count, therefore, as a trick, and an impos-ture, he returns to the miraculous conception, and then passes on to the crucifixion, which he compares with the poisoning of Socrates by the Athenians.-He next proceeds to the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, the arguments for which (the strongest that were ever afforded for any fact) he does not take time to consider; but he opposes the whole, by what he calls a parallel case accommodated to his own taste, and, in passing, he bestows two sentences of confutation on all the other miracles of Jesus Christ. As he proceeds he tell his right reverend opponent, that he can only expect that he should shut up that part of his Lordship's book, where the fable of the resurrection is defended; and that his astonishment is increased at every line he reads on the subject; which every body must allow, is a most convincing mode of argument. Then passing over what he calls the acknowledged mistake of John and Mark, respecting the hour of the crucifixion, as immaterial, he says, "We have only to regret, that so good a man should have fallen a victim to so base a party." It would have been well if he had told us to what party our Lord fell a victim ;-if he means the apostles and his other followers, it would have been worth his while (hurried, though he appears to : have been, when he wrote this part of hiswork) to have reflected that our Lord-was

he chief and director of them all, and that he fell a willing victim for the sins of men. He next proceeds to refute the account of the miraculous darkness, which, together with that of the sun standing still in the time of Joshua, he declares to be totally inconsistent with the unrevoked declaration made by God himself, after the flood: "while the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease :”—Such quibbling nonesense is beneath contempt, and can only be equalled by what he says. in another place, on the 1st verse of Genesis, respecting the assertion there made, that the earth, when first created, was without form and void; which the merest school-boy, who had read Ovid's first fable, could not misunderstand, and which, however inaccurate the translation may be esteemed, by so accurate a linguist, evidently means, that it was a rude mass, a chaos not yet reduced to order, the sea not retired to its proper bed, and the dry land not decorated with plants, nor occupied by animals. But St Mark and St Luke, our author tells us, (p. 246 and 247) mentiom nothing respecting the darkness the renting of the veil of the temple; and,. triumphing not a little on their supposed silence, he asserts, that it could only proceed from their ignorance or disbelief of it. Let us enquire whether this statement be accurate. St. Matthew, chap. 27th, ver. 45

66

66

has these words: "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour;" and in verse 51, &c. he says, " and behold the veil of the temple. was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, &c. St. Mark, chap. 15th, verse 33d, has these words: "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour;" and in verse 38 are these words: " and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;" St Luke, chap. 23d, ver. 44. 45. writes thus: " and it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Mr M. represents himself as a sincere enquirer after truth, and assumes the character of an honest and upright man. Under this mask he comes forward as an opponent of Christianity, and under this mask he would persuade the people of this country to renounce their reli-. gion. I will leave it to you, gentlemen, nay, I will leave it to himself, to determine, whether a man, capable of making such open and avowed. misrepresentations of a book in every body's hands, is worthy of any credit; or, whether he deserves not be. branded as an open enemy to truth, honour and honesty. But the strongest evidence of the falsity of what he calls Matthew's

accounts, he says, is, that nothing of the kind was ever observed, nor consequently did it happen. But if any credit were due to this man's assertions, we might say, in reply, what has been often and justly argued, that silence does not imply contra diction; and that silence, in enemies, rather implies consent, or at least inability to confute what has been asserted on the other side. But there is a tradition not improbeble, that Apollophanes and Dionysius the Areopagite, observed this wonderful eclipse in Egypt, and that the latter exclaimed: "Either the Deity suffereth, or bath sympathy with that which suffereth." And though this report may be doubted, it is certain that Lucian Martyr, a presbyter of Antioch, challenging the Heathens on this very subject, used these words: "Requirite in annalibus vestris, invenietis, temporibus Pilati, Christo patiente, fugato sole, interruptum tenebris diem." Euseb. Lib. 9. Hist. Eccles. cap. 6. A challenge not likely to be made, if the case had not been so; for Christians had; and still have, a little more regard to character, than Mr M. seems to have. Tertullian, in the 21st chapter of his apology, makes a similar appeal to his opponents, referring likewise to their public records; and a passage is quoted by Eusebius from Phlegon, in which both the darkness and the earthquake are mentioned. 'With such, and numerous other appeals, directly

and openly made, and never controverted by those who were most inclined and best ble, had the thing been false, to controvert t-the fact seems placed beyond a doubt, even on the testimony of Pagans themselves. But here Dr. F. interferes, and, because Pliny as not mentioned it, or because those Pagan records in which it was mentioned, are ost, he denies it. His purpose, in mentionng this subject, he tells us, is to prevent he effect of Bishop Watson's groundless asertions, which he does, by telling his Lordhip, that both he and Mr Ferguson are igorant, both of astronomy and chronology; hat the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad, nentioned by Phlegon, is not the year of he crucifixion, in any system of chronology; n which assertion, when he thinks again, le may probably find himself wrong: that 1 comet might have occasioned the darkness, if it did happen, and by referring to the prodigies at the death of Cæsar :-By all which, and other similar assertions, it

would

appear that this wonderful philosopher does not always think seriously before he determines, nor reflect, that what he blames in another, cannot be fair in himself; and that, though he might prove that no natural eclipse took place at the period of the crucifixion, he will not, by such proof, annihilate the belief of a supernatural darkness, testified by credible witnes

Bes.