other writers. Had they happened, thefe fuppofed apoftles must have been witneffes of the earthquake and the refurrections, and muft have related the particulars who thefe faints were that came to life again, whether they came out naked or clothed, whither they went, and what became of them they came up, like Jonah's gourd, in the night, for no purpofe at all, but to wither in the morning. With refpect to the refurrection of Jefus, Mathew alone relates the ftory of the guard fet over the fepulchre. Matthew fays, that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came, at the dawn of the firft day of the week, to the fepulchre; Mark fays, it was at funrifing; John fays, it was dark. Luke fays, Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women came to the fepulchre; and John ftates, that Mary Magdalene came alone. Matthew fays, the angel rolled back the stone, and fat upon it; Mark, that the angel was within the fepulchre, fitting on the right fide; Luke, that there were two, and both tanding up; John, that they were both fitting, one at the head, the other at the feet. Matthew fays, the angel fitting on the ftone on the outside of the fepulchre told the two Marys that Chrift was rifen, and they went away quickly; Mark, that the women went into the fepulchre, and that the angel fitting within on the right fide told them fo; Luke, that it was the two angels ftanding up; John, that it was Jefus himself that told it to Mary Magdalene, and that he did not go into the fepulchre, but only ftooped down and looked in. The story of the body being ftolen away contradicts itself: for if the foldiers were asleep, they could not know that it was taken away by the difciples. The phrafe until this day, Matt. xxviii, 15, fhows that the ftory was written long after the time of which it fpeaks. Matthew relates, that the difciples went to meet Jefus in Galilee, according to the direction of the angel, Behold, Chrift is gone before you into Galilee; John, that the fame evening Jefus met them in a houfe in Jerufalem; and Luke, that ་ the eleven were there. See Matt. xxvii 7, 16; John xx, 19; Luke xxiv, 2 Mark fays nothing of the meeting Galilee, but relates, that Chrift af peared in another form to two of then as they walked into the country: Luk fays, that he went in difguife that fam day, with two difciples, to Emmau and after fupping with them, vanifhet and re-appeared at the meeting of th eleven in Jerufalem. The only poir in which thefe writers agree is the pri vacy of his re-appearance; the story i that of an apparition. Paul's repor concerning the 500 witneffes is the tel timony of one man, and not of the 50 themselves. Of the afcenfion, Mathey and John fay nothing; Mark an Luke mention it flightly, and do no agree in their accounts: the former fta ting, that, after the meeting of the elever at Jerufalem, Jefus was received into Heaven; the latter,, that the afcenfion was from Betheny. It does not appear how he was provided with clothes at the refurrection, or what became of them at the afcenfion. The contradictions in the gofpels prove, that the writers cannot have been eye and ear-witneffes of what they relate, and confequently were not a poftles; and that they have not written in concert, but each feparately, without the knowledge of the reft. The fame contradictions, that prove there has been no concert, prove also that the reporters had no perfonal knowledge of what they relate, and detect the falfehood of their reports, There was no fuch book as the new teftament, till more than three hundred years after Chrift. It is altogether uncertain when the gofpels were written, or who wrote them. About 350 years after Chrift, feveral writings of this kind were fcattered in the hands of divers individuals; and the church, now vefted with temporal powers, fet about collecting them into a code called the new teftament: they decided by vote, which of thefe writings fhould be the word of God; and their vote stands in the place of authenticity; for it can be traced no higher. Difputes at that time ran high on this fubject. In a conteft between St. Auguftine and Faufte, about the d in abate- ered to prove and his for' were divorg to the rites there; and it was compeFy again. To in inftrument Igogue there, ed from each held this to he could take edings in a folow the law of vas matter of be proved by nt then called Ove the divorce. an incompetent on being overout producing ae was divorced abbi, at Leghorn, ny and cuftom defendant had a NEW Mat fepulchre, fitting Luke, that there tanding up; J both fitting, one at the feet. fitting on the ftor the fepulchre told Chrift was rifen, quickly; Mark, into the fepulchr fitting within on them fo; Luke, angels ftanding up Jefus himfelf that dalene, and that fl fepulchre, but only looked in. being stolen away for if the foldier could not know th by the difciples. day, Matt. xxviii, ftory was written of which it fpeaks that the difciples in Galilee, accordi of the angel, Beh before you into G the fame evening Je houfe in Jerufalen ་ The the year 400, the latter charges the books of the gofpels with difcordancy, and fays, they were compofed from tales and vague reports by fome obfcure men, who publifhed them under the names of the apoftles. Concerning the fourteen epiftles afcribed to Paul, it is of little importance to determine whether they were written by him, as he does not pretend to have been witnefs to any of the fcenes told of the refurrection, and declares that he had Dot believed them. The ftory of his converfion may be explained on the fuppofition of his having been ftruck with lightning. His character has in it a great deal of violence and fanaticifm, and he is a bad reafoner. See I Cor. IV. The belief of a future ftate is a rational belief, founded on acts vifible in the creation; but Paul's account of the refurrection of the body explains nothing to the understanding, illuftrates nothing to the imagination. Revelation is poffible, but can be proved only to the perfon to whom it is made; there being no criterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells. The moft horrid cruelties and greatest miferies have attended the propagation and fupport of what is called revealed religion. The fragments of morality fcattered through the bible are the natural dictates of confcience, and are nearly the fame in all religions. The dogma of loving enemies is without meaning. Revelation is unneceffary; for the book of the creation teaches pure religion and morals." Such is the fubftance of the objections to revelation offered in this publication. Those who have ftudied the fubject will immediately perceive, how very much of what is here advanced coincides with the objections of former deiftica! writings, and will eafily recollect the replies which have been fo fully provided by a numerous train of able defenders, both from the clergy and laity of all fects. Those who have not had leifure to examine the matter, would do well at leaft to fufpend their judgement, till NOTE. they have perufed fome of the principal of the defences of revelation already furnished, or have heard what will, doubtlefs, without unneceflary delay, be further offered on the other fide of this moft interefting question. Curious Law Cafe decided in the Court of THE defendant pleaded in abate ment that he was covert of John King, and the plaintiff, by his replica tion, traverfed the plea. The defendant proved her marriage to King, in anfwer to which the plaintiff proved the marriage of King with a former wife, and that the was ftill living. This evidence was objected to as incompetant for the plaintiff to give on this replication, which only traverfed the marriage of King with the defendant. But lord Kenyon admitted it, faying, it proved there was no marriage at all between the defen dant and King, he being unable to contract mariage with her. The defendant then offered to prove that King being a Jew, and his former wife a Jewels, they were divorced at Leghorn, according to the rites. and cuftoms of the Jews there; and that after fuch a divorce it was competent to either party to marry again. To prove this the produced an inftrument under the feal of the fynagogue there, whereby they were divorced from each other. But lord Kenyon held this to be no evidence, for before he could take any notice of any proceedings in a foreign court, he muft know the law of the country, which was matter of evidence, and fhould be proved by witneffes. The defendant then called King's former wife to prove the divorce. She was objected to as an incompetent witnefs, but, the objection being over ruled, the fwore (without producing any inftrument) that he was divorced, from King, before the rabbi, at Leghorn according to the ceremony and cuftom of the Jews there. See Boulanger's life of St. Paul. verdict. On this evidence the defendant had a NEW |