gagement entered into by Mr. Grant, the late secretary of Ireland, to develop to parliament his views of the state of that country, and of the remedial measures which her circumstances require; an engagement which was hailed with such concurrent accla mation as at once proved the deep impression felt of the importance of the subject, and the strong claim which the speaker was allowed to have acquired to the general confidence of the house and of the country by his upright, liberal, and able administration of Irish affairs.

The state of the agricultural interest has given birth to some lengthened debates; and various plans have been proposed for its relief, all of them, we conceive, equally unavailing. That there is a considerable degree of distress felt by farmers and landowners, in many parts of the country, is admitted on all sides. The whole, however, seems to us to resolve itself into this; That the produce of the soil is cheap from its abundance, and that rents have not yet been sufficiently lowered to suit the new circumstances in which we are placed.

As for the various and discordant remedies that have been proposed, they have only tended to convince us more than ever that parliament, by its interference, may do much harm, but can do no good. The diminution of taxes is of course loudly insisted upon as one grand remedy; and it cannot be denied that, if this were practicable, some slight relief might follow its adoption, but less, far less, we believe, than is commonly imagined. Ministers have yielded so far to the general feeling, as to have agreed to remit to the amount of a shilling on the bushel of barley. Econoiny is doubtless the duty of ministers; and we are glad that all parties, ministers themselves among the number, concur to think so; but it is but mockery to hope for any sensible relief to the agriculturists from this

or any other practicable reduction of taxes. It is but a limited part of the revenue over which government have any controul; and even were they to cut down the public expenditure to the lowest possible estimate of their opponents, the reduction would be scarcely, if at all, felt by the farmer. Great as is the sum demanded of him for taxes, it is only a fraction of the sums paid by him in the shape of rent and poor's-rate; and, were the whole swept away, we conceive it would make but a slight deduction from his necessary outgoings. › Ministers have further proposed to issue four millions of Exchequer Bills to parishes, on the security of the poor'srate, to be lent to distressed agriculturists. But this proposition we conceive to be wholly uncalled for by the circumstances of the country; and if acted upon, must therefore do more harm than good. There is a superabundance of capital in the country already; so that this measure can only add to the difficulty which is already felt in finding the means of benefi cially employing it. It may enable some land-holders, indeed, to keep up their rents a little longer, and some farmers to pay them; but this can be attended with permanent advantage to neither. The Agricultural Committee has been re-appointed.

Besides the repeal of the malt-tax duty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates an immediate liquidation of the one hundred and fifty-five millions of five per cent. stock, by converting them into four per cent. stock; a measure which seems at the present moment to be practicable, and, if practicable, expedient.

We are happy to report a favourable state of the finances; a circumstance which we cannot but attribute to the cheapness of the necessaries of life, which puts it in the power of the great mass of the community to expend a larger portion of their earnings on exciseable articles.

No. 243.]

6. The apocryphal books ascribed to the Apostles and Evangelists contain direct contradictions to authentic history, both sacred and profane. Thus, in the beginning of the Epistle of Abgarus, that monarch is made to confess his faith in Christ as God, or as the Son of God: in the latter end he invites Christ to dwell with him in his city, because of the malice of the Jews, who intended him mischief. Now this is a plain contradiction; for had he really thought him God, he must certainly think him possessed of almighty power, and consequently to be in no need of the protection of his city. This seems to be as clear demonstration as subjects of this sort are capable of receiving: nor are we aware of any objection that can be made, unless it be, that Peter, who had confessed him to be the Son of God (Matt. xvi. 16), yet when he came to be apprehended, thought it necessary to interpose with human force to attempt his rescue. (Matt. xxvi. 51. com pared with John xviii. 10.) To which it is easy to answer, that whatever opinion Peter, or indeed any of the Apostles, had of Christ before this time, they seem now to have changed it, and by the pros. pects of his danger and death to have grown cool in their opinion CHR IST, OBSERV. No. 243.

of his almighty power, else they would never all have forsaken him at his crucifixion as they did. But nothing of this can be supposed in the case of Abgarus, who cannot be imagined to have altered his sentiments in the interval of writing so short an epistle.

Again; several parts of the above cited letters, which profess to be addressed to Seneca, suppose Paul to have been at the time of writing at Rome; whereas others imply the contrary. That he was then at Rome, is implied in the first words of the first letter, in which Seneca tells Paul, that he supposed he had been told the discourse that passed the day before between him and Lucilius by some Christians who were present; as also in the first words of Paul's first epistle, and that part of Seneca's second, where he tells him, he would endeavour to introduce him to Cæsar; and that he would coufer with him, and read over together some parts of his writings; and in that part of Paul's second, where he hopes for Seneca's company, and in several other places. But, on the other hand, several parts of the letters suppose Paul not at Rome, as where Seneca (Epist. iii.) complains of his staying so long away, and both Paul and Seneca are made to date their letters, when such and such persons were consuls; see Paul's fifth and sixth, and Seneca's sixth, seventh, and eighth. Now, had they both been in the same city, nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that they would have dated thus: what need could there be to inform each other who were consuls? Paul therefore

S

is supposed to be and not to be at Rome at the same time, which is a manifest contradiction. Besides this contradiction, the very dating of their letters by consulships seems to be no small evidence of their spuriousness, because it was a thing utterly unknown that any persons ever did so; nor does one such instance occur in the Epistles of Seneca, Cicero, or any other writer. To which we may add, that, in these letters, there are several mistakes in the names of the consuls who are mentioned; which clearly prove that these epistles could not have been written by Paul and Seneca. Another circumstance which proves the epistles ascribed to the Apostle to be a gross forgery, is, that the latter is introduced as entreating Seneca not to venture to say any thing more concerning him or the Christian religion to Nero, lest he should offend him. Now it is utterly improbable that Paul would obstruct Seneca in his intentions of recommending Christianity to the Emperor Nero; and it is directly contrary to his known and constant zeal and endeavours for its propagation. Would he not rather have rejoiced in so probable an opportunity of spreading the knowledge of Christ, and by the means of one so near to, and so much in favour with, the emperor, have procured the liberty for himself and the other Christian converts of exercising their religion freely? To imagine the contrary is to suppose the Apostle at once defective in his regards to himself and the whole body of Christians, and acting in direct contradiction to the whole of his conduct, and zealous endeavours to advance the interest of Christianity.

But, besides, it has happened here, as commonly in such cases, want of memory betrays the forgery: although the author, so unlike Paul, in this place wishes not to discover the Christian religion to the emperor, yet in another epistle, viz. the sixth of Paul, he is made to

advise Seneca to take convenient opportunities of insinuating the Christian religion, and things in favour of it, to Nero and his family; than which nothing can be a more manifest contradiction.

Similar gross and glaring contradictions occur in the Gospel of Nicodemus. To instance only in one or two, which are very notorious: In chap. ii. 14. the twelve men, Eliezer, Asterius, Antonius, &c. who declare themselves to be no proselytes, but born Jews; when Pilate tendered them an oath, and would have had them swear by the life of Cæsar, refused, because, they say, we have a law that forbids our swearing, and makes it sinful to swear; yet in chap. iv. 7. the elders, scribes, priests and Levites, are brought in swearing by the life of Cæsar without any scruple; and in chap. xii. 23, they make others, who were Jews, swear by the God of Israel; and Pilate gives an oath to a whole assembly of the scribes, chief-priests, &c. chap. xii. 3. This seems a manifest contradiction. Another is, that in chap. xi. 15, Pilate is introduced as making a speech to the Jews, in which he gives a true and just abstract of the Old Testament history relating to the Israelites, viz. what God had done for them, and how they had behaved themselves to him. Whereas the same Pilate, chap. xxiii. 2, is made to be perfectly ignorant of the Bible, and only to have heard by report that there was such a book; nor can it be said, that Pilate here only refers to the Bible kept in the Temple ; for the manner of speech shews he was ignorant of the contents of the book; "I have heard you have a certain book," &c. and this is indeed in itself very probable. Further, this book contains many things contrary to known truths. Such is indeed the whole of it, except what is taken out of our present genuine Gospels. Who, for instance, will credit the long story chap. xv.-xviii. of Christ's going

the Gospel attributed to Nicodemus, the particulars of our Saviour's trial are enumerated most fully, the testimony of the witnesses both for and against him is given at large, and the expostulations of Pilate with the Jews are recorded with a minuteness equal to their imagined importance. And as, in the genuine history of these transactions, the Roman governor is reported to have put a question of considerable moment, to which our Saviour vouchsafed no answer, or at least the Evangelists have not recorded it, these falsifiers have thought proper to supply so essential a defect. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? Jesus said, Truth is from heaven. Pilate said, Therefore truth is not on earth? Jesus saith unto Pilate, Believe that truth is on earth among those, who, when they have the power of judgment, are governed by truth, and form right judg

ment."

In the Prot-evangelion, there are not fewer than twelve circumstances stolen from the canonical books; and in the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, six circumstances; and by far the greater part of the pretend ed Gospel of Nicodemus is transcribed and stolen from other books. Nothing can be more evident to any one who is acquainted with the sacred books, and has read this Gospel, than that a great part of it is borrowed and stolen from them. Every such person must perceive, that the greatest part of the history of our Saviour's trial is taken out of our present Gospels, not only because it is a relation of the same facts and circumstances, but also in the very same words and order for the most part; and though this may be supposed to have happened accidentally, yet it

compositon and dissolution; and other things, which the understanding of no creature had ever reached. Then that philosopher arose, and worshipped the Lord Jesus, and said, O Lord Jesus, from henceforth I will be thy disciple

and servant."

is next to impossible to suppose a constant likeness of expression, not only to one, but sometimes to one and sometimes to another of our Evangelists. In short, the author seems to have designed a sort of abstract or compendium of all which he found most considerable to his purpose in our four Gospels; though he has but aukwardly put it together.

But the most flagrant instance, perhaps, of fraudulent copying from the canonical books, is to be found in the pretended Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, almost every verse of which is taken from the great Apostle's genuine writings, as appears from the collation in Mr. Jones's work on the Canon.

8. Lastly, as the credibility of the genuine books of the New Testament is established by the accounts of countries, governors, princes, people, &c. therein contained, by their being confirmed by the relations of contemporary writers, both friends and enemies to Christians and Christianity (and especially by the relations of hostile writers); so the spuriousness of the pseudo-evangelical writings is demonstrated by their containing gross falsehoods, and statements which are contradicted by the narratives of those writers who were contemporary with the supposed authors of them.

Thus, in the fourth of Seneca's epistles to Paul, we read that the emperor (Nero) was delighted and surprised at the thoughts and sentiments in Paul's epistles to the churches; and in the fourth of Paul's epistles to the philosopher, that the the emperor is both an admirer and favourer of Christianity. These assertions are notoriously false, and contrary to the unanimous relations of heathen and Christian writers concerning Nero and his regard to the Christians. The Gospel of Mary contains at least two gross falsehoods and contradictions to historical fact; and not fewer than seven equally glaring instances