofed authors in fuch a light, as muft make them and their writings juft objedls of contempt and ridicule to every impartial, thinking man. What the Doftor means by plenary infpirat'ion I neither know nor care; but when the Deity vouch- fafes to communicate his will and propofe a cov-e- nant to mankind which is intended to accomplifh the moil important revolutions in the morai and focial concerns of all the nations of the earth, the lead that can be expe(fted is, that his meflengers ihould be fully and infallibly informed, either by- natural or fupernatural means, concerning the Jiature, grounds and purport of their extraordinary comrnifiion; that they fhould be of ftridt veracity and endowed with fuch a degree of knowledge and llrength of judgment as v.^ould not only render their doftrines intelligible to thofe whom they were to teach, but themfelvcs as incapable of being de- ceived about the Gofpel they were fent to preach, as they muft be fuppofed of wilfully deceiving o- thers. If Jefus himfelf, his apoftles and firft difci- pies were thus qualified for their office, whatever they C 40 ] they have really taught us, deferves the fobereft regard and moft confiderate attention from us. If they had not thefe qualifications, they could never be the delegates of that Being who is the eternal fource of goodnefs, wifdom and truth. Now, Sir, with refpeft to the Jewifii prophecies fince our Lord Jefus did not explain them to his difciples during his mortal life, but after his re- furredtion, when his intelledtual faculties muft ne- cefTarily have been enlarged and rendered adequate not only to that immortal ftate of fpiritual exift- ence to which he was raifed, but to the exalted dignity and powerful preeminence of the Mef- fiah, Chrift or King of all mankind, with which God inverted him immediately after his refurrec- tion, we cannot fuppofe that he mifunderftood the meaning of any of the predictions concerning hlm- felf and his Gofpel, which we are told he then ex- plained to his difciples out of the Pentateuch, the book of Pfalms and the Prophets, opening their un- derjtanding and converfing with them for near forty days fucceffively. And is it credible that thefe xntT\ chofen by God to be witneffes of his refurrec- tion, and to expound the very fame prophecies to the Jews in proof of the truth and divine authority of the new covenant which they announced fhould not underfland their meaning, even after the mira- culous effufion of that holy infpiration, which, in however fmall a degree Dr. Prieftley may (uppofe it illuminated their minds, we are affurcd on much more refped:able authority*, was to give them a wouth and wifdom which all their adverfaries Jhould not be able to gain fay nor refill ? Is it credible that fuch men as thefe could be the authors of fabu- lous, * Luke xxi. 15. [ 41 ] ^ous, erroneous and contradidtory narratives, or mifapply any prophecy of the Jewifh fcriptures to the circumilances of the Gofpel ? Or can we be- lieve that three thoufand Jews could be converted by Peter's reafonino- deduced from an evident mif- application of their own prophecies ? If fuch were the fad", as Dr. Prieftley aflerts it was, fo far as I am capable of judging, either Peter mufl have been a moil ignorant and impudent Jmpoftor, and the three thoufand converted Jews the moft abfurdly credulous of mortals; or clfe the hiftorian muft have defignedly related a double falfehood refpedt- ing this fpeech of the Apoftle : in which cafe, we could no long;er a-ive credit to anv of thofe'moft important fadis, which he alone hath recorded. In page 45, the Doftor is pleafed to tell you, with the ufual mifreprefentation of a polemic, that I fay the pradiice of v/riting latin words in greek charadters ** might be common in the time of Tra- jan, A. D. 98, and not be known, A. D. 64." And -even this mifreprefentation is farther exaggerated by his prefuming to fix A. D, 64, for the date of the Gofpel of Matthew. For you have feen. Sir, that according to the whole weight of that only admiffible evidence of ieftimony which Dr. Prieftley himfelf afTures you is lb univerfally fatisfadtory, if Matthew wrote any Gofpel, he wrote at lateft A. Do 41. But I have never faid that fuch a pradtice was common in the time of Trajan. I have only inferred from the circumftances ftated in p. 29 and 30 of my Dijfonance, that it is not probable fuch a pradtice v^^as introduced by any writer fooner than the latter end of the reign of Trajan, who died A. D. 117, at the interval of three fourths of a century from the date at which all the Fathers of the Church inform G lis r 4^ ] MS Matthew wrote his Gofpel; and that therefore the Gofpel called Matthew's could not be written earlier than the beginning of the fecond century, and confequently was not written by him nor by any other apoflle, Whilft I was writing this letter, a learned friend who had read my examination of the Diffonance of the Evangelifts and Dr. Prieftiey's remarks addref- fed to you, fent me fome curious extradts from Le Clerc's third Differtation at the end of his Harmo- ny, containing the fentiments of the famous Dod- well and the conceffions which Le Clerc himfelf was forced to make concerning the great number of undiftinguifliable *' fictitious books falfely at- tributed to the Apoflles and their followers in the very firft age/' which abounded Hill more in the fecond century '* upon fairer hopes of impofing upon the world." I recommend the Differtation itfelf to your perufal; and you will there fee, that a man of Dodwell's uncommon learning, induflry and zealous application to the inveftigation and iludy of all the exifting records refped:ing the Chriftian fcriptures, was led to fix the earliefl time for the general reception of the Gofpels to be the latter end of Trajan's or the beginning of Hadrian's reign ; the very fame ara, which from the obvious circumftances of the language in which they are v/ritten I have inferred muft be the earliefl at which the Gofpels of MatthevxT and Mark(and confequently of John, which is confeffedly later) could have made their appearance. Yet inftead of refuting fo rati- onal and well-founded an argument, by producing a fingle inftance of any writer facred or profane, who has adopted fuch a mode of writing before that period J Dr. Priellley ijtfcfts to reprelent it as deferving C 43 ] deferving only your contempt and ridicule, by means of a buffoon quotation from the renowned hiftory of Don Quixote de la Mancha. In the fucceeding paragraph the Doftor pre- tends to account for the phrafe urilo this day re- peatedly ufed by the writer of the Gofpel called Matthew's, by again affertrng that it was written thirty years after the events. In reply to which I fhall only remind you that, according to the una- nimous tellimony of all thofe hiftoric witneffes^ on whofe proper and fatisfaStory evidence he profelTes to have built his religious belief, Matthew wrote his Gofpel only eight years after the crucifixion. As to what he fays of " the arbitrary manner in which I fuppole the writings of Luke himfelf to have been interpolated ;" afuppofition which every man that is acquainted with the practices of the fecond and third centuries knows is far from im- probable ; I fhall merely repeat the purport of what I have alreadv obferved in my obnoxious treatife itfelf, that fufpicion alone is not a fuffi- cient caufe for adjudging any paffage to be inter- polated; unlefs fatisfaftory reafons are alio alkged for entertaining fuch a fufpicion. Whether the arguments I have urged, againft any of the paffa- ges that I have objected to, be or be not of that fatisfaftory kind, mud be left to the decifion of you. Sir, and my other readers. In his fifth letter, the Dod:or proceeds to give particular anfwers to each objeftion that I have urged againft the authenticity of the Gofpel of Matthew. But the far greater part of his anfwers are of the very fort that I protefted againft in my Preface, viz. conjectural fuppofitions or hypothe- tical fyftems unwarranted by the Go/pels thentfelve^; That [ 44 ] That I may not therefore unneceffarily trouble you or myfelf about fuch ideal phantoms of the imagination, which would moit probably vary their forms according to the varying fancies of different harmonifts, whenever the Dodlor attempts to obviate any objed:ion by faying that, the cafe may or might have been attended with fuch or fuch circumftances, though they are not fuggefled to us by any of the hiftories themfelves, I beg you will underiland me to reply that the cafe was not at- tended with any fuch hypothetical circumftances : and then fince the Doctor's affirmative and my nega- tive are exadily of equal authority, i. e. none at all, they deftroy each other, and the objedtion remains juft as it did at iirft. For this reafon I ftall pafs over all his anfwers of that kind with a bare obfer- vation that they are hypothetical; as it never was my intention to write againft any Go/pel according to Dr. Priejiley. His ^u^ particular remark is made upon my ob- ferving that the writer of our firft Gofpel could not be Matthew, nor any other of the Apoftles, becaufe inftead of Judas, whom Luke in both his hiftories enumerates as one of them, and vs'hich vv^as therefore undoubtedly the hebrew name by which he was ufually called and Ipoken of by all the Apoftles and Elders amongft whom Luke him- felf lived may years at Jerufalem, he puts Lebbeus furnamed, i. e. whofe additional name w^as Thaddeus. Now, Sir, when an author gives us two names of any perfon in this manner, he certainly intends we ftiould underftand that he knew of no other by which he was denominated ; fo that thofe com- mentators, who have endeavoured to fhew that Thaddeus in the Syrian language fignifies the fame as C 45 ] as Judas in Hebrew, evidently laboured to remove a palpable contradidlion between the two Gofpels. But however well this interpretation might account for this change of name, fuppofing the author to be fome Grseco-Syrian compiler of an evangelical hif- tory in the fecond century, it cannot make it credible that Matthew, a native Hebrew of Paleftine, and who, if he v/rote any Gofpel at all, wrote it in his native language, fhould change the Hebrew name of his brother Apoftle for one borrowed from the Syrians. Yet all the anfwer the Dod:or gives to this infuperable difficulty is that " it was no un- common thing for the fame perfons to have more names than one." Surely, to have made it in the leaft applicable to this cafe, it fliould have been more names than tzvo. Can any impartial reader ferioufly think this an anfwer to the objed:ion which I have flated ? I am confident, not one. But even in feledting his inftanccs of perfons called by two different names the Doftor has been very unfortunate. For till he can fliew that Nathaniel and Bartholomew, like Silas and Luke, are of finii- lar fignification, which I fancy he will hardly at- tempt to do, he will not be able to render it pro- bable that they mean the fame perfon : and as I depend much more upon the tellrmony of Luke than on that of all the other Gofpels and all the Fathers of the Apoftate Church taken together, I am very far from being fatisfied that Levi the pub- lican was one of the Apoftlcs, or that Matthew the Apoftle ever was a publican. The only anfwer the Dodtor has chofen to give to the next objeftion he has noticed being entirely hypothetical, I fhould have palfed it over with this oblervation, had it not been for a moft curious in- ference r 45 3 lercnce witli which he concludes the article. Luke c. iii. informs us that Jefus in the power cf the fpirit preached in the f\'nagogues throughout all Galilee j and, that circuitous predication being ended, he rells us, V. 1 6, that he came to Nazareth where he had been brought tip: and though, in the verfes im- mediately following, Jefus himfelf calls reforming the people of Nazareth healing himjelf, and expreff- ]y denominates it his ozvn country^ the Dodtor fays that by the words of v. i6, " it is clearly intima- ted, that the place of his refidence, if he had any, ivas elfewhere/* What wonderful fagacity ! If, like me. Sir, you happen to be a man only of com- mon fenfe and plain underilanding, you would as foon have expeftcd it to be argued that our Saviour was born at Capernaum, becaufe he is always called Jefus of Nazareth. In the article numbered 3, the Doctor has by na means obviated the objection I have flated; but (for which I return him thanks) he has fhewn that the author of this Gofpel is as inconfiftent with himfelf as he is with Luke. A certain, never-fail- ino" mark of one who does not adhere to truth. His anfwers to No. 4 and 5, are altogether hy^ pothetical. In No. 6, the Dodor challenges me to anfwer what he has thought proper to advance in the Theological Repofitory, rcfpediing the perpetuity of the Mofaic ritual. But if you will read over St, Paul's Epiftle to the Galatians Sir, you will find the Do6:or*s unaccountable fyftem fo effedrually and fatisfaftorily overthrown, that no other anfwer to it can be necelTary. And I am truly forry, that in the latter end of the eighteenth century a mail Ihould be found of fuch high literary eminence, who I 47 ] tvho has fpent a long life in the particular vocf=- tion of a teacher of Chriftianity, who is yet fo ig- norant of the prophecies relating to the very reli- gion he profeifes to teach, as to think that when the predicted Nezv Jeru[akm has defcended fwm above to blefs all the nations of the earth with per- fedt freedom, the Old Jerufalem Ihall be reftored to the Jews alone, and they again be fubjedt to bondage; and that after the Jews themfelves toge- ther with all other nations Ihall by their convei'fioii to Chrifl have attained a rational, manly maturi- ty of religious knowledge and wifdom under the new covenant of the Gofpel, they alone fliall be fent back to fchool again, and fubmit for ever to the childijlo difclpUne of the Law of Mojes, Articles 7, 8. 9, and 10, contain no anfvvers to the obje C iS ] fixed to this letter, and inftead of trufting implicit- ly to the doctrines of the greateil men examine every queftion thoroughly on both fides, and judge for yourfelf. But this objection, which the Dodtor calls fo trifling and finds fo unanfwerable, is ftill farther flrengthened by another difficulty which I have fuggelled in the very fame note. For in this fiory of the transfiguration, as well as in that of the bap- tifm of Jefus, he is miraculouily called the Son of God before his death; though till after that event he always difclaimed that title, calling himfeif on- ly Son of Man, as he really was. It was by his birth from the grave to his prefent fpiritual im- mortal life that he became the Son of God. The day of his refurredtion was the day alluded to in the prophecy, ** thou art my fon, this day have I begotten thee ;" and that was the day when God *' made him his firjl-born and exalted him far above the kings of the earth." It was not therefore, as Dr. Prieftley intimates, through a flight inadver- tence of Paul, but by God himfeif that he is declar- ed to be the fir Jl -born from the dead. To article 5, the Dod:or himfeif acknowledges he knows not what to anfwer. In article 6, '' he fees nothing deferving a par- ticular anfwer." He therefore only affu res you, that the miracles which I treat as incredible, he " looks upon with reverence, and without the leaft difpo- fition to incredulity." If you are wife, Sir, you will be influenced by neither of us; but think and reafon for yourfelf and believe only what your own judgment finds worthy of credit. In the anfwers given to the objections he has juarked 7 and 8, the Dodtor fhews that he neither ynderilands [ 59 3 imderftands the meaning of Luke nor me* and that he has no fixed, determinate idea in his own mind of the true fenfe of the phrafe kingdom of God: otherwife, he could never have talked of "the kingdom of God properly commencing with the preaching of Jefus;" nor that, at the deftrudtion of Jerufalem, '' the kingdom of God was (only) nigh at hand;" nor of " the great prevalence of unbelief and confequently of vice and wickednefs, before our Saviour's fecond coming," &c. In all the authentic fcriptures the phrafe king- dom of God uniformly fignifies the eftablilhment of the new covenant of the Gafpel in the hearts of men. That kingdom could not commence till Jefus, the mediator ot the new Covenant, was con- flituted the Meffiah, Chrift or King of it, which was not till after his refurredtion; nor will it be perfected and correfpond to the magnificent ideas given of it in all the prophecies, till what is em- })hatically called our Lord's coming fhall take place. In the mean time, as foon as ever the new Cove- nant of that kingdom was publilhed to the world by his apoftles and firft difciples, he difplayed many vifible, fupernatural inftances of the regal power with which God had inverted him, in com- municating to them the miraculous gifts of the holy infpiration and fundry revelations of the di- vine will refpedling the future flate of human af- fairs. And though after the abolition of the old Mofaic Covenant, by the total difperfion of the Jewifh nation, the kingdom of the new Covenant was in fome deG:ree eftabliflied in the hearts of the few rational, faithful fubjedls of Jefus Chrift who ac- cepted and adhered to it, yet that glorious, univer- fal Hate of it, for which we are taught to pray, re- mains C 60 ] mains ftlU to be accomplifhed. In the interim, therefore, it is compared to a little leaven hidden in a large bulk of meal, where the leaven repre- fents the ftate of the kingdom of God in the world from that time to the prefent, and the unleavened mafs the rebellious or unreformed ftate of the reft of mankind under the influence of Judaifm, Paga- nifm, the Antichriftian apoftafy or philofophic un- belief. Now, Sir, try if it be poffible for you to read over the paflages and parables of the Gofpel attributed to Matthew, which I have objedled to on this account, and to perfuade yourfelf that the writer underftood what our Saviour and all the prophets meant by the kingdom of God^ which he and he alone calls the kingdom of heaven. To article 9, the anfwer is merely hypothetical and unwarranted by the hiftory itfelf. In anfwer to article 10, Dr. Prieftley afTures you that " Matthew does not profefs to relate nny par- ticulars of the pafchal fupper, but only the infti- tution of the Lord's fupper with which it conclu- ded." But what can he mean by an aifertion io palpably untrue? If the fpirit of polemic zeal can miflead fo well intentioned a man, as I have no doubt Dr. Prieftley is, into fuch grofs mifreprc- fentations of fadts, as he has been guilty of in thefe letters to you, Sir, God preferve both you and me from being ever infedted with it! Only turn to Matthew c. xxvi. and you will fee that from v. 17, to the end of v. 25, it contains a narrative of the preparation of the pafchal fupper; of his eating it with his difciples; and of a converfation that paiTedj whilft they were eating it, of and with the traitor. In the three next verfes is related the in- ftitution of the Lord's fupper ; and then follows the [ 6i ] the declaration, that he would no more drink of the wine himfelf; which Luke fays was made be- fore they began the pafchal fupper, and that he did not either then or at the inftitution of that commemorative rite partake of the wine himfelf, though the Dodtor affirms that Luke tells us he did. The obfervation on my remark in article 1 1, ig founded merely in hypothefis. Refpeding No. 12, I muft remind you that, though 1 have ftated " the appointed meeting of Jefus with his difcipjes in Galilee" (which Dr. Prieflley thinks fo natural) to be a direct contra- didl'ion to the truth as it is related to us by Luke and confirmed by the account which Paul tells us he received of it from our Lord himfelf, the Doc- tor has not thought proper to take the leaft notice of that contradidiion ; only to my remark up- on the pretended, improbable circumftance of their zvorfliipping him he is pleafed to reply, that I know the word tranilated worfrAp iignifies only making him a bozv, and not paying him divine ho- nour. Now, Sir, if you will confult your greek Teftament, Apoc. xxii. 8, you will find the very fame word ufed to denote that m-ore particular re- fpe5l, which the Apoftle felt himjelf difpofed toJJjew the angel of the vilion, but which that celeftial minifter earneftly prohibited as ciiminal when of- fered to any being but God, However, be the meaning of the greek word what it may, he retorts upon me, that the fame expreffion is ufed alfo by Luke to deicribe the behaviour of the apoftles to jefus after his afceniion, in the conclufion of his Gofpel. A mere reader of the vulgar tranflation might naturally make fuch a remark. But is it candid [ 6^ ] candid in Dr. Prieftley, (who p. 58. prefers the reading of one folitary copy to that of all the other exiiling copies taken together, in a palTage where the common fenfe of the tranfcriber might eafily induce him, though unwarrantably, to deviate from the words before him) in this place to take no no- tice that the words they worjhipped him are not to be found in fix different copies of Luke's Gofpel ? And as no writer ever yet introduced circumftances of importance into a concife, abbreviated narration ©fan event, and omitted them in a more diffufe ac- count of the fame ftory given afterwards ; fince this circumftance is not mentioned in the enlarged, par- ticular hiftory of the afcenfion given us in the J5{s; every unprejudiced reader will be fatisfied that thofe fix copies give us the genuine reading of that verfe J and that the other copies have been in- terpolated, in accomodation to the Gofpel of Mat- thew or to the prepoflTeflion of the tranfcribers. As to the doubts mentioned " by the Evangelift" call- ed Matthew, the Dodtor acknowledges they are ** by no means probable." But what he means by adding thai Matthew " gives no intimation of any remaining doubts,'* I cannot comprehend ; be- aufe his exprefs words are that, at the time when he tells us they wor/hipped him,Jome doubted, and to that time only my objeftion refers. In the firft article of his feventh letter, the Doc- tor is pleafed to animadvert upon the remarks I have made on the fimilitude faid, in this Gofpel alone, to fubfift between the fituation of Jonah in the whale's belly, and that of our Saviour in the grave. All that he fays however upon the fubjeft is that, " the proper evidence of the divine miffion of Jefus was his refurreftion." But that evidence was C 63 ] was not gU'en to the Jewifh people at large, as tlic Pharifees required, but only to thofe pre-eledted witneffes his firft difciples. He adds that "Jonah and Jelus continued in ajlate nearly alike; though the firft was alive and the other dead;" (what a ibiking likenefs !) and for the fame fpace of time; for that in " the Jewifh phrafeology three days and three m^hts onl}^ means the third day.'' I have too often fmiled over the impotent efforts of commen- tators upon this fubjed: not to know that this laft aflertion is abfolutely without foundation; not a iingle inftance of fuch phrafeology being to be pro- duced out of the Jewifh fcriptures. Indeed, if in any language the phrafe a night and a day does not fignify the whole nudihemeron of twenty four hours it muft be abfolutely unintelligible. For example, as Jefus did not expire till the ninth hour of the day, if you allow the time neceffary after his death, for the petition of Jofeph to Pilate; for his taking down the corpfe from thecrofs, preparingthe cloth to wrap it in and depofiting it in the fepulchre; he could not have been in the grave more than an hour or perhaps half an hour of what Dr. Prieftley calls one night and one day. How then are we to under- ftand the apoftle Paul when he fays * a night and a day I have been in the deep ^ Was he only half an hour or an hour in that perilous fituation? With refpcd: to article 2. as the whole force .of the Doctor's anfwer to my objeftion confifts in the queftion with which he concludes it; for a reply, I have only to defire you to read over his own quo- tation from my book ; where you will fee that .queftion already fully anfvvcred. W^hat he has thought proper to fiy refpedting .the * z Cor. xi. 25. r 64 J the two parables mentioned in article 3. merits no'f the lead: notice. In reply to the Dodor's animadverfions on the fourth article, J willi you to afk him, fince he has undertaken to explain how evil thoughts "may be faid to come out of a man's mouth," why he did not explain to you alfo, how murder and theft can be faid to proceed out of the mvuth of the folitarv^ iilent murderer or thief ? Taking notice of the parable marked by Dr. Prieftley, No. 5, I have remarked the injuftice. of punifliing an offender after granting him "abfolute miconditional forgivenefs ;" to which the Doftor replies, "it is agreeable, however, to the maxims of the divine government, all the promifes, as well as threatenings of God, being in fadt conditional. Is not this a curious anfwer? In article 6. the Dodor quotes my objedtions to our Lord's being made to fay there he eunuchs who have made themfelves eunuchs for the kingdom of hea- ven^s Jake, and tells you thofe words "evidently mean, their choofing to lead a fmgle life." If this were true, Sir, is it credible that inftances of refo- lutions or vows of celibacy, /or the kingdom of hed-^ lens Jake, could have taken place not only before the commencement of that kingdom, but even when it had hardly been proclaimed in public and was only announced to the Jews as approaching or near at hand I' But tranflate the whole fentcnce ac- cording to Dr. Prieftley's interpretation of this claufe, and obferve what nonfenie it will make* " There are fome leaders of a fingle life who were fo born from their mother's womb ; and there are fome leaders of a iingle life who were made to lead a iingle life by men ; and there be leaders of a fin- gle [ 65 ] gle life who have made themfclves lead a fingle life for the kingdom of heaven's fake," Can Dr. Prieflley be ferioully in earneft in all this? Yet as if he fuppofed you could be fatisfied with fuch child- ilh abfurdity, he tells you my objeftion requires no cither animadverfton. But he adds that, Tatian the difciple of Juftin Martyr was the founder of the fc(ft of the Encratites; and that if this gofpel had been written after his time, it could never have been received as the produdtion of Matthew. Now when a man lays fo very great and important aflrefs upon the teftimony of the early ecclefiaflical wri- ters as Dr. Prieftley does, he ought at leaft to be very well verfed in them, and perfectly to under- fland what that teftimony is. But whether Eufe^ bius is as incomprehenfible to the Dodior as Ter tullian feems to be, or whether he reads with the fame inconfideratc precipitancy with which he fometimes appears to write, and fo does not allow himfelf time to attend to the author's meaning, I know not. I only know that, in the very paflage from which he learned that Tatian was at all con- nedted with the Encratites,* Eufebius fays, that fed: proceeded from Saturninus and Marcion, who both preceded Juftin •, and confequently it exifted, as Sir Ifaac Newton long ago obferved, in the be- ginning of the fecond century. To what I have remarked upon the parable al- luded to in article 7. the Dodtor has given nothing like an anfwer ; and therefore, if the matter were of greater importance than it is, no reply is neceflary on my part. In the eighth and laft article of his defence of this Gofpel, Dr. Prieftley tells you that it muft K be f Hlft. £ccl. 1. iv. c. 29, [ 66 ] be owing to my ignorance or inattention, that I un- derftand the word oaooviog, in the lame fenfe in which it has always been tranilated hitherto, as fignifying literally everlajiing or eternal; for that it fignifies merely an indefinite long period. Even this new tranilation however would not remove the difficul- ty I have ftated. But lince the very fame word is ufed to exprefs the duration of the future life of the righteous and the duration of the puniihment of the wicked, and in the very fame fentence, either it mud fignify ftridtly everlajiing in both cafes ; or elfe the future exiftence promifed to the righteous muft be underftood to mean only exiftence for an indefinite long period : and the longeft period com- pared with eternity is the mere exiftence of a mo- ment. Upon what authority then does Dr. Prieft- ley, by fuch modes of interpreting the fcriptures, prefume to deprive the faithful difciple of Jefus Chrift of his brighteft and moft encouraging prof- pedt, reduce his hopes of future happinefs from eternity to time and rob him of the moft precious promifcs of the Gofpel ? In his Appendix, p. i68, to invalidate the ob- jection ariiing from this waiter's reprefenting the women as prefent at the fepulchre of Jefus, at the fame time with the foldiers, the Dodror tells you that " there are feveral inftances in which the pro- noun "v^iigy ye is ufed without any particular em- phafis, or contraft; as when our Saviour fays, Matt. V. 48, Be ye perfeB even as your Father zvho is in heaven is perfeB. Matt. xiii. 18, Hear ye therefore the parable of the fower." Yet, in the firft inftance, the difciples, in the words immediately preceding, are informed how other men and efpecially publi- cans behave, and taught that theii own benevolence muft [ ^7 ] mufl be of a more exalted and perfedt kir.d. And, in the fecondj replying to the queilion aflced by his difciples, why he fpoke to the multitudes in para- bles? Jefus fays, " becaufe it is givesi unto you to know the myfteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not givcn^" &c. '* Hear ye therefore the parable of the fower." So that when the Doc- tor with an air of triumph aiks, *' where is the con- trail here ?" If you w-ere much younger than, I lup- pofe, he takes you to be, you would readily aiifwer hinij in the former cafe, between the difciples and the publicans; and, in the latter, between them and the generality of the people to wdiomthe para- bles were not explained. The Doctor^s eighth letter to you is on my ob- jections to the Gofpel of Mark. And he begins and ends it with reprefenting me as having prefer- red the Gofpel of Luke merely by accident or ca^ price; and tells you that I iliould " have found as much to objecl: to in this Gofpel as in the former if I had bellowed equal pains on it," &c. If you have read my book with any attention, you mult know. Sir, that inftead of forming my judgment upon no grounds, as the Doftor thinks fit to alTert^ I have ftated my reafons for that judgment very fully and explicitly. Whether thole reafons may be as convincing to any of my readers as they are to myfelf, is not for me to determine ; but how- ever weak and trifling they may appear to Dr. Priellley, in common decency as well as juilice, he ftiould have contented himfelf with expofing their weaknefs and futility ; and not have repeat- edly mifreprefented me as having adbed in a mat- ter of fuch high importance without aay reafoa at all. With [ 68 ] With refpeft to the paucity of my obfervntions on the Gofpel called Mark's, according to the ta- bles of Ammianus, there are but twenty paffages of any kind in the whole Gofpel which are pecu- liar to this writer. The reft, excepting what I have taken notice of in the conclulion as borrow- ed from the Gofpel of John, are all found either in that of Matthew or of Luke. The latter I could rot objeft to confiftently with my own principles; the former had been already animadverted upon in my objediions to the Gofpel of Matthew ; and of the remaining twenty paffages I have made re- marks upon feven, which were all that appeared to me worthy of being noticed on fuch an oc- cafion. The only anfwer which the Dodtor has vouch- fafed to give to my remark. No. i, is a mere con- fident affertion, which every perfon converfant in the eccleiiaftical writings of the fecond and third centuries knows to be diredtly contrary to the mat- ter of fadt. Of this you yourfelf may be eafily fatisfied by the perufal of thofe teftimonies to which I have referred you in the paffage quoted by Dr. Prieftley. In article 2, the Dodtor tells you no anfwer is neceffary to the obfervations he has quoted ; there- fore I can have nothing to reply. I only beg leave to remark to you that, I have never called this Gof- pel an abridgment, nor the author an abridger of the others, though the Dodior here afferts and elfe- where repeatedly inlinuates that I have done fo. In article 3, Dr. Prieftley choofes to infinuate alfo that I have called the author a mere copter of Matthew and Luke, though I never thought of fuch a thing, except in thofe paffages where they do [ 69 ] do not clalh with each other. As to the reft of his remark, if 5'ou will turn to the Evangelifl l\imfelf, you will find that his words will not warrant fuch an evafive anfwer as the Dod:or has thought pro- per to give. To my objed:ions quoted in article 4, the Doc- tor's only dired: anfwer is altogether unwarrantably hypothetical ; but his illultration from the old tef- tament muft not pafs unnoticed. Elijah and Elilha are by no means proper ob- je6ls of comparifon with the prophet Jefus ; but Mofes certainly is lo. And I beg your attention to the two inftances of his condud: upon fimiiar occafions produced by Dr. Prieflley. The latter, which in order of time ought to have been men- tioned firft, was no miracle, but a reftoration of the waters of Mara to falubrity and an agreeable tafte by means of the naturally medical property of a particular wood, as the author of Ecclefiafticus has very properly obferved. The other, ziv. the ftriking the rock, which tended to make the peo- ple believe that his ftroke alone gave vent to the imprifoned waters and made them flow, is record- ed as being immediately condemned by the Deity himfelf ; and in punifliment for his not clearly manifefling the miraculous interpofition of the Al- mighty, by merely fpeaking to the rock as he was commanded, he was doomed like all the other re- bellious Ifraelites to die in the wildernefs and not to enter into the promifed land. And had Jefus of Nazareth been guilty of the practices afcribed to him in this Gofpel, he would have been equally criminal in the fight of God. To the firft of the objections quoted in the fifth and laft article of this letter the Do6lor,anfvvers, that the C 70 ] the words are not to be taken in their literal fenfe, which he allows is impoffible ,• but only to mean that the fufferer ''would have more than an equiva- lent fatisfadtion of another kind.'* But lince the centuple compenfation is exprefsly limited to the prefent life, this feems to me equally impoffible with the literal fenfe in a great variety of cafes. And even fuppofing the confolation of a good con- fcience to be more than an equivalent for any lolTes that can be caufed by perfecution, (which, fetting futurity out of the queftion, I believe nobody will allow,) becaufe Dr. Prieflley has, without doubt, received this more than equivalent fat is faSl ion for the lofsof his library and laboratory, would any writer be warranted in afferting that he had now, in this t'tniey received an hundred fuch libraries and aa hundred equally valuable laboratories ? The other objedlion the Dodlor tells you ''needs no anfwer;" and accordingly he has given none to it. The concluding fentence of this eighth letter is really curious; and feems to imply that Dr. Priefl- ley has conceived fo thoroughly contemptible an. opinion of the apoflles and firft preachers of chrif- tianity as to think it highly improbable that any of them fhould have been capable of fhewing by the ftyle and manner of their writing that they were en- dued with any degree of genius and mental abili- ties; or that they had common fenfe fufficient to underftand propriety of language. Under fuck great obligations to their zealous, decent advocate. Oft this occafion, are Matthew, Mark and John \ ' The Dod;or*s ninth letter contains his animad- veriions on my objediions to the Gofpel of John. And in article i. replying to my remark on the greac [ 7' ] great difference between the ftyle of this Gofpel and the Revelation, he tells you that there is as great difference of ftyle between fome of Paul's Epiftles. If he means thofe Epiftles of Paul which I allow to be genuine, nothing can be lefs true; and I defy him to prove it. If he means only to compare the ftyle of them to that of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, as I fufpedt, or of any other of the Epiftles which I reje<5t as fpurious, though the ar- gument is urged by him with all the unfairnefs of a profeflional polemic, inftead of anfwering his end in this cafe, it tends only to confirm my arguments againft thofe Epiftles. As to the fuppoiition that the apoftles, even af- ter the gift of tongues, did not underftand Greek enough to compofe their ow^n writings without the affiftance of different perfons at dffere?it times, it is too abfurd to merit any notice. It is made too of Paul for one, who we know fpoke the greek lan- guage with the utmoft fluency : and who preached the Gofpel to the Athenians and to every princi- pal city of Greece in their native language. Flow- ever, for fear this fuppofition Ihould not prove fa- tisfadtory even to 3. young man, he fubjoins an infi- nuation, that the Apocalypfe was not Vv'ritten by John the apoftle, but by the other John, Pray Sir, afk him who the other John was? The fcriptures mention only two difciples of that name; one the apoftle, emphatically the fervant oi ]e^us Chu^, who, according to his own avowal and the whole weight of the DoQ:or's all-fufhcient tejiimony of evi- ^ence, was the author of the Apocalypfe; the other furnamed Mark, by which latterappellation he was vifually called to diftinguifh him from the apoftle^ ^nd who there is not the High teft pretence to ima- gine [ 72 ] gine was made the organ of thofe important pro- phecies. The grand revelations of the Gofpel, af- ter our Lord's afcenlion, were made firft to John in the vifions of the Apocalypfe, and fecondly to Paul, as he has informed us in his Epiftles. And, iince the latter was the apoftle to the Gentiles, no- thing can be more improbable, than that our Sa- viour Ihould have pafTed by all his other chofen apoftles and manifefted his prediledtion of fome other John that nobody ever heard off, by fending angels to ihew him the prophetic vifions of that book, which is emphatically denominated the Re- velation ofjefus Chrtfi. In article 2. Dr. Prieftley tells you that the term Logos, ufed by the author of this Gofpel and the Epiftles called John's and by no other didadtic wri- ter of the new teftament, w^as moft probably not borrowed from Plato, but is ufed only in the fame fenfe as the word of God is in the old teftament, by which we are told all things were made. But thofe expreflions of Mofes and David are evidently mere figures of fpeech, denoting that every part of the creation rofe into exiftence at the command, or more properly at the will of the Deity ; for it is not to be imagined that God adtually fpeaks as men do, when he wills any thing to be done. When the prophet defcribes the almighty as bringing a fword over any particular country and i^y'iu^ fword go through that land, is any man abfurd enough to think that God really fpeaks fo to a fword? Yet it were e- qually unreafonable to underftand that the Deity made ufe of any words at all, when Mofes defcribes the exertion of his infinite power by the phrafe and God (aid, or when David alluding to that Mofaic phrafe tells us the world was created by the com- mand t 73 3 mdnd or rrord of God and by the breath of his mouths Now, inftead of thefe figurative phrafes, put the plain literal meaning, viz. the will of God, and try whether you can make any tolerable fenfe of this Gofpel, if Logos is fo underftood. "In the beginning was the will of God, and the will of God was \vithGod; and the will of Go^ was God." And again, *'and the will of God was made ilefh and dwelt amongft us and we beheld its glory, the glo- ry as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." As long as men, who think it their duty, which it certainly is, to ufe their reafon in judging of religious queflions, fhall from long ha- bit and the prejudice of education remain under the deluiion of believing all the prelent canoni-' cal fcriptures to be genuine works of the apoftles and firft difciples of our Saviour, fo long they will mifapply their time and abilities in imagining hy- pothefes which may, in fome ideal manner, recon- cile contradiftions abfolutely irreconcilcable; and in endeavouring td give fome femblance of a ratio- nal meaning to thofe abfurdly fabulous, fuperftiti- ous palTages on which have been founded, firft the pagan doftrine of the ;pre-exiftence of Jefus and his miraculous birth, and fecondly the blafphemoils and Vv^orfe than pagan dodtrine of his deification in the monftrous fyftem of the Trinity. But though their fkilful difplay of great learning and ingenuity in their endeavours on thefe occafions may perhaps fatisfy themfelves and their own religious party, their arguments are never convincing to other peo- ple; for one infuperable objection to the fuccefs of their well intended labours always remains. If thefe books are the works of men chofen, de- legated and miraculoufly impowered by the heaven- L ly I 74 ] ly fource of truth, light and wifdom to teach all men, even the moft unlearned and ignorant, the true obj eft of their religious vvorllilp, the duties which that Deity requires them to pradtice and the profped: of a future recompenfe promifed to their obedience; the true meanin gof the feveral pafla- ges they contain ought to be obfcure and hard to be underftood to no perfon endowed with common fenfe not even to a child. This was the cafe with the re- ligion revealed by Mofes to the people of Ifrael. It is impoffible for any Jew to read the Pentateuch without perfe The Dodtor's tenth letter to you is on the fubjedt of the Epiftle to the Romans; and he begins with telling you, I ought to fiiy "what, in my idea, conilitutes a canonical book of the New Tefiament.*' By a canonical book, I iuppofe he means a book wor- thy to be admitted by a rational chriftian as the rule of his religious faith and prad:ice. To confti- tute fuch a book. Sir, in my idea, it is indifpeofa- bly requifite, thatitlhould befreefrom all grounds of reafonable doubt and fufpicion; that it fhould have every poflible external it^iniOTq in its favour; and contain every neceffary internal evidence of its being the work of an apoftle or fome other primi- tive difciple of Jefus commiffioned by him and both naturally and fupernaturally qualified to proclaim and teach the religion of the new covenant of the kingdom ot God: and I think myfelf abundantly warranted in rejecting out of my canon of holy fcrip- ture every book or every pallage of a book which is unable [ 84 ] unable to (land thefe tefts of examination. Thq Epiftle to the Romans, after mature and impartial examination, appears to me to be one of tliofe and therefore I rejed it, notwithftanding its containing what Dr. Prieftley is pleafed to call an important prophecy; for it is fo far from being a prophecy pe- culiar to this Epiftle, that it is merely a reference to pre-exifting prophecies attended with fuch ob- fervations upon the ftate of the Jewifti nation at the time of writing the Epiftle, as plainly Ihew that it could not be written by any body till after their final difperfion by the Romans. In article i,the Doftor controverts fome obfer- vations of mine founded on the information given us in the laft chapter of the adts of the Apoftles. Firft he is pleafed to quibble about my having afked, who that other Apojlle to the Gentiles was who preceded St. Paul at Rome? As if I, or any perfon who had read that hiftory, could fappofe that none but the twelve difciples of Jefus empha- tically called Apojlles were commiflioned to preach the Gofpel. I ufed the word there in its general fenfe of mijfionary; and if either you or the Dodtor choofe to fubftitute preacher of the Gojpel in its room, it will anfwer my purpofe equally well. He next tells you that, contrary to what I ap- prehend to be the fenfe of the hiftorian, " it is e-vi- dent that they were Chrijlians who met Paul at Pu- teoli and Appii Forum." Yet the only circum- llances, from which this evident propofition is in- ferred, are that they are called Brethren; and that upon ibme of them coming from Rome to Appii Forum to meet them, Paul thanked God a?id took courage. Now, Sir, young as you are, you muft Isnow that though Chriftians called each pther bre^ ihren, C Si ] ibren, becaufe they were taught to regard them* felves as adopted fons of God, who like Jefus were to be begotten by God to a future life of immor- tality; and who, in the interim, compofed under the new covenant one common family, united by the bands of Chriftian love and benevolence; as the Jews under the old covenant were literally all one family, the common fons of Abraham, and heirs of the promifes made to him through Ifaac; yet that, throughout the whole hiilory of the Adls, the Apoftles and other Chriftian teachers always call even the unconverted Jews brethren; and that fuch they certainly \vere. From the word Brethren alone, therefore, it is impoffible to difcover whe- ther the perfons here fpoken of were Jews or Chrif- tians. But Dr. Prieftley infinuates that they muft have been Chriftians, becaufe, on feeing thofe who came from Rome to meet them, it is faid Paul took courage. Before this time. Sir, you have feen that the Dodtor and I view the fame objects through fuch different mental optics, that you will not be furprifed to find that the very circumftanee of Paul's taking courage at their fight, helps to convince me that they mull be Jews. For it was againfl: an accufation of the Jews that Paul had ap- pealed unto C^far, and to be tried before the Em- peror was the caufe of his being brought prifoner to Rome. In fuch a fituation, any friendly notice taken of him by Chrifl:ians, had there been any there at that time, however agreeable to him, could have given him no caufe of courage or confidence refpe£ting his expedled imprifonment and her.ring before Nero : but fuch a token of national friend- fhip from the Jews of Rome might well give him courage and confidence in his caufe; as it was an evident [ 86 ] evident proof that they had not been inftigated a- gainft him by their brethren in Judea; and that no Jew there was prepared to carry on the profecution againft him. Yet fuch a concluiion Dr. Prieftley thinks very extraordinary ; and would perfuade you that there was a Chriftian Church at Rome " con- fining of both Jews and Gentiles/" before Paul was commiffioned to preach the Gofpel in Greece : though there is not in any other hiftory the flight- eft foundation for fuch an opinion; though it is diredtly contrary to the hiftory of Silas or Luke, which plainly teaches us that the light of the Gof- pel proceeded from Jerufalem, as from a centre, extending itfelf gradually in all diredions, and that before the vilion of Paul at Troas, Chriftianity had never been taught beyond the limits of Alia to- wards Europe ; though the Jews at Rome were fa far from knowing that any of the Gentiles had been converted, that they fpoke of Chriftians to St. Paul as of a Je£l only of their own nation ; and though, on their rejecting the dodlrine of the Gofpel preach- ed by him to them firft, as was his cuftom every where, he told them thai falutary do, Hcr2«j's letter ra !be dary^ oS St. David's. C n6 3 fate ! To men thus aftonifhingly infatuated In vain does the heavenly voice of prophecy fore- warn them that inevitable deftrudlion, fooner or later, awaits every fuch Church ; in vain does it fo pathetically call aloud to the deceived, but well intending members of the various fedtions of that Church of Antichrift, " Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her fins, and that ye receive not of her plagues* The only comfort I receive as an Englilhman under fo alarming a profpedt, arifes from the fame voice of prophetic revelation ; for it feems to teach us (Apoc. xvii. 1 6.) that fome of the kings of Eu- rope who have fo long protefted and maintained her, at length, ''Jhallhate the whore, and JJjall make her defolate and naked, andfhall eat herjiejij and burn her with fire J* That is, in plain language, Ihall detefl the Antichriftian Church they have fo long eftablilhed and upheld, ftrip her of her wealth and power, apply her revenues to civil ufes and abolifh her for ever. As the critical period approaches, I hope, and from many circumftances am induced to think it highly probable that our rulers will be found of that prudent number, and will have time- ly wifdom enough by a fpontaneous accomplillj- ment of the prediftion, at once to lighten the heavy load of debt, which now opprefles the na- tion, and avert from Great Britain fuch complica- ted evils as at prefent afflidt our unhappy neigh- bours, even the diftant view of which is fufficient to fliock the feelings of every humane heart, not hardened by the felfilh fpirit of enthufiallic bigotry or political ambition. That Mr. Simpfon's ideas of Chriftianity and mine are diametrically oppolite is fufEciently ob- vious. [ 1X7 ] vioiis. To me, the Gofpel is a new, univerial co- venant propofed by our merciful creator to influence and reform the moral conducft of mankind, and ef- fed: their welfare and happinefs, in the prefent world, to the greateft, poflible degree. On the part of man, the terms of this covenant are, tem- perance and the moderation of fenfual enjoyments within the bounds of equity and reafon, the habi- tual praftice of every focial virtue, and above allj, a conflant, affeftionate benevolence toallhis fellow creatures. On the part of God, the bleflings of his providence in this, and immortality and perfe6: happinefs in a future life, are aflured to thofe who perform the human terms of the covenant, and to none other. Such a religion as this is plain and clear and intelligible to a child : the perforrpance or non-performance of the conditions is a matter that can be fettled only between the Almighty and every man's oivn confcience •, there is, therefore, neither ufe nor room for the intervention of a prieft between them. To Mr.Simplbn, and all thofe of whofe religion the dodlrine of atonement is ihe chief corner Jionc, the Gofpel is the glad-tidings of a myfterious charm or amulet, which pre-fuppo- fing the imprafticability of a moral reformation of the world in p;eneral, and even of individuals, is fufficientiy efficacious to make a jull and perfett Jatisfatlion to the Deity for the commiflion of every fpecies of cruelty, wickednefs and immorality; and to aflure the hoary firmer, even at the laft hour of his ill-fpcnt life, of all the glorious promifes of futurity, if he can but bring himfelf, with empha- fis and due folemnity of grimace, to repeat the pre- fcribed, myftic ABRACADABRA, fccundum ar- tcm Sacerdotis. The queftion is, which of us is in [ 11^ 1 m the right ? Our own opinion certainly cannot equitably decide it ; but there is a criterion by which the world at large may fairly judge be- tween us. Was a man travelling on an expedition of the Eigheft importance to him, through any country,, in which were two roadsj the one only capable of €ondu(?cing him to his wiihed-for objedt^ whilft the other, if he once deviated into it^ would foon mif° lead him in a quite contrary direction ; he would undoubtedly rejoice to have a perfed: directory put into his hands, not only informing him how to travel in the right road, but alfo containing the fuUell ad- monition and defcriptive information of the feveral marks, by which he might diftinguiih the v/rong ; and, if he was wife, he Vt^ould fo thoroughly ac- quaint himfelf with all thofe peculiar characters;, that he might fecurely purfue his journey, certairt of being in the right road. Such a journey all men mean to travel through; the paths of their religion ; and to Chrlflians fuch a directory are the authentic fcriptures of the. two covenants^ The prophecies of thofe facred books, efpecially thofe of the New Covenant, torm that part of the dire61ory in particular, which con- tains the defcriptive marks and v/arnings by which alone we can difcern the difference between the ways of Chrift and thofe of Antichrift. He there- fore who does not fo clearly underftand that im- portant part of the diredtory, as to be able to explain and point out all thofe tokens of the fatal antichriflian deviation, which have, as yet, occur- red to the prefent and preceding ages, is fo far from being qualified to be a guide to others^ ihat he [ ^^9 3 iie can 'have no rational fatisfaftion of being in tlvc ii^ht road of Chriflianity himfelf, , . "Well convinced of this plain truth, I have long turned my ftudious attention to the meaning of the Chriliian prophecies; and have received from thenij to my own mind, the fatisfa6:c>ry intelligence thaD was to be expected. J. have already ftated to the pub- lic, what I underftand to be the objcdis of the molt, material parts of thofe prophecies; and have it now in contemplation, if the very extraordinary circum- Hances of the prefent times will permit me fafely to do fo,' to publifli a regular coniiftent explana- tion of that truly important, but ftrangely difre- garded book, the Revelation of Jefus ChriiL Let Mr, Simpfon then or any other clergyman of what- foever rank or fed:, who accufes me of error and a fiiifreprefentarion of the fcriptures, publiili a more rational, fatisfacftory interpretation of the fame pro- phecies ; fhew us that they are not completed in the objecfts to which I have applied them ; and point out to us what other religion but that of the orthodox Church of Conftantinc, in fome countries under the papal, in others under a proteftnnt form, has been eiliablifhed by the civil power above 1200 years, within that pollarchy of feparate ftates which arofe out of the ruins of the wellern empire, and did not embrace, much lefs begin to eflablifli thai- religion, in their feveral dominions, before the fixth century of the Chriliian 2era. If Mr. Simpfon will perform this, the world will fee, and I vvill readily acknowledge that, he undcrftands the facred fcrip- tures much better than I do. On the contrary, if he is unable clearly to expound thofe prophecies, as far as they have been already fulfilled, it is r.ot poffible for him to diftinguifh Chrift from Antichriftji [ I20 ] AntlcKrift ; nor to underftand that Gofpel he pre-' fumes to preach. And, if fo, to fay nothing of the datigerousj as well as illiberal, charlatanery of a man*s making a gain by profeffing to inftrudt others in a moft important fcience of which he himfelf is ignorant, his cafe is, at beft, only that of a blind leader of the blind, and to fuch the only profpe(^, that I can find, afforded in the holy fcriptures is that,* they Jlj all hoth fall into the pit. *, Ltjlce vi, 399 ?- I N I S, Pnncon Thfologic ^^/"'/""ry-Speer Library 1 1012 01115 3501 Date Due JAf 1 \ r w^ ! f