the latter. Some men, fays our Author, of the prefent age, have fhewn an exceffive fondness for abftract fpeculations, and have made use of them to purposes, that, in the judgment of the wife and the candid, muft prove highly detrimental to the credit of philofophy. They have ingenioufly spun thin cobwebs of fophiftry, which are defigned to involve every thing in doubt, and, by this captious and perplexed kind of philofophy, they have meant to affume an impofing air of depth and acutenefs, which has deluded many fuperficial minds. The late Mr. HUME is exhibited by our author as an eminent proficient in this He was deeply fkilled in all the myfteries of it, and is clear from any fufpicion of defiring to depreciate it: yet he, himself, has deftroyed its credit in effect; for he confeffed and proved, that the principles which led him to deny the divine origin of Chriftianity, would equally lead him to unhinge the whole fabric of Nature, and to controvert the plaineft conclufions of rea fon and common fenfe.' This is, indeed, a rare kind of philofophy! It puts us in mind of thofe lines of mad Tom Lee*, Let there be no light,-no-not one fpark,

But Gods meet Gods, and joftle in the dark.

The fecond Differtation in this volume is written by Mr. J. F. LENTZ. This Gentleman confiders the question proposed as confined to the New Teftament, and he enters on the difcuffion of it by obferving, that two diftinct ideas are implied in that of a revelation; one of doctrines revealed, which conftitute its contents; and another of the divine origin of thefe doctrines; or, in the prefent cafe, that they were revealed from God by Chrift. One he calls the truth, the other, the divinity of revelation; and obferves that, if we deny the latter, we deftroy the idea of a revelation, and leave only a fyftem of philofophical truths.

These two ideas ought to be feparately confidered, as they refer to different objects, which depend on different kinds of ́evidence. The former relates to metaphyfical and moral truths, the latter, to hiftorical facts. The grounds of certainty, with refpect to the former, are the fame with thofe of all other philofophical propofitions, and muft depend on their internal truth, and their not involving contradictory ideas. This evidence, our Author obferves, must be fought in the propofitions themselves, and in their relation to each other, as it is totally independent on all external circumftances. With regard to the other part of revelation, the evidence is of a different nature: a perfon who afferts a divine commiffion, cannot give a more fatisfactory proof

* On recollection, we believe poor Nat. Lee's name was not Tom. We are forry for it. For once, however, let it ftand, ' Mad Tom.'

of

of its reality, than by performing miracles, which are fuch extraordinary facts as bear the cleareft evidence of an immediate interpofition of the Deity. These must afford immediate conviction to his contemporaries, who are witneffes of them; and their faithful and authentic history of thefe facts, is the only proof that pofterity can require.

M. LENTZ lays great ftrefs on the internal evidence of Chriftianity, and thinks that on this the authority of the Gospel, with refpect to us, entirely depends; as no miracles can render that true which is in itself falfe. He fays, if the philofopher should be able to prove that the doctrines of Chriftianity are not internally true, that they are contradictory in themselves, and inconfiftent with the dictates of found reafon, and with our natural ideas of God and religion, he might fafely conclude that the miracles, urged in fupport of them, are mere fictions; it being certain that the Deity will never give the fanction of his authority to eftablifh falfehood.

In order to fhew that true philofophy does not tend to undermine the internal evidence of Chriftianity, our Author takes a particular view of what he conceives to be the effential and fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. This furvey is preceded by fome preparatory obfervations that deferve attention, the substance of which we shall lay before our readers.

The final caufe of a revelation can be no other than the general end propofed by the Deity in all his dealings with mankind. It must be confidered as forming a part of his original plan with respect to his rational creatures, and as concurring with all his other difpenfations towards this ultimate end, which is their real and final happiness. The proper and only means by which rational and moral beings can attain real felicity, are the knowledge and practice of true religion: the restoration of this is, therefore, the immediate object of revelation: but, with respect to the manner of effecting this, it cannot be expected that revelation should, at once, remove all the prejudices and errors of mankind. It is much more rational to suppose, that it would be fuited to the weakness of man, in whom every intellectual improvement is flow and gradual. Its inftruction must therefore confift in giving a proper direction to the efforts of reason, in removing its uncertainty with refpect to the most important points of investigation, and gently conducting it into the path that terminates in truth. In fhort, it is to man what an intelligent preceptor is to an unexperienced youth. Such, our Author thinks, was the mode of inftruction adopted by Chrift. His grand object was to promote the virtue and happiness of mankind: this he kept ever in view, and eftimated the comparative importance of their errors and prejudices by their influence on it. Hence he left fome erroneous opinions of lefs moment to be removed

Nn 4

removed by time and the further reflection of his bearers; others he oppofed obliquely and remotely. His doctrines are either clothed in parables, or expreffed in fimple propofitions, without any demonftration, and fometimes in hints intelligible only to the serious and attentive enquirer. In other things he left his audience to their own improvement of his inftructions, after having furnished them with matter, on which to exercise their reflections, and given them, as it were, a clue to direct reason in its further researches.

We must carefully diftinguish between the revelation itself, and the hiftory of the revelation, both which are transmitted to us in the New Teftament. In the hiftorical part, a diftinction muft likewise be made between thofe facts which are infeparably connected with the revelation, and others which do not immediately and neceffarily belong to it. The reafon of this is obvious; because cavils againft events of the latter clafs are no valid objections to the truth of the Gofpel; whereas a denial of any fact of the former kind implies a rejection of the divine authority of that revelation which is fupported by them.

We must also remember, that the New Teftament was written not immediately for our use, but for that of a people whofe manners and morals, whofe ideas and habits, as well as language, were entirely different from ours. The prejudices and errors which Chrift and his apoftles had to encounter, were very diffimilar to those which prevail in our times. In order, therefore, to edify their hearers and readers, they addreffed them in a manner agreeable to the popular notions of the age and pation, condefcended to argue with them upon their own principles, and made use of thofe expreffions and allufions which were moft familiar to them. It muft likewife be obferved, that the writers of the New Teftament were Jews, from whom, in addreffing their countrymen, it was natural to expect continual references to their ancient religion. Hence there are, in the facred books, many peculiarities in the manner of expreffing and enforcing doctrines, which were especially fuitable to the circumstances of that age and nation, but which, not being effential to the doctrines themfelves, ought not to be confounded with them. Among these local and temporary circumftances, our Author reckons thofe expreffions and illuftrations which are either borrowed from the books of the Old Teftament, or founded on the fyftems of the Jewish doctors. Of this kind, he thinks, are all thofe paffages in which the feveral parts of the Mofaic ritual are applied to elucidate the advantages derived to mankind by the death of Chrift, and thofe in which the theological terms and language of the Jewish fchools are adopted. The hiftory of the demoniacs be confiders as a ftriking inftance of the condefcenfion of Chrift, in reasoning with this nation upon their own popular notions, and

fpeaking

fpeaking to them in their own ftyle. All these peculiarities are merely local, relative, and accidental, and must be diftinguished from the truths revealed, which are permanent and unchangeable. An objection made against the manner in which a doctrine is propofed, or the arguments by which it is enforced, affects not the truth of the doctrine itself. The efficacy of an argument, in producing conviction, is relative to the capacity of him to whom it is addreffed; and a Jew would be more powerfully ftruck with the application of a paffage from the Old Teftament, which he had always been taught to confider as referring to the Meffiah, than by the moft accurate philofophical reafoning. Those who are acquainted with the gradual progrefs of the human mind, will not maintain that Chrift and his Apoftles could defign to establish their doctrines by arguments suited alike to every age and defcription of men. They acted like able and judicious teachers. Their immediate object was to convince those among whom they lived and taught, in the manner beft fuited to their capacities; and thus, by the moft natural means, to attain the great end of their miffion, which was the propagation of truth, virtue, and happiness, among mankind. The laft previous requifition made by our Author is, what we cordially approve, that we diftinguish between the doctrines of Chriftianity and the various theological fyftems which have been founded on, or deduced from them.

M. LENTZ now proceeds to enquire what are the general and fundamental doctrines revealed in the New Teftament. These he reduces to a very few heads; and is of opinion, that they confift in declarations concerning the nature and attributes of God, as he is related to his rational creatures, in oppofition to the national prejudices of the Jews, and to the polytheism and idolatrous notions of the Heathens; in pofitive affurances of the deftination of man to final happiness in a future and eternal state, a happiness worthy of his rational and moral nature, independent on every external circumftance and accident; in directions concerning the means of attaining this felicity, by obedience to the divine will, and the practice of religion and virtue; in topics of confolation under the evils and diftreffes of life, derived from the express affertion that every event which can befal us, is under the immediate fuperintendence of the wifeft and beft of Beings, who will make every thing co-operate towards the final happiness of his fervants; and, laftly, in fuch truths as may conftitute the most affecting and powerful motives to the practice of virtue.

Thefe, he says, are the doctrines of which we may with certainty affirm, that they are revealed in the New Teftament, and conftitute the foundation of the Gofpel, and indeed of every rational religion they are, therefore, of univerfal importance, and

defigned

defigned for all mankind in every age: they are fuch as a philo. fophical enquirer would naturally expect in a divine revelation, with the defign of which they perfectly correfpond: they are fo exprefsly and repeatedly revealed, as to leave no room for doubt, and fo plainly, as to obviate all difficulties; and in these all denominations of Chriftians, however they may differ in other refpects, are perfectly agreed. This laft circumftance our Author confiders as a decifive argument in their favour, and juftly obferves, that when a number of learned, wife, and good men, have differed widely from each other concerning the meaning of a propofition, it is a certain proof that it is obfcurely and ambiguoufly, or, at leaft, indefinitely expreffed, and therefore ought not to be numbered among the fundamental doctrines of revelation, or deemed effential to it.

Though we approve of many of the foregoing obfervations as liberal and judicious (for we will not be answerable for them all), we cannot help thinking, that the view here given of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel is very defective. We are perfectly convinced that, in a general vindication of Chrif tianity, every doctrine, of which the divine authority is doubted, or the fenfe difputed among its profeffors, ought to be left out of the question: but is it therefore neceffary to reprefent it as a mere republication of the religion of nature? In our opinion, the pardon offered to finners through Chrift, his exaltation to univerfal power, and his appointment as our Mediator, by whom we have access to the Father, are fundamental doctrines of the Gofpel; and, as fuch, deferve to be particularly mentioned; becaufe they are the grand truths which diftinguish Chriftianity from deifm. They are doctrines which all denominations of Chriftians profefs to believe, however they may differ concerning fome circumftances relative to them; and, though they may be called myfteries in the proper and fcriptural fense of this word, yet if we diveft them of thofe abfurdities in which they have been involved by human fyftems, and content ourselves with the plain declarations of the New Teftament, they will appear to be confiftent with the dictates of found philofophy, though they were not discoverable by its investigations.

That philofophy has no tendency to undermine the doctrines of revelation, as our Author has here ftated them, he argues from their coincidence with the dictates of reafon; from their having been, in all ages, the objects of its enquiries; and from their never being difputed by the beft and moft rational even of the writers against revealed religion. His vindication of the probability of the facts by which the Gofpel is authenticated, and of the external evidence attending them, is fenfible and judicious, but contains nothing which has not been often faid by other writers on this fubject.

The