testified, contrary to one of Mr. P.'s bold assertions, that the book then existed, and was generally received as authentick and divine.

Again, if a type and the antitype; the prophecy and its fulfilment, actually and exactly accord; as the proper key opens the lock which has the greatest variety and intricacy of wards; the word picklock will never convince a reflecting man, that they were not intended for each other.

The Acts of the Apostles.

Mr. P. says 'this book is anonymous, and anecdotal.' Yet it is an avowed appendix to Luke's gospel, and inscribed to the same person, Theophilus. (Luke i, 3 ; Acts i, 1.) Mr. P. indeed numbers Luke among the apostles, and supposes, that he must have been present with them, when our Lord is reported to have met them : but in this, as in numerous other instances, he only betrays his own ignorance, and inexcusable carelessness. Luke was not an apostle; and he states that he received his account from those "who were eye-witnesses.'

(Luke i, 2.)

But this book is of far more importance in the argument, than Mr. P. would be thought to assign to it. For it gives us a most distinct and probable account of an undeniable fact, namely, the establishment of the religion of Jesus, after his crucifixion, in opposition to all the learning and ignorance, the false religion and irreligion, the proud philosophy, and the licentious manners of the world, by the labours of a few poor fishermen, and others of obscure rank in life, by no other arms, than preaching, prayer, example, and patient persevering labours and sufferings.

One most extraordinary circumstance also attends this narrative, that there is no other history extant which can be substituted in its place: so that an event productive of far more extensive and permanent consequences, than any other on record, took place in a manner of which no account has been transmitted to posterity, if this history be rejected. Neither Jewish priests nor scribes, nor Gentile philosophers, historians, or moralists, ever at

tempted to write a history of the first establishment of Christianity, in order to confront that contained in this book. The things here recorded " were not done in a "corner." Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Antioch, Ephesus, nay Rome itself, and the whole civilized world, was the theatre on which they were publickly exhibited, in the full view of powerful and vehement opposers: the fact that the religion of the crucified Nazarene was widely and immoveably established, was and is undeniable: yet what other original history exists, or ever existed that we know of, concerning the manner in which this was effected, except The Acts of the Apostles?

Yeti

Mr. P. denies the conversion of Saul to have been miraculous. Does he then mean, that "the light above "the brightness of the sun;""the voice calling to Saul "by name in the Hebrew tongue;" and saying, "I am "Jesus whom thou persecutest;" with all the other circumstances on record concerning that event, may be accounted for as the effects of a flash of lightning? he knows nothing of the fact, but from the apostle's own narration of it. Would not his companions have contradicted that narration, if it had not been true? And were not his subsequent labours and sufferings in the cause a demonstration of his own full conviction, that the whole was wrought by the power of the risen and glorified Jesus?

Mr. P. objects to Paul's testimony to Christ, because " he was a zealot;' in other words, because he spake and acted as a man in earnest, who fully believed the testimony which he delivered. He was zealous: but his most vehement zeal was reasonable, prudent, gentle, loving, and patient; the fire of love to God and man. 'Besides all the proofs of the Christian religion, which may be 'drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connexion it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence of his resurrection by all the other apostles, I think the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul alone, 'duly considered, is, of itself, a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation.' Lord Lyttleton. This is the opinion, not of a priest, or a

prophet, but of a learned and highly respectable nobleman; and established by arguments, which it would be far more easy to ridicule than to answer.

The Epistles of St. Paul.

Mr. P. seems to have very slightly examined this most important part of Scripture, for he scarcely notices any thing in it, except the apostle's discourse concerning the resurrection.

If,' says he,' I have already died, and am raised again in the same body, it is presumptive evidence I shall die again.' Now our Lord's answer to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of "God," clearly meets all cavils of this kind. When, however, the Apostle says, "We shall all be changed.-The "dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be "changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, "and this mortal must put on immortality," (1 Cor. xv, 51-54.) he, as if by anticipation, more directly answers it.

Mr. P. says, 'I should prefer a better body, with a more convenient form;' and he thinks that every animal has the advantage of us. Probably, most of those, who have deeply considered the subject, whatever their creed may be, will widely differ from him, on this point; and think that the human form, and especially the hands, give man a most decided advantage over all animals, and fit him to rule over them. We have, however, such bodies, as it has pleased the Creator to give us; and presumption, irreverence, and ingratitude, as inconsistent with sober Deism, as with Christianity, are prominent in the statement. In another world also, we shall exist, according to the good pleasure of God, whatever we might choose or prefer.

The Apostle says, to a presumptuous objector, "Thou "fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it "die:" and he illustrates his doctrine by the case of seeds perishing in the earth, yet springing up and producing an increase of the same kind, (1 Cor. xv, 35-38.) Mr. P. retorts repeatedly on the Apostle his own words, and calls him, FOOL; involving our Lord himself in the same charge. John xii, 24. To discuss the subjects connected with this illustration, would require far more room, than can here

be allowed: suffice it to say, that death is not ceasing to exist, as Mr. P.'s argument implies, or requires; but ceasing to exist in the former manner, which is sufficient for the Apostle's purpose of illustration.

Your abuse of holy men and holy things will be remem'bered, when your arguments against them are refuted, or forgotten. You call Moses an arrogant coxcomb, a '' chief assassin;' Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, David, 'monsters and impostors;' the Jewish kings a parcel of rascals;' Jeremiah, and the rest of the prophets, 'liars,' and St. Paul, a fool;' for having written one of the 'sublimest compositions, and on the most important sub'jects, that ever occupied the mind of man.' Bp. Watson. Will any man, after a few minutes' reflection, think such language as is here brought together, from Mr. P.'s book, to be that of an impartial enquirer after divine truth ?

The rest of the epistolary writings are passed over, with the same neglect, as he has shewn to the minor prophets; except an insinuation, that they were forged. I suppose he was either weary himself, or afraid of wearying his readers, by endless repetitions of the same sarcasms, revilings, and blasphemous mockery; and did not readily see how to vary any further the method of exhibiting it, with amusive appearance of novelty. The charge of forgery will come in our way in another place. The whore of Babylon', says Mr. P. has been the common whore of all the 'priests, and each has accused the other of keeping the strumpet.' This poor attempt to be witty, is intended, I suppose, as his refutation of the Revelation of St. John: for he advances nothing else on the subject, except an assertion, that it is a book of riddles, which requires a reve'lation to explain it. Yet the prophecies, contained in this book, which have been already fulfilled, amount to a complete moral demonstration, that it is the word of God.

F 2

BOOK THE SECOND.

CHAP. I.

Revelation.

I SHALL now proceed, very briefly, to call the reader's

attention to several leading subjects, which are not peculiar to any part of Scripture; and to meet the detached thoughts of Mr. P. on each of them, with such remarks as seem most suitable to clear away the perplexity, with which he has attempted to involve them.

Revelation, (says he) when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God 'to man.' This definition may be admitted, as it respects the revelation made to prophets, and apostles: but it is calculated, and intended, to convey the sentiment, that no revelation can be made from God to man in general, by the intervention of either prophets or apostles; but must all remain and die with them; for he is confident that God cannot enable the man, who first receives this communication, to authenticate it to another person, so as to render belief of it a duty. This is a strange and most presumptuous position. Men in general are able to send messages and letters by servants, or in other ways; to give all needful assurance to those at a distance, from whom the letter or message comes; and to render it incumbent on them, if inferiors, to act as those who believe it. I can make my will, and so attest it, that after my death all concerned shall be satisfied that it was my act and deed, and deem themselves and each other, bound to act according it: and yet the omnipotent and eternal God cannot make known his will, by the intervention of any messenger. Is this the language of the age of reason? Mr. P. gives another definition of Revelation. It is a 'communication of what a man did not know before:'