It has been much the custom with unbelievers, fuch as Voltaire, &c. to divert themselves and their readers with the hiftory of the Jews, with fome of the peculiarities of their religion, and especially with their ftupidity, obftinacy, and ignorance, compared with the more polished nations of antiquity. But it has been without confidering that all thefe latter charges are highly unfavourable to their own object in advancing them, if it be admitted (which furely cannot be denied) that Jews, ftupid and ignorant as they have been, were nevertheless men, and not a fpecies of beings totally different from that of other men. For it is obvious to remark, that so obftinate and intractable as unbelievers defcribe them to have been (as indeed their own history fhews that they were), it must have been peculiarly difficult to impofe upon them, with respect to any thing to which they were exceedingly averfe. Alfo, from a people fo unpolished and ignorant, so far behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, we should not naturally expect doctrines and fentiments fuperior to any thing of the kind that we find in the most improved nations. And yet the bare infpection of their writings proves that, with respect to religion, and the doctrines concerning God, and providence, the Jews were in a high degree knowing, and all other nations ignorant and barbarous. In these refpects, therefore, the Jews must have been poffeffed of advantages fuperior to those of other nations; and if these advantages were not natural, they must have been of the fupernatural kind.' Concerning the nature of the Jewish religion, our Author remarks, that it poffeffed a fuperiority over all other religions in the ancient world, both with refpect to its object, and its moral tendency, which is only to be accounted for, by fuppofing the reality of thofe divine interpofitions which are recorded in the Jewish Scriptures. Without this fuppofition, he maintains it to be impoffible to explain the conduct of Abraham in abandoning the religion of his country, and of the Ifraelites in relinquishing the rites of Egypt, and adopting a religion and ceremonies of fo very different a nature. The miracles related in the Jewish hiftory were, he remarks, wonderfully calculated to lead the Ifraelites to the knowledge and worship of the one true God, and to preserve them from idolatry; and the truth of the miraculous facts introduced into this hiftory, fupply the only poffible hypothefis to account for the reft. The fame method of reafoning is applied, ftill more at large, to establish the truth of the miraculous facts related in the New Teftament: According to the tenor of these writings, there were thousands of Jews in Jerufalem itself, as well as great numbers in other places, who became Chriftians, in confequence of entertaining no doubt concerning the truth of the miracles, the death, and refurrection of Chrift, and alfo the miracles wrought by the apoftles afterwards. The facts were fuch as no perfon then living expected, fo as to be previously prepared to receive; and the converts were fo far from gaining any thing by their belief, that they were thereby exposed to every poffible inconvenience, lofs of property, difgrace, every Gode of torture, and death. Paul himself was at the first a zealous persecutor of the Chriftians, and had the greatest profpect of preferment and advantage from perfifting in his oppofition to them. Yet even be was fo fully convinced of the truth of Chriftianity, and was fo fenfible of the importance of it, that he became one of its moft zealous preachers, and for a period of about thirty years, he actually went through the greatest labours and hardships in the propagation of the gofpel, uniformly declaring that he had no expectation of any thing better in this life; and at length he, together with innumerable others, who had the fame perfuafion, cheerfully laid down his life, rather than abandon his profeffion. Now what kind of beings muft the writers of the Gofpels and of the Book of Acts have been, and what kind of beings must have been the thousands of that generation who received their accounts as true, and especially at fuch a rifk (which abundantly implies that they had every motive for making enquiry, and fatisfying themselves concerning the facts), if, after all, there was no truth in the accounts? What fhould we think of a fet of writers, who should uniformly relate, that in the war of 1755, the French completely conquered all North America, the whole of Ireland, and a great part of EngJand, which at length was reduced to be a province of France? Would it be poffible for a thousand fuch writers to gain the least credit? or, if they did, would not the tens of thousands, who well knew that the story was very far from being true, and that the prefent ftate of things proves it to be fo, fay, that they were under fome strange infatuation; and if, in a course of time, such histories fhould gain any credit, would there not be many more writers to confute the account, and would not the truth foon prevail over all the arts of falfehood? We may therefore fafely conclude, that fince the history of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, and also that of the miracles wrought by the Apoftles, was received as true by fuch numbers of perfons in the age in which they were published, and the account was never confuted, but Chriftianity kept gaining ground from that time to the prefent, the great facts on which its credit ftands were unquestionably true. A falfehood of this nature could never have been propagated as this was. They who first received those books must have been previously acquainted with the history which they contained. The hiftories were, in fact, an appeal to the evidence of thofe into whofe hands they were put, and their reception of them is the most exprefs fanction that could be given to them. That the hiftory of Chrift and the Apoftles could not have established itself without the most rigid enquiry into its truth, is evident from the perfecution of Chriftians, which began immediately after its firft promulgation, and in Jerufalem itself, the very scene of the tranfactions. In these circumstances men had every motive, and every opportunity, for enquiring whether they facrificed their reputation, their properties, and their lives, for an idle tale, or for a truth of the greatest certainty and importance. All these things being confidered, it appears to me that no facts, in the whole compass of hiftory, are fo well authenticated as thofe of the miracles, the death, and and the refurrection of Christ, and also what is related of the Apostles in the Book of Acts.' Dr. Priestley continues the argument, with great perfpicuity and force, with refpect to the narrative of the refurrection of Chrift, the converfion of St. Paul, and the miracles wrought by the Apostles. He next undertakes to affign fatisfactory reasons, why thefe great events did not produce a more general conviction of the divine authority of Chrift. This he imputes to the want of attention, or the bias of prejudice. Many perfons, he obferves, admitted the facts, without deducing the conclufion, fuppofing that the miracles were wrought by the power of demons or by magic. The progrefs of Chriftianity, he maintains, was as rapid, as, confidering the circumftances of thofe to whom it was proposed, and the hardships to which its profeffors were expofed, could reasonably be expected. The effential points of difference between the evidence of the truth of Judaism and Chriftianity, and that of other religions, are in the next place diftinctly marked; and a particular stress is very reasonably laid on the circumftance, that other religions have been built upon mere tradition, but these upon historical records, written at the time when these religions were first established, and liable to a ftrict examination both by friends and foes. Still farther to obviate the objection to the divine origin of Chriftianity, drawn from the difficulty with which it was received by the Heathens, it is fhewn, from the clearest historical proofs, that Chriftianity found them ftrongly attached to their own religion, and that this attachment remained long after the introduction of the Chriftian system. A particular detail of the objections urged against Christianity in early times, and a detection of the unfair means which the Author thinks Mr. Gibbon ufes to invalidate the teftimony of the first Chriftians, concludes this work. However hoftile Dr. Priestley may be toward the Monthly Review, regardless of the little bickerings which have happened between us, we do not hesitate to recommend thefe Letters to the serious attention of all, who wish to form a rational judgment on the fubject, and particularly of those who come under the description of philosophical unbelievers. ART. VI. Poems, chiefly on Slavery and Oppreffion. With Notes and Illuftrations. By Hugh Mulligan. 4to. 5s. fewed. Lowndes. 1788. MR R. Mulligan is to be efteemed as the Poet of Humanity; nor are his literary pretenfions confined to the benevolence of his fpirit, and the choice of his themes. He has a fruitful and and fervid imagination; and his numbers are, for the most part, harmonious. Sometimes he gives us a faulty line, and a bad rhyme; but we can eafily forgive little defects, for the fake of his good fentiments, and the general merit of his compofitions. His first four pieces are Eclogues, formed on a very extenfive plan. No. 1. is styled American: in this piece, a Negroe flave bewails his hard fate, from the lofs of his liberty, and his being subjected to a cruel task-mafter. In the 2d, which is an Afiatic Eclogue, two young ladies of rank lament the defolation of their country, by the rapacity of thofe ruthless robbers, the Chriftians. The 3d is European, fcene Ireland: the fubject is, the poverty and wretchedness of the oppreffed natives, in confequence of which they are driven to emigration. The 4th defcribes two African lovers, deploring the mifery and horrors brought on their country by the flave trade. After thefe Eclogues, we have a variety of poetical pieces, among which, are • Six tinted Sketches' of the months of February, April, June, Auguft, October, and December. In thefe defcriptive pieces, we meet with agreeable sketches [juftly fo entitled] of the natural productions, rural amusements, and various employments, by which the different feafons are diftinguished. We are next presented with feveral lyric compofitions, the laft of which is An Ode to Fancy; and this we have selected as a specimen : Delufive Fancy! whither, fay, Haft thou thine artless vot'ry led, Or freeze 'midft frigid Zembla's fnow; Thou canft waft the willing foul Quick from Indus to the Pole; High hold'st thou up thy glow-worm torch to folly Heard'st thou not the voice of anguish Mark Mark each bold, each manly deed. Now lighter airs float on the gale, Quaintly there with fports and pleasures, While the regent of the night Pours full-orb'd her borrow'd light: Big with feats in days of yore, Hark! thy love-born nymphs complain; Now fee Gothic domes arife, Puiffant knights in armour fhine! Hark! the filver trumpets found, Each beftrides his foaming steed Shouts of victory astound! Beauty now is valour's meed. d; Thou giv'ft the charge, and Arthur cries to arms, Borne on thy gilded plumes, the mufes fing Of youthful graces, join'd with smiling love; Reft on beds of new-blown flow'rs. I Still |