to him. But it was a vain effort. We ftill have the life of Apollonius, which Hierocles made ufe of writ by Philoftratus. We are therefore able to pass a judgement upon his argument. And we can difcern it to be very weak. For the works there afçribed to Apollonius, are not equal to our Saviour's miracles, nor comparable with them. Nor are the things afcribed to Apollonius writ in a credible manner. And moreover, the hiftorie of him, which Hierocles made ufe of, was not writ till more than a hundred years after his death.'

In the fortieth chapter, Dr. Lardner has given a general ac. count of the perfecution under Dioclcfian; the most remarkable events of which he has taken from Eufebius, Lactantius, or Cæcilius, or whoever is the author of the book concerning the deaths of perfecutors. He has likewife taken notice of the feveral edicts which were then published against the christians, and the edicts published in their favour by Conftantine, Liçinius, and others.

The laft chapter contains fome general obfervations upon the ftate of christianity under the heathen emperors.

Eufebius, he fays, in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, does not number the great afflictions which the chriftians had endured. But he has mentioned eleven perfecutors, though the perfecutions of fome of them may have been of but fhort duration. The perfecutors mentioned by Eufebius, are these Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Mark Antonin, Severus, Maximin the Thracian, Decius, Gallus, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian, and his collegues.

:

Chriftianity, from the time of its firft appearance in the world, was all along in a state of perfecution, till the converfion of Conftantine.

Nevertheless, after all, it is not to be fuppofed, that perfecution was always violent, and uninterrupted. There might be fome abatements of those troubles, and fome feasons of reft and peace. What they were, may be collected from what we have feen in this, and the preceding volumes. And I fhall here reckon them up in a fummarie manner. We reckon, that Nerva was favourable to them, who, when he repealed the other acts of Domitian, repealed alfo his law against the chriftians. His fucceffor Trajan published an edict against the christians, which, as has been often hinted already, never was. abrogated, but continued in force as long as heathenifin fubfifted in the Roman empire. Nevertheless we can perceive, that in the reigns of Adrian, and Titus Antonin, there were some edicts, or refcripts, which were favourable to them: though during thofe very reigns, many chriftians ftill fuffered in almoft every part of the empire. They alfo received fome favour and indulgence

indulgence from Alexander Severus, and Philip. They might alfo enjoy peace and tranquillity in the reigns' of Commodus and Caracalla, who did not much concern themselves about the affairs of religion. The first years of Valerian, and the reign of Gallienus, after Valerian's captivity, were favorable to them as likewife the former part of the reign of Diocletian,' when the Roman empire was disturbed by enemies on every fide.'

At the conclusion of this period, christianity may be faid to have furmounted all oppofition, to have evinced the divinity of its origin, and the propriety of this prophetic parable: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard-feed, which a man took and forwed in his field. Which indeed is the least of all feeds; but, when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree: fo that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

I

VII. Jewish Antiquities: or, a Course of Lectures on the three first Books of Godwin's Mofes and Aaron. To which is annexed, a Dif fertation on the Hebrew Language. By the late Rev. David Jennings, D. D. In 11 Vols. 8vo. Pr. 10s. 6d. Johnson.

T

HESE lectures were originally compofed by the learned author for the ufe of his pupils, and are now published for the fervice of those who study divini y, or have a defire to obtain an intimate acquaintance with the facred writings. Many paffages in the Old and New Teftament are here illuftrated, and many more may be explained, by a judicious ap plication of that knowledge of Jewish antiquities which is comprized in thefe volumes.

The author has generally confined his enquiries to thofe cuftoms and opinions which are found in Scripture, for the underftanding of which, befides carefully examining and comparing the accounts given by the facred writers, he has confulted a great variety of antient and modern authors. On fome occafions he has called in the afliftance of Jewish Rabbies; but in matters of confequence he has paid very little deference to their authority; which is an inftance of his judgment. For in regard to antient facts, and explications of Scripture, thefe writers are mere drivellers. Maimonides, Aben Ezra, and Abar banel, are the most eminent of this clafs, and almost the only perfons among them who difcover a judicious and rational turn of thinking. Of Maimonides in particular, it is faid, that he was the first Jew who ceafed to trifle, qui defuit defipere, But even thefe authors, though more refpectable than most of their brethren,

E e 4

brethren, come too late to have much ftrefs laid upon their report, concerning the fentiments and practices of the antient Jews, if not fupported or countenanced by Scripture, or by fome other writers of more antiquity, and greater authority than themselves.

Though the author chofe to execute his defign upon the plan of the three first books of Godwin's Mofes and Aaron, his work 'does not confift of detached remarks on the text of that: writer, but of diftinct and complete differtations on the subjects which Godwin has difcuffed, and on fome others which he has omitted; so that it is not neceffary to have recourfe continually to Godwin, in the perufal of these volumes, which must have been the reader's difagreeable task, if this work had been a collection of short notes and obfervations. But though it is not requifite frequently to turn to Godwin, in perufing this work, for a complete view of the subject, yet, if the correspondent chapters in the two treatifes are read in conjunction, we fhall fee reafon, on the comparison, to entertain a higher opinion of the industry and judgment with which Dr. Jennings has executed his defign.

In one or two places the judicious editor, Mr. Furneaux, has added from Godwin, or from Hottinger's notes, what seemed neceffary to complete the author's difcourfe; and has all along inferted the paffages of Scripture, which in the manufcript were only quoted by chapter and verfe.

The writers from which the author has collected his materials are carefully cited, for the benefit of those who are difpofed to confult the authorities on which he relies, or the books in which the fame fubjects are more fully confidered. For want of producing his authorities, Lewis's Jewish Antiquities, which are otherwife valuable, are very unfatisfactory to a man who is defirous, not only to know what has been faid, but by whom it has been faid, and what credit it deferves.

The author of thefe lectures has chiefly confined his difquifitions to the three first books of Godwin, because they comprize almost all the subjects which relate to the facred or ecclefiaftical antiquities of the Hebrews, and which are peculiarly requifite to the understanding of the Jewish, and confequently, in fome measure, the Christian scheme of theology.

This piece of Godwin, ftiled Mofes and Aaron, the method of which Dr. Jennings chofe to follow, has been commented upon by a variety of authors. One of the moft judicious, who have favoured the world with their lucubrations, is Hottinger. There are two fets of annotations in manufcript; one by the learned Witfius, which he read to his ftudents in the university of Leyden ; a copy of which was in the hands of Dr. Jennings,

who

who has made ufe of it in fome few inftances. Another annota- : tor, whose performance is yet in manufcript, was the learned Mr.: Samuel Jones of Tewksbury. His work, of which there are feveral copies extant, is written in neat Latin, and contains fome valuable remarks. The editor has taken two or three obfervations from this writer, which he has occafionally inferted. But this work of Dr. Jennings's furpaffes the performances of both these learned authors in many refpects, particularly as it is more extenfive, and contains the opinions and improvements of later writers.

The first book contains an account of the Hebrew government under all its revolutions; the kings, priests, prophets, and all other civil and ecclefiaftical officers and fects among the Jews; the fecond, a description of the temple, fynagogues, fchools, and other remarkable places; the third, an account of their days, weeks, months, years, festivals, &c. To this work the author has fubjoined a 'differtation on the antiquities of the Hebrew language, the antient character, and the Maforetic points.

VIII. A Defence of Revelation in general, and the Gospel in parti-' cular; in Answer to the Objections advanced in a late Book, entitled, the Morality of the New Teftament digefted under various Heads, &c. &c. and Jubfcribed, A Rational Chriftian. 8vo. Pr. 45. Sandby.

The

HE unbeliever and the deist have often attempted to invalidate Chriftianity by argument and free enquiry; but, inftead of detesting any exceptionable circumftances, they have. convinced the world that it ftands on folid principles, and dif covers additional beauty in every critical examination. books which have been published in favour of infidelity have been of real service to the Chriftian revelation, by employing feveral excellent writers in its defence, who have fet the evidence of its divine authority in a clearer and ftronger light than ever, and removed every material objection.

A late writer, who ftiles himself a Rational Chriftian*, has attempted to prove, that Jefus Chrift was not a publisher of any revelation, properly speaking; nor taught any thing more than reason itself teaches; and that whatever we find in the books of the New Teftament more than this, was either added to his genuine doctrines by the original writers, without autho

See the Critical Review for April 1765.

rity from him, or has proceeded from the interpolations and forgeries of later times.

The author of this Defence has undertaken to refute thefe principles; firft, by proving their flagrant abfurdity, and the atter impoffibility of their being true; and afterwards, by examining diftinctly all the arguments which are produced in their fupport.

With this view he clofely and eagerly purfues the adversary through all his involutions; and, with great acutenefs and dexterity, exposes the fraudulence of his reasoning, and the futility of his objections.

Our readers, we apprehend, will not expect an abstract of what he has advanced on every point he undertakes to examine. Few, perhaps, have read the treatise to which this is an anfwer; and almost every one knows the general arguments which have been urged against the Deifts in defence of revelation. Many of these are neceffarily repeated in this performance, on which account it will appear, in fome measure, too minute and tedious to the learned reader.

As a fpecimen of his abilities in removing the difficulties which occur in the facred writings, take his account of the conteft between the apoftles Peter and Paul, at Antioch. St. Paul's relation of it is as follows.

'When Peter was come to Antioch, I withftood him to the face, becaufe he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come he withdrew, and feparated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcifion. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, infomuch ihat Barnabas also was carried away with their diffimulation. But when I faw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gofpel, I faid unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; why compelleft thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Sc.

The author of the Morality of the New Teftament alleges the fact here related, in the firft place,-" as a further proof that “human errors have been blended with the pure word of God, as contained in the facred volume; and that every part of "it" (the New Teftament as we now have it) was not given

by divine infpiration and authority." "The author of this Defence replies, What can poffibly be more ridiculous than this? If the fact here related really happened as St. Paul has related it, and the author has not even fuggefted that it did not, but fuppofes that it did, and objects to Peter on this very account; how can this relation prove, either that the New Teftament is corrupted, or that St. Paul did not write under the influence of divine fuperintendency? As

far