find the following paffage. The friends of the author on the other hand flatter him, that he has done fomething tolerably well; that, as far as he has gone, he has given a clear and full answer to the objections made to our liturgy, and fhewn them to be idle, trifling, and groundless; that he has proved the difquifitors to be guilty of the very imputations, which they would fix upon the author of the remarks; to be guilty of mean, low, paultry fcurrility; of Shameful prevarication, of bafe infinuations, of notorious falfhoods, and other little artifices, frequently found in the treatifes of the most vain, conceited, impious, fneering infidels. That which will deferve the reader's particular notice, fays he, p. 269, the Difquifitors infift upon it, that the Difquifitions, and their Appeals, &c. are all the words of truth and foberness. Teneatis amici? What, in the name of goodness! are the words of truth and foberness? Are fhameful prevarication-base infinuations—mean, low, canting fcurrility-notorious falfhoods-fceptical_ribaldry-paultry quibble-vain, arrogant affertions-confident appeals to common fenfe and reafon-rude infults upon the establishment-impudent menaces are thefe the words of truth and fobernefs? Our author feems to out-do himself when fpeaking of the apologist for the difquifitions, whom he feldom mentions without beftowing on him one or other of the following genteel appellations; infolent fchifmatic, fceptical trifler, paultry fneerer, impertinent caviller, &c. and in one place, he calls him a pert, impudent prevaricating sceptical knave. By the above fpecimens our readers will clearly perceive what character this performance deferves; and will, no doubt, be apt to think, that had the author intended the greatest service to the caufe of the difquifitions, he could not, perhaps, have taken a more effectual method than he has done to promote it. We fhall only add, that inftead of doing any fervice to his caufe, he will, we apprehend, be thought, by the candid, moderate, and judicious part of our clergy, to have done it no small difhonour, by employing fuch weapons in its defence; weapons, which, we heartily wifh, may be always left in fuch hands. It may not be improper to acquaint our readers, that our author, in return for the honour done him (for such he tells us he really efleems it) by the account we gave of the first part of his remarks in our review for March 1750, has made mention of us in fuch bonourable and respectful terms as those of illiterate rudeness, invective, cavil and impertinence, &c. &c. has ranked us amongst the friends of the Difquifitors, and under that character beftowed upon us a due fhare of thofe flowers of fpeech, of which he has fo rich a variety; and not only fo, but (fuch is the gratitude of our worthy Prefbyter) has inferted in his performance a long letter from a friend, who has treated us with a very uncommon degree of refpect, and fhewn talents for elegant and polite writing equal, if not fuperior, to those of our author himself. h ART. VI. A Treatife on Virtue and Happiness. By Thomas Nettleton, M. D. and F. R. S. 8vo. 4s. Payne. TH HE favourable reception, which this book has met with from the public, renders it unneceffary for us to lay any thing of its character; or give our readers a view of what it contains: nor fhould we indeed have taken any notice of it, but that this edition is much improved, and feveral confiderable additions and alterations made. All we shall say concerning it is, that, whoever has a taste for moral fubjects, (the most important of any) and would fee the method of obtaining a folid and durable happiness, pointed out in an eafy, agreeable, and perfpicuous manner, will find his account in a careful perufal of it. ART. VII. Some Conjectures relative to a very ancient Piece of Money, lately found at Eltham in Kent, &c. By Charles Clarke, late of Baliot-College, Oxford. 4to. 25. Rivington. THE HE antient piece of money, which is the subject of our author's conjectures, was found, he tells us, about a year ago in a Stratum of white fand, by a labourer as he was digging up fome new ground at Eltham; and is not the leaft blurred or exeded, but in the highest prefervation, having the adorandi rubigo (as he calls it) and the femblance and peculiar air of much antiquity. The intrinfic value of this piece, which is of bafe metal and weighs fifteen grains and a half, we are told, is one penny, three farthings, and three fourths. It has no head nor legenda; the reverfe is divided into quarters, with a ftar in one quarter, and a crefcent in the other. As thefe devices are always found in the ancient feals of Richard I, our author thinks it highly probable, that this piece of mo¬ ney is a coin of that king. He has added fome remarks on a differtation (lately publifhed) on Oriuna the fuppofed wife of Caraufius, *and on the Roman coins there mentioned; the reafons affigned. for making these remarks, we fhall give our readers in his own words, which may serve as a fpecimen of his ftile and manner of writing. I fhould not have thus publickly made thefe remarks,' fays he, but am concerned that fuch a trifling differtation, whofe author had acquired fome credit with the learned Re Nummariâ, fhould appear in the French academy, and be the reproach of a nation that did poffefs the most valuable collection of Greek and Roman coins in the univerfe. The flight credit the differtator affords Monf. Boze, keeper of the French king's medals, a man of extenfive learning, though not fuperior to his free communication of it, I am afraid will draw fome fevere remarks from another quarter, which by this trifling attempt of our British author, we have little hope he can retort: However, I wish fome more able pen would undertake to vindicate our established English right of having given to the learned as many excellent treatifes de re Nummariâ as any nation under the fun.' ART. VIII. R Candid Remarks upon the Rev. Mr. Taylor's Difcourfe entitled, The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, examined. In a Letter to Mr. Taylor. By George Hampton, M. A. 8vo. Pr. 1s. 6d. Ofwald. HE author of the piece now under our confidera Ttion, which is written with remarkable candour and modefty, appears to be a true and confiftent friend to freedom of enquiry; treats Mr. Taylor with decency and good-manners; and delivers his fentiments upon the point in debate with great moderation. If those who engage in controverfies of any kind would write in the fame cool difpaffionate manner our author does; we should then fee differences in opinion occafion no breach of friendfhip, nor any violation of the rules of good-breeding; and might flatter ourselves with the hopes of feeing truth ftruck out between the contending parties, and their dif putes terminated to mutual fatisfaction. Mr. Hampton's principal view in this letter is to fhew, See Review for June 1751. p. 75. ART. XXIII. that that the objections urged by Mr. Taylor against confidering the legal as piacular facrifices, and the facrifice of Chrift as vicarious, are infufficient. With regard to the merits of the caufe, it is not our province to determine; nor fhall we detain our readers with any extracts from this performance, but think it fufficient to inform them, that though our author endeavours to vindicate the commonly received opinion with regard to the point in difpute, yet he is much more moderate in his fentiments concerning it, than the generality of those who have taken the fame fide of the queftion. By fatisfaction to the divine justice, when applied to the fufferings of Christ, he thinks nothing more is meant, than that they were fuch, as that it pleased God to confider and accept of them, as fufficient to manifeft his difpleasure againft fin, and to vindicate the honour of his juftice and laws; at the fame time that he was pleafed to fhew mercy to the finner: and by the imputation of our fins to Chrift, he imagines nothing more is intended, than that, as he undertook to procure for us the remiffion of our fins, they may be faid fo far to have been placed to his account. ÄRT. IX. A alusis productions that have been lately published, this is not the leaft confiderable. The fubject is very important, and handled with judgment and accuracy: the full evidence, poffibility, and propriety of miracles are diftinctly fhewn; and the objections of Mr. Hume, though urged with great acuteness, proved to be inconclufive. Nor is it the leaft praife of this performance, that it is written with candour, and in fuch a manner as fhews the author to have enlarged and generous notions of chriftianity, and a temper free from fournefs and bigotry. He has divided his piece into two parts; in the firft he proves that miracles are credible in themfelves, and in the fecond fhews the credibility of the go pel miracles, and what difparity there is between them and thofe of popery, obviating as he goes along all that has been advanced upon the fubject by Mr. Hume. F 4 The The argument urged by Mr. Hume against miracles is as follows," It appears," fays he, " that no teftimony for any kind of miracle can ever amount to a probability, much lefs to afproof; and that, even fuppofing it amounted to a proof, 'twould be oppofed by another proof, derived from the very nature of the fact which it would endeavour to eftablifh. 'Tis experience alone which gives authority to human teftimony; and it is the fame experience which affures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but fubftract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on the one fide or the other, with that af furance which arifes from the remainder. But, according to the principle here explained, this fubftraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and, therefore, we may establish it as a maxim, that no human teftimony can have fuch force as to prove a miracle, and make it a juft foundation for any fuch fystem of religion." 6 In answer to this, our author obferves, that, the uniformity of nature is no way impeached or brought in queftion by the fuppofition of miracles. The concuring teftimony of mankind,' fays he, to the course of nature, is not contradicted by thofe who have experienced contrary appearances in a few inftances. The idea of a miracle unites and reconciles thefe feeming differences. By fuppofing the facts in queftion to be miraculous, the uniformity of nature is preferved, and the facts are accounted for upon another principle intirely confiftent with it. Thus, experience teacheth us, that lead and iron are heavier than water: but a man, by projecting thefe heavy bodies, may make them fwim in water, or fly in air. Should the fame be done by any invifible power, it would be a miracle. But the uniformity of nature is no more difturbed in this cafe than the former, nor is the general experience, which witnefles to the fuperior gravity of these bodies, any proof that they may not be raised in air and water by fome invifible agent, as well as by the power of man: all that experience teaches is the comparative weight of thefe bodies. If therefore, they are feen to float in mediums lighter than themfelves, this must be the effect of art or strength; but, if it be done without any visible art or power, it must be done then by fome art or power that is invifible, that is, it must be miraculous. the procefs by which we infer the existence of miracles; This is which |