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 contradiction; 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 hath 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. б. 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 able, had the thing been false, to controvert it, the fact seems placed beyond a doubt, even on the testimony of Pagans themselves. But here Dr. F. interferes, and, because Pliny has not mentioned it, or because those Pagan records in which it was mentioned, are lost, he denies it. His purpose, in mentioning this subject, he tells us, is to prevent the effect of Bishop Watson's groundless assertions, which he does, by telling his Lordship, that both he and Mr Ferguson are ignorant, both of astronomy and chronology; that the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad, mentioned by Phlegon, is not the year of the crucifixion, in any system of chronology; in which assertion, when he thinks again, he may probably find himself wrong: that a 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

ses.

ny others equally remarkable, Mr M. will probably explain for the benefit of weak capacities, in the next edition of his book. To answer such trash, particularly, would be absurd, especially as so many able men have already fully estimated the testimony of St Paul.

Having thus COPIOUSLY and completely confuted the arguments for Christianity, Mr M. thinks it necessary to comment on some of its precepts, which he thinks excellent; and he admits (and a wonderful concession, good sirs, it is) that Jesus was the wellwisher of mankind; but he damns the praise he here and elsewhere bestows, by adding, That to promote his laudable reform, he may have gone a little out of the plain road; and that, with such intentions, a man might be tempted a little out of the common path." This Mr M. doubtless considers as excellent morality, and he seems to have made it the ground-work of his own conduct. The gospel of Christ, however, abhors, and, whatever allowance we may make for the actual failings of men, every honest man must reject such a principle. With the same strict regard to morality and just criticism, he proceeds to shew (which he attempts to do by a most absurd suppositien) how Jesus came to call himself the Son of God; and, praising his great talents, deep research, and excellent laws, he calls him the Confucius of the Jews, and com

pares him with that Eastern philosopher. One of our Lord's sayings seems to have struck our author as a great evidence of philosophic research: "I was from the beginning of all things." By which he probably means the passage where our Lord says, before Abraham was I am. John viii. 58. or he may mean the first verse of that book: In the beginning was the word, &c. for, Mr M. is not over-burdened with accuracy. Of this saying, as he has given it, he remarks, that however apparently divine, it means no more, than that, as there must have been

first cause, so he could trace himself, link by link, to that cause, and of course conclude, as any other man may, "I was from the beginning," &c. i. e. human life and human reason have existed from the beginning of their first creation. How astonishingly sublime does this saying appear, when accompanied with this new and incomparable explanation! He next proceeds to calumniate the Bible in toto, and to assert, that it is the cause of all our vices and misfortunes; and he proceeds to declaim against the civil, as well as the religious polity of Europe; and it appears, from his rambling assertions, (for there is no argument) that it is the authority, which he calls imperious, of those institutions which chiefly galls this astonishing philosopher. Having condemned the conduct of society, and proposed remedies, he takes leave of Bb

revelation by again abusing it, by asserting, "that the day of its eternal dissolution is approaching, when even the Church of England must acknowledge her errors ;" and, with much modesty, he denominates all those, who believe the truth and force of miracles, the slaves of sloth. In his progress, he concludes, that the laws of nature, and even the human race, though proceeding from God, are independent of him; that God himself cannot for a moment suspend the laws of nature; and that the freedom of man renders it impossible and unnecessary for any person to be either a prophet, or performer of miracles. He next proceeds to give us an account of his own creed, which, however sublime it may appear to philosophers to be, is little calculated for general use; and again turning to the Bible, he concentrates in two or three pages, by way of farewell, as much scurrility against that book, and some characters in it, as these pages can well hold. To retail these blasphemous abuses, would be to partake of the guilt of the author; yet, if, instead of rude and impertinent assertions, these pages had contained any argument, I should have endeavoured to have met it fairly. But, to a man who rudely asserts, without adducing any certain reasons, considering positive evidence, that the religion of Moses, (who he asserts, p. 89. could probably not write his own name) and those

or