(a part of the general evidence) did certainly assert the miracles of Christ, and his distinct claim and appeal to them as the evidences of his divine mission. It seemed to me that Mr Taylor denied that Jesus was represented by his historians as having personally claimed or relied on the power of working miracles, and was contented to rest his claim of authority upon the internal. evidence and reason of his doctrine, as a theist would do.

Now, however, I understand that he disavows such an idea. He says, "in every part of my argument I assumed that they (the Gospels) contain what every man's eye-sight might convince him they contain." But (he adds) "There is no proof that the books recording this, (the miracle of Christ's ressurrection) and other miracles, were in their present form the production of the persons to whom they are commonly attributed."

It appears that the above is a quotation from his own book, p. 21, and here I have to confess that I had overlooked or forgotten this passage of his book when I penned my remarks on the passage in p. 32. But I trust this will be allowed to pass as a trivial (and certainly it was an undesigned) oversight; for I had professed that the plan and design of my remarks were not to present a full analysis and complete review of the book (Religious Union, &c.), but only to point out certain sophisms which Mr Taylor, in common, with other unbelievers, had fallen into. I had accordingly made separate notes of what had struck my attention, and it is one of the notes thus penned which alone has been the source of our present discussion.

So much for my excuse; but now we shall consider how far attention to the passage in p. 21 should have modified my remarks on the passage in p. 32. It is affirmed "there is no proof," &c. In reply, I offer "Lardner's credibility" as a proof. Mr Taylor says, "I have studied" the Evidences of Lardner, and "certainly do not feel any contempt for his productions, though I may not be satisfied with his conclusions." Well, different people have constitutionally different degrees of

credulity and scepticism, but many persons of highly respectable intellectual and moral power have been satisfied with Lardner's proof. There was Paley, for instance, who, on composing a work on the Evidences of Christianity, was contented to condense and adopt the views of Lardner. Mr Taylor, therefore, has no reason to expect that others will, and I trust your readers will not, take this judgment on his word, but examine for themselves. There is a specialty in this case, however, which requires to be attended to, as bearing on the point of what Jesus claimed to be or to do. This can only be learned by the books or documents put forth and relied upon by his disciples. Supposing (for the sake of argument) that the books professing to be the records of the miracles of Christ, and what we have were not "in their present form the production of the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed," there must have been some other books or documents which did contain a more correct statement. What or where were these? It is for the opponents of Lardner's Credibility to shew this, or at least some strong grounds of presuming, as a matter of fact, that Jesus did not claim or exercise the power of working miracles. This is the point at issue with us at present. In the absence of any counter-statement or proof, therefore, I think I was entitled to say, that the Evidences of Christianity (such as we have them), include a claim on the part of Jesus to have been a worker of miracles. Mr Taylor virtually admits this, provided I am allowed to include our present Gospels. I did include them in my idea of the Evidences of Christianity; so here is the misapprehension cleared up, without any misrepresentation.

I have somewhere read or heard, however, of some persons who suspect that our present histories of Jesus cannot be correct or genuine, because they were compiled out of a previous oral tradition, and they suppose that in that tradition Jesus might not have claimed the power of working miracles. Perhaps Mr Taylor has adopted this idea, as he promises in p. 23 of his book, to bring forward at a future time, "certain facts, arguments, and philosophy (in support of such

an idea), which could not be developed in his present letter."

I must, therefore, wait to see what specific form this objection or anti-proof assumes before I answer it; but I have partially adverted to something like it in my second article on Supernatural Christianity, inserted in your last number, where mention is made of the transition of the early faith from the basis of oral tradition to the written records of the Gospel. Meantime I would refer your readers to it, and beg of them to judge my argument and remarks as a whole, and scarcely even developed fully as yet, in these two articles. I should like to see Mr Taylor's sequel before I conclude my

own.

Perhaps it may not be convenient for him, and I have no right to expect, that, on my call, he will hasten, the publication of his more elaborate work; but he might, in the meantime, through the channel of your Pioneer, answer the following questions, which would tend to expiscate the truth, and keep clear of all misunderstandings.

Query I. Does Mr Taylor admit the genuineness of the passage quoted from Tacitus, and the consequent conclusion, that Christianity made its first appearance in the world at the time and place therein assigned to it?

II. Does he admit that the Christians, from the very beginning, asserted that Christ had risen from the dead, and wrought miracles, and claimed belief and obedience as a Divine Teacher on that ground?

III. Does he admit that the moral doctrine contained in our present Gospels, was first taught by Christ, and has since his time, and to some degree, improved men's opinions and practices on that subject. I mean particularly in the sentiments of humanity and benevolence which distinguish the moderns from the ancients?

IV. Does he admit that our present memoirs of Christ-viz. our Gospels-shew that Jesus illustrated and enforced his moral doctrine by his own life and conversation?

V. Does Mr Taylor entertain the hope or belief of a future life, and if so, upon what ground, and in what manner, does he expect the accomplishment of it, without the exertion of some power and means beyond the existing laws and economy of Nature? Or does he admit that there will be a miraculous exercise of Divine Power in the resuscitation and preservation of our individual consciousness, after the death which takes place at the close of this scene of our existence?

W. BURNS.

REVIEW.

American Morals and Manners. By Rev. Dr Dewey.

A LEARNED, an able, and, in many respects, a most admirable discourse on the above subject, was delivered in the shape of a lecture by Dr Dewey, in the New York Lyceum, soon after his return home from Europe. The Doctor is a learned, a highly intelligent man; in his own country he stands high in the estimation of a large class of his fellow-citizens; his opinions on most subjects are held, and we doubt not deservedly held, in esteem; so that a Lecture from him on the important subject alluded to, delivered almost immediately after he had been in personal contact with the morals and manners of those countries from whence so large a portion of the American people drew their origin, and whose laws, and customs, and social regulations, form, in a great measure, the basis of their own institutions, could not fail to be deeply interesting to his hearers. And, we will add, that, in our own opinion, they should be deeply interesting to us also; for there is no doubt at all that prejudices against our American brethren of an unjust and unworthy character, exist in the minds. of many people in these countries, and we doubt not that feelings of a similarly injurious nature dwell in many American minds, in relation to the inhabitants of

Great Britain and Ireland. All such unkindly feelings, wherever they exist, should be repressed, and replaced by sentiments of an opposite character. This desirable end will be attained by that freer intercourse between them and us, which has sprung up of late years, and which will, no doubt, continue to increase, because of the facilities afforded to it by steam-navigation, which is daily bringing us nearer and nearer to each other. This freedom of intercourse will be not alone pleasing and advantageous to them and to us, but it will tend to strengthen the bonds of amity between all nations, it will make men discover that they are all children of the same Great Parent, aud that they should strive to love one another. Thus will the principles of peace become engrafted on man's thoughts and feelings, and it will be increasingly difficult to make them engage in the brutalizing practice of slaughtering one another. War will be looked upon as a savage custom; as a foolish, as well as a very wicked, mode of settling disputes; which, when they arise, will be submitted to peaceful arbitration. We, therefore, hail with pleasure and satisfaction every approach towards a nearer acquaintance with all the feelings, and all the institutions, of our American brethren. Let travellers from each country freely investigate the Morals and Manners of their neighbours, and in the spirit of Christian love, and of universal brotherhood, let them disseminate widely abroad a knowledge of the virtues and vices, of the faults and the follies, which prevail in both countries, so that we may be a mutual help to each other in the race of human improvement.

In many of Dr Dewey's views of his country's manners we can fully sympathize-he has been in our country, where he has witnessd the manners and condition of the people; he has, we presume, made himself acquainted with many of our institutions and social relations; he has seen many things to condemn, and some things to approve, among us; his contrasts, favourable to American institutions, are not unnatural; we can go wth him to a great extent in the picture he draws between the condition of the hopeless obsequious la