pressions, which seem to intimate strongly, the author had forgotten the passages above cited. (See p. 219 and sequel.)

The great point, however, as we have seen, is morality. "Moral good is the greatest good.' This proposition is discussed "theologically and philosophically." (p. 340-400.) This is the point in which the fanaties (alias Methodists) are declared to be chiefly faulty. They, alas" imagine that a very small share of moral purity will suffice for their salvation." (p. 175.)-I shall therefore conclude with some specimens of our christian philosopher's moral system.

We have seen above, that a "few venial and transient errors" such as a sober man," being "accidentally drunk," &c. make no material abatements in a life of righteousness," provided the man be not a methodist ; but the following passage will perhaps surprize those that are unacquainted

with the sublime ethics of the "Anticalvinist."

"A man may, indeed, deviate from the laws of his animal nature, he may be guilty of excess in eating and drinking, and in criminal_pleasures, and which may have a direct influence on his present physical good; but he may not be conscious, at the time, that he is doing any thing morally wrong; and therefore, the act, not being a wilful breach of any moral obligation, may have no connection with his condition in another life. It may not be a transgression for which he will be called to account; for a man may offend against those laws, by which a due moderation of all the appetites is made subservient to his present interest, without know. ing that he is sinning against the will of a superior power, which it is his duty to obey; and therefore the transgression, though it may be physically injurious, may not be morally destructive; though it may, from the natural association of cause and effect, be hurtful to the body in this world, it may not affect the state of the soul in the next." p. 344.

"Bravissimo!" thou sublime Christian philosopher; so then gluttony, drunkenness, and debauchery, may be innocently committed, and not num

WHILE your Abstract and Epi

tome assist your readers to form their own opinions of publications, I am glad to observe, from the tenor of the pieces inserted in your original department, that the support of genuine Christianity is your aim. It appears, therefore, not unsuitable to your plan to admit of needful cautions against those insinuations to the prejudice of the Scriptures, which abound in some periodical publications of the present day.

Of these none is to be compared, for subtilty or effrontery, with the Monthly Magazine: and of all the papers in which it has attempted the subversion of Christianity, numerous and various as they have been, none seems to me more remarkable, than (what the editor calls) the "half yearly retrospect of domestic literature," in the Supplementary Number published last January: a more suitable title might have been, "Criticism run mad." Its extravagance, throughout, implies some disorder in the brain of the writer, either natural or incidental. Take, as a specimen, his concluding paragraph.

"But I am spinning out pratewithout the leisure to splice its incoherence-to tinge it with ornamental colouring-to braid it into connection with the pamphlet to which it is at

tached-or to clip off its fag ends the imps of Faustus tug!”

So ends the critical dissertation, by which we are to be guided in judging the merits of works on every topic published in England during the fast half year, and by which we are expected to decide against the evidences of christianity; yet there is mean ing in this madness. No complaint expressed in the passage I have quoted is ungrounded, except that relative to ornamental colouring. Of colour ing, there is a redundancy, but perhaps not strictly ornamental.

From this curious production, it appears that infidelity is seriously alarmed, lest all classes of christians should combine for its extirpation. I refer to a paragraph, much too long for citation, strangely placed under the article of Dr. Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. With out dwelling upon that paragraph, or upon others in which infidelity rears its head unmasked, I beg leave to point out one passage, which was doubtless intended to advance the same object in the minds of persons,, of some literary knowledge, whose inclination to scepticism would render absurdities palatable. The writer appears to have suspected that his Rosinuations would be too gross to be generally understood, without exciting a disgust that might endanger the cause he had at heart. For this reason I shall attempt to unfold them.

In characterising Wrangham's thirteen practical Sermons, the reviewer erves, that "the life of St. Peter s by no means well understood." He adds, "It is probable that the Simon mentioned by Josephus (19 Ant. 7. 4.) is the Peter of Acts; that he was im prisoned by the zeal of Herod, and released by the tolerance of Agrippa; and that the narrative contained in the 12th chapter of Acts, is, in fact, the very anecdote of Josephus. If so, it throws light on the mode of rarration adopted by the apostolic writers."

The passage in the antiquities here referred to, I will give in Whiston's translation, as I find it sufficiently

accurate.

"There was a certain man, of the Jewish nation, at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an sembly, while the king was absent

at Cesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holy, and that he might justly be excluded out of the Temple, since it belonged only to native Jews. But the general of Agrippa's army informed him that Simon had made such a speech to the people. So the king seut for him, and as he was then sitting in the the atre, he bid him sit down by him, and said to him with a fow and gentle voice, "What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law But he had nothing to say for himself, but begged his pardon. So the king was more easily reconciled to him than one could have imagined, as esteeming mildness a better quality in a king than anger, and knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion. So he made Simon a small present, and dismissed him."

I intreat each of your readers to take the first opportunity of turning to the 12th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and of reading it with attention. Herod, there spoken of, is the same person whom Josephus calls Agrippa; but his conduct toward the apostles was diametrically opposite to that described in the account I have cited, and the circumstances related are entirely different. If, therefore, "the narrative contained in the Acts, be in fact the very anecdote of Josephus," and we are to consider the latter as throwing light on the mode of narration adopted by the, apostolic writers, the unavoidable inference is, that their mode of narration is fictitious, calumnious, and blasphe=" mous!

This instance, however, sufficiently illustrates the mode of representation adopted by the Monthly Magazine concerning matters which affect the truth of christianity. Whom the reviewer meant by Herod, as contrasted with Agrippa, I know not. The only person of that name, beside Agrippa, who ever reigned in Jerusalem, had been dead more than forty years before the latter came to the throne. The writer therefore appears to be as ignorant of Jewish History as of the truth of Christianity.

I am, SIR,

Yours, &c. DIEREUNETES.

MODERN RULES OF CRITICISM,

OR

MR. EDITOR,

so T being so many years since the

Bible was published, it may easily be supposed the translators were not Christians of the modern stamp, hence the necessity of a new translation to keep pace with the late improvements in Christianity, and hence the difficulty that rational Christians have found to make the vulgar believe that their scheme is founded on the Scriptures. For the use of such I beg leave to offer a few hints, by the aid of which the most troublesome texts may be easily got rid of, and any passage whatever made to harmonize with the most refined and modern systems. 1. The simplest and most easy method, is to make a small alteration in the punctuation. Sometimes the mere removal of a comma, or the insertion of one, may have great effect: for instance, when our Lord says to the dying thief, "Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise;" this appears to imply the doctrine of a separate intermediate state; whereas ouly remove the comma a little further, and you get rid of the objection in a moment- Verily, I say unto thee to-day,-thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

But the most useful of all the points or stops, is that "little crooked thing that always asks questions"-the note of interrogation, by which you may often turn the tables on an adversary most completely; ex. gr. when it is said of Christ, In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," add a note of interrogation, and your question clearly has the force of a direct negation. But this method must be used sparingly, and with caution.

2. A very slight change in the order of words, or the insertion of the simple verb be, will often wonderfully improve a text-ex. gr. Instead of "He thought it no robbery to be equal with God," read, with Dr. Clarke and others "He thought not of the robbery, to be equal with God. In the following text insert be" who is over all, God be blessed for ever!"

the Greek too if you take in all the senses in which words are used by the classic authors.

4. When this fails, you may have recourse to various readings, of which you will find a great variety in Kennicott and de Rossi on the Old Testament, and in Mill and Wetstein on the New. To the various readings of the text you may add those of the versions, which are still more numerous, and if none of these suit your purpose, you have another resource,

5. Conjectural emendations; this indeed can hardly fail, as you may conjecture any thing; and Houbigant, Bowyer, &c. will furnish a rich variety of examples; only, in general hit upon a word as similar as you can to the present in letters and sound; for the less remarkable the alteration, the more easily will it generally be admitted. Though it is hardly possible all these methods should fail— yet, for the sake of variety, I shall subjoin two or three others.

6. Study the doctrine of metaphors, and consider their frequent and liberal use in all Asiatic writers, this will help you through many difficulties: for instance, is any expression too strong for your purpose, call it an hyperbole, or does it seem to imply Some antique notion call it a bold eastern figure; thus the Spirit of God may be reduced to high wind, or a hurricane, as Dr. Hurdis calls it.

7. If the difficulty does not rest in a word or two, but in a whole passage, or a considerable part of one, see if you cannot find some ground to suspect an interpolation of the whole or part. Does no ancient father omit some part in quoting --And does not another who should have quoted it, omit the whole? Nay, is not the book itself of doubtful "authority? Was not its authenticity denied or doubted by some early writers, or some ancient council?

Lastly, Your grand coup de main is still reserved: Suppose none of the above methods altogether satisfies, then you may consider: 1. Whether the Old Testament is any essential part of Revelation (except the pro

phecies) or whether it be not a collection of Hebrew records of uncertain date; and of the poetical exercises of some pious persons-inspired only by devotion, or by the Muses. The New Testament you may divide into two classes, historical and epistolary. In the former are comprehended the Gospels and the Acts, which were the composition of good, but fallible men, who chiefly wrote from memory, and were therefore very liable to mistakes. The Epistles you may consider only as the private correspondence of the Apostles, in which is a great deal of bad Greekof false logic, and enthusiastic rant -which last character particularly applies to the Apocalypse. And now, Sir, with these rules before us, I think we may fairly bid defiance to all the impertinence of dogmatists and enthusiasts, and with the greatest ease explain away any text in all the Bible.

Yours, &c.

MENTOR.

Remarks on the Monthly Review.

SIR,

IN looking over the Monthly Re

66

view for last January, my curiosity was particularly excited to read the critique on Dr. Priestley's last performance, which I had lately perused with a kind of disappointed pleasure, and was now a second time disappointed in the perusal of this Review-though I cannot say so agreeably. The pamphlet of Dr. P. bere alluded to, is an Enquiry into the Knowledge of the antient Ilebrew concerning a future state, in which I was gratified to find (contrary to my expectation) that the Dr. takes the affirmative side of the question in opposition to the author of "The divine Legation:" the Reviewer, however, who appears to be Warburtonian, can see no evidence in the Author's proofs, and no force in his arguments; though both appear to be much more simple, clear, and forcible than I have met with in his former works. The Reviewer charges the philosopher with arguing on “presumption and improbabilities," because he asserts that the doctrines of a future state composed part of the

ancient creed of most nations, and thinks it extremely improbable, therefore, that the Hebrews should be ignorant of it, especially as the general tradition appear to have been derived from their ancestors-the Patriarchs. "Is it at all probable (he asks) that the nation which has been most favoured with divine Revelations, should be more ignorant of this most important of all truths than any other people?" p. 4.

To me this question appears very forcible, and the absurdity implied in its negative extreme. The Dr. how. ever, does not in this case rest on pro babilities. Contrary to his usual me thod, he argues fairly and plainly from a variety of Scriptures, to which, in this case he allows a weight and authority which, in other cases, he is indeed too reluctant to admit.

Among the arguments he insists upon and supports with pertinent texts of Scripture, the following struck me as peculiarly forcible:

"The absolute assurances of the final happiness of the righteous, and of the certain destruction of the wick ed, which are frequent in the scriptures of the Old Testament, could not have been given in any consistency with the frequent complaints of the prosperous condition of the wicked, and the sufferings of the righteous in this life, without a view to a state of recompence." (p. 20.) See Ps. lxxiii. throughout.

Dr. P. also argues with great effect from the following passages, which speak evidently of a resurrection of the body, certainly implying a future state both of rewards and punishment. See Is. xxvi. 19.-lxvi. 17.xlix. 16. Ezek. xxxvii. 12. Dan. xii. Ps. xvi. 10.-xlix. 14.-lxxi. 20. Jub xiii. 15.-xiv. 7.—xix. 23, &c.

I do not mean, however, to give an unqualified approbation to the whole of the Doctor's pamphlet, in which are some strong insinuations against a future state, &c. but I think it is much to be regretted that the least exceptionable of all his works, should be the most objected against in this celebrated Review.

Before I conclude, I beg leave to present your readers with the concluding paragraph from the preface, which bears the signiture of T. L.

"The editor begs leave only to add, that perhaps it may be of importance