of the authenticity of the New Testament, from the testimony of the fathers of the first three centuries, with peculiar judgment, precision, and fairness; and has succeeded, in bringing a very large portion of evidence into a narrow compass. While on this part of the subject, as he is passing from the first to the second century, he makes some general reflections, worthy of the closest attention from those who would form just ideas of ecclesiastical antiquity.

The praise, which we most cordially bestow on Dr. Less, in his examination of all the books of the New Testament but one, in that one, we must withhold. The authenticity of the Revelation of St. John, he denies; and of consequence, its credibility. He acknowledges, that it was considered as genuine and inspired, by Justin Martyr, by Irenæus, by Theophilus of Antioch, by Clement of Alexandria, by Tertullian; and by Origen, who appears to assert, that not a single individual of the ancients had doubted its being genuine. Not to press his words too closely, they at least mean, that the book was generally received. In opposition to all these witnesses, Dr. Less pleads the silence of Papias; and the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria, who is exalted to be a demigod, on purpose that he may overthrow the testimony of the writers who have been enumerated. Dr. Less speaks, likewise, with great severity of the contents of the book; and thence he derives a part of his objections. It is made up of scraps from other parts of scripture; it is contradictory to the other books; and the whole of the prophetic part is unintelligible! Here, we think, our author betrays the spirit of that new-fangled system, which has, of late, prevailed in the German universities; and which, by the force of prejudice, in opposition to evidence, leads him astray from the truth. Under the head of authenticity, Dr. Less proves the uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament; and shews that the book is the same now, as it was when it came out of the hands of the evangelists and apostles. While he compresses the proof within a small space, he conducts it in an able and satisfactory manner.

Having established the authenticity, Dr. Less proceeds to the second part of his design; namely, to prove the credibility of the New Testament. The writers of it, he observes, were competent; by no means credulous; not fanatics; men of integrity; who relate events that happened in their own times, and within their own observation. They appealed to notorious proofs; they had nothing to expect but temporal disadvantages; and they suffered unto death, for the truth of their testimony. Each of these topics is well illustrated; and is amplified into a section. As an additional proof of the credibility of the New Testament, he urges the propagation of the gospel, without the assistance of any temporal power, by means of thirteen poor, inconsiderable, unlearned,

unlearned, and almost unknown men; amidst internal disturbances and distractions; under the most cruel external persecutions, and the opposition of the whole world; and although exciting the aversion of the human heart, by its sanctity and purity.

66

Infidels have often objected to this representation; and have pretended, that the ancient pagan nations were remarkably tolerant. Dr. Less meets the objection fairly, and demonstrates that it is destitute of truth. Voltaire," says he, "boldly asserts, that the Gentiles in general, and particularly the Romans, were by no means intolerant. Nothing, he exclaims, was more social than the heathen religion: the Romans permitted the exercise of every religion, and considered religious tolerance as one of the most salutary laws of the state; this monster, this pest of the` world, Intolerance, is a daughter of Christianity!"

In refutation of these confident and gratuitous assertions,. Dr. Less refers to the destruction of the Grecian and Egyptian idols, by the Persians; to the religious jealousy of the Carthaginians; to the internal religious wars of both the former nations; to.the penal laws of the Athenians; and to their banishment of Protagoras, and judicial murders of Anaxagoras and Socrates, for alledged impiety. He then quotes the remarkable law, proposed by Plato himself, for his imaginary republic; let the calumniators of the gods be first reproved, and if that be of no avail, let them be punished even with death! And who,' he adds, is ignorant of the cruelties and terrible torments by which Antiochus Epiphanes wished to compel the Jews to sacrifice to idols, and to renounce their paternal religion?'

To afford a fair specimen of the author's reasoning, and of the translator's style; as well as of the means by which the cause of infidelity has been sustained; we subjoin Dr. Less's able contrast between the heathenism of Rome, and Christianity, on the subject in question.

6

'But among the Romans, we are told, intolerance was unknown; all sects enjoyed under them the most perfect liberty of conscience and religion. Yet was it one of the fundamental laws of the state (of the XII. tables.) 'Deos Peregrinos ne colunto;' and Cicero, one of the greatest orators and lawyers, reckoned it among the most necessary laws of every wise state, Separatìm nemo habessit deos, neve novos: sed ne advenas, nisi publicè adscitos, privatim colunto.' When in the year of the city 326, a great drought and infectious disorder raged; superstition so far attained the superiority, that on every side were seen new godsand new forms of divine service. The government, therefore, enjoined the Ediles to be vigilant. Ne qui nisi Romani dii, neu quo alio more quam patrio colerentur.' In like manner, under great disasters, the state was purified from foreign religions. Maecenas advised the emperor Augustus to forbid not only atheism, but also all foreign divine worship,

C

both

both from religious and political principles. Worship,' said he to him, -the gods yourself, and compel others to do the same. Abhor all those who would make any innovations in religion, and punish them. Suffer no atheists, magicians, &c.' Tiberius expelled from Rome all who were devoted to the Egyptian, Jewish, and in general, to any foreign divine worship: 4000 of these men were, merely for the sake of their religion, sent to Sardinia to fight against the robbers; si ob gravitatem cœli interiissent, vile damnum:' and all the rest were chased out of Italy. I have already spoken of the hard, and in part, cruel persecutions of the Christians. Even the mild Trajan commanded Pliny to execute the Christians. Not only the Romans, but all the Grecians, and in general all idolaters readily adopted foreign idolatrous worship; it was in fact a part of their religion; for they imagined, that every nation, and every affair in the world had its peculiar God, and believed themselves to be safe in proportion to the number of the gods they worshipped. But with so much greater severity did they persecute all foreign religions, not established by the state, and more particularly the Christian, because it condemned all idolatrous worship, and all slavish adoration of the emperors. The laws, customs, and sentiments of the Egyptians, Grecians, and Romans, put this matter beyond all doubt.

The Doctrine of Christianity on this Subject."'

Christianity was the very first system of religion which introduced among men an unlimited, enlightened, and charitable toleration of all who professed religious articles different from its own. It is true, that the Mosaic law tolerated strangers, without compelling them to embrace the Israelitish religion; but they were obliged to renounce the worship of idols; and every idolater was punished with death. A severity which was rendered necessary by the existing situation of the world, and the vices, and cruelties, and assassinations, inseparably connected with the idolatrous worship of the times. The New Testament here also extends and exalts virtue. No man, according to its laws, shall be despised on account of his religious opinions, be they ever so absurd and injurious; still less shall he be stigmatized by mortifying and calumniating appellations; and last of all condemned and pronounced incapable of the favour and bliss of God. It commands further, that Christianity shall not be pressed on any heretick, and least of all, through corporeal means. That those appointed for that purpose shall explain the Christian religion to him, with sound arguments and mildness; but leave the choice entirely to his own judgment. That above all the Christian shall desire and hope, for the salvation of every man whose religious sentiments are erroneous, even though he be a contemner of religion as an atheist ; love him as cordially as he would a believing brother; act with benevolence and beneficence towards him, and pray to God for his happiness. That, in this manner, the Christian shall on the one side avoid and flee from every vice; abominate, in particular, those which are pernicious to the general welfare, consequently most of all errors in religious concerns; and labour, on the contrary, with all earnestness and zeal after truth, particularly in religion, the highest concern of man. On the other side,' he shall be attached with brotherly love to him who errs, is deceived, or led into sin; recommend to him at proper opportunities the truth with

firmness

firmness and fervency; endeavour to serve him by every action of kindness and beneficence, but give up to his own judgment the perfect li→ berty of choice. Such a tolerance, absolutely unlimited, and purified from all indifference towards the truth, is taught, and indeed was first taught by Christianity! Intolerance on the other hand is, according to its principles, not only to afflict men with civil punishments on account of mere matters of religion; to compel them to renounce their religion; or to put them to death for the sake of it: but also, to refuse residence in a country, together with the free exercise of their religion to religious societies, whose tenets are not pernicious to any principles of civil right.; and in short, to withhold from any one, simply on account of his articles of faith, those charitable services which are in our power. And this intolerance, according to its doctrine, is sin; a renunciation and dishonouring of Christianity and its fundamental principles; is the destruction of one of its essential laws, the love of our brethren; and even a crime against the injured majesty of God. When, therefore, as early as the fourth century, men, who bore the name of Christians, began to persecute those who differed in religious opinions from themselves, and to consider and to punish what they called heresy as a civil crime; when Augus-, tine placed this religious persecution among the Christian doctrines; when men, in the eighth century, began to propagate the Christian religion (as they erroneously named it) with fire and sword; when shortly afterwards the term heretic became a magic word, which transformed thousands of men into tygers; when we read of the Christian crusades against heretics and unbelievers; and when, lastly, the inquisition be. came established in the very bosom of christendom, that most terrible of all tribunals, which nevertheless was named the holy, and in the name of Christ and of God murdered, burnt, and desolated

"Tristius haud illa monstrum, nec sævior ulla

'Pestis et ira Deûn stygiis sese extulit undis ;

Who can lay these abuses, or even the least part of them, to the charge of Christianity? Sooner might we reject all the arts of medicine, because ignorant pretenders to skill in that science have robbed men of their health and lives; sooner condemn all civil society, because tyranny, riot, and anarchy, have often arisen out of it; sooner call reason, that pre-eminent quality of man, the pest of humanity, because the Alexanders, Cæsars, Neros and Buonapartes, use it for the devastation of the earth, than call Christianity intolerant on account of the abominations of such disgraces to humanity, who apply to themselves its name! Christianity, which, first introduced among men a tolerance as unlimited as enlightened and charitable!'

There is more than ordinary accuracy shewn by Dr. Less, in marking down the names and parts of the writers, on whose authority he supports his proofs.

The candid and liberal spirit with which he conducts the work is exceedingly amiable, and entitles him to much praise. There are no severe epithets against those who deny the truth of the Gospel, no asperity, no haughty and supercilious airs. He defends the Gospel in its own spirit. We are sorry, whenever we see it defended in any other way.

C 2

In

:

In the following member of a sentence, p. 29. At his death Christ left 150 followers of his religion, who were all persons of low birth;' there are two mistakes. We find five hundred brethren assembled on a mountain in Galilee, to be witnesses of his resurrection and if we reflect, that aged persons, the infirm, mothers of families, and many others, were necessarily detained from that interview, we shall not over-rate the followers of Jesus, if we say, that they might amount to two or three thousand, who were scattered over the face of Judea. When Dr. Less says, they were all persons of low birth,' he gives us a German, not a Jewish idea. As Jews they accounted themselves to be Abraham's seed: and hence the dignity of birth was alike in all. Nothing but intermixture with a Gentile gives low birth, in the judgment of a Jew.

6

With respect to style, the German structure of the original may be supposed, and indeed allowed, in some degree, to affect the translation. However, Mr. Kingdon has evidently taken much pains; and the public is indebted to him for a valuable book. There is an improper use of the word betray in the following sentence. P. 17. What a variety of fine knowledge; and how much adroitness in defending himself with delicacy and subtilty, against the accusations of his enemies, are betrayed in the Epistles to the Corinthians.' Men betray bad dispositions: they display good ones. The word subtilty is likewise wrong. That the books of the New Testament were written by their pretended authors, and at the pretended times;' pp. 27, 28, furnishes us likewise with just matter for criticism: Professed is certainly the word which purity of language required. The very next sentence is ungrammatical: In this proof I shall quote such passages only wherein these writers appeal, either by name, or expressly, to those books.' The, or those, should have been in the place of such. From Graduates in our Universities, we expect purity of language. We are at the same time ready to acknowledge, that, to preserve it, in translating a German book, some degree of attention is requisite; but whoever stands before the public as a competitor for its approbation, should pay it due respect; and unless he be taken by surprize, should certainly appear in his best suit.

Art. IV. The History of Athens; including a Commentary on the Principles, Policy, and Practice, of Republican Government; and on the Causes of Elevation and of Decline, which operate in every free and commercial State. By Sir W. Young, Bart. F. R. S. Third Edition, corrected and enlarged. Large 8vo. price 10s. 1804.

pp. 500.

F the object of history has been rightly defined, " to teach 1 philosophy by example," there can scarcely be a more important department than that of the historian.

Opinions