own knowledge; which is, that it is with the greateft injuftice you afferted, the advertisement, complained of, was indus triously circulated in the news papers of town and country, with a defign to caft the odium of infidelity and atheism on your character. That advertisement, which was probably mutilated by the printer or publifher for pecuniary reafons, was not inferted more than once or twice in any of the Lon don papers, and in none of the country papers at all. Inftead of exclaiming, therefore, as you have injuriously done against Mr. Seton's malevolence, it is with much greater truth and propriety you now acknowledge, that the odium in queftion is what you had unexpectedly drawn upon yourself." But let us wave farther perfonal reflection, and bury fuch petty bickerings in oblivion; as you yourfelf confefs, Sir, that the popular clamour, to which you fuppofed your antagonist inftrumental, proved the motive which "engaged your more particular attention to the subject, which at length terminated in a full conviction that the doubt you had expreffed was well founded." The confequences, indeed, of this temporary cla mour, appear to be matter of confolation at leaft, if not exultation, if you really wrote as you felt at the time of penning the following paffage in your preface: "I feel a great prefent eafe in the idea of publishing my thoughts with the most unreferved freedom on this important fubject; and I am not without hopes that, though many wellmeaning chriftians may for fome time rank me with unbelievers, fome unbelievers, of a philofophical turn of mind, may on this very account, be prevailed upon to attend to the fubject; and finding the true fyftem of revelation to be quite another thing than they had imagined it to be, and infinitely more confonant to the real appearances of nature, may think it worth their while to confider it in various other lights, and attend to the evidence that myself and others have produced in favour of it, and fo, from being infidels, in confequence of not understanding what chriftianity really is, and not fufficiently examining the evidence of it, *See Preface to the Difquifitions. + For heaven's fake, where have the fenfes and apprehenfion of all mankind been gone a wool-gathering, for almoft eighteen hundred years that nobody, before Dr. Pheffley, has difcovered what the true fyfiem of revelation is; that it is quite another thing to what the learned and ingenious of preceding ages have conceived it; and that it is infinitely more con Jonant to the real appearances of nature, than modern philofophers imagine it! which is generally the cafe, they may become rational chrif tians. A very few converts of this kind would, in my eftimation, compenfate for a great deal of odium among profeffed chriftians. Their indignation would do neither themselves, nor me, much harm, whereas the conviction of the reafonablenefs and truth of Chriftianity, in a few really thinking and intelligent unbelievers, might do the greatest good; and even contribute to put a stop fooner than otherwife would be done, to the infidelity of the philofophical part of the world *. To effect this, in any tolerable degree, would be an object indeed; and the man who fhould in any meafure fucceed in it, could not be faid to have lived, to have written, or to have been calumniated in vain." I will not compare you, Sir, to the fanatic, who is fond of perfecution, and begs the bystander, as Swift fays, for the love of God, to give him a flap on the face. And yet, I cannot well account for your complaining thus of a calumny, which you confeffedly drew on yourfelf, and for your ftill unneceffarily provoking it. Materialism is an obnoxious word, the immateriality of the human foul or fpirit a favourite and popular tenet. Why, then, Sir, fhould you chufe, unless for the lake of obloquy and perfecution, to abide by the materiality of the ful, when you might, with much more truth and con iftence, have infifted on the fpirituality of body +? Is it poffible that, like that whimfical exotic, Rouffeau, you can pride yourfelf -on a figularity that reflects the greatest opprobrium on the character of a philofopher? I hope not, and therefore hope to hear no more of fo pitiful a pretence to popularity. As to your concern for the converfion of infidels, I look upon it as the cant of a philofophical crufader; and I am forry, that I cannot coincide with you in your projected conciliation of the rational truths of philofophy with the myfterious truths of Chrift anity. I am apprehenfive it is impoffible, without endangering the caufe of both, to bring them into too close a contact. They are as heterogeneous in their nature, as matter and spirit, according to the commonly-received notions of the former, and the late definitions of the latter. There is no common *It is a moot point with me, whether the really-thinking and intelligent philofophers, whom Dr. Priestley wifhes to convert, are greater infidels in their prefent flate of unbelief, than they would be if converted by him to rational Chriftians. + As will be hereafter fhown. An expedient this, which might have conciliated vulgar prejudice to the true doctrine, respecting the nature of created fpirits. VOL. VI. 3 Q criterion criterion applicable to both, and, therefore, to conciliate both to the fame mind, the standard of each fhould, in my opinion, be kept as diftinct and feparate as poffible. The great father of natural philofophy, Lord Verulam, whofe intuitive genius faw farther, perhaps, into the fecrets of nature, if not into the myfteries of religion, than hath been seen by any philofopher before or fince, was peculiarly averse to fubmitting the doctrines of revelation to the difcuffion of reafon *. But I wave fuch confiderations, as foreign to my prefent purpofe; which is, not to engage in theological controversy, but to inveftigate the nature of Matter and Spirit, confidered as objects of phyfical fcience; an inveftigation which I mean to make introductory to a sketch of the outlines of a mechanical fyftem of natural philofophy: in which the nature of all crea ted being, whether material or fpiritual, will be phyfically explained: a fyftem that by no means admits of the exiftence of incrt, impenetrable matter; and yet, at the fame time, difcards all the occult qualities of ancient and modern theorifts; imputing to primary caufes no other properties than fuch as their effects prove them to be neceffarily poffeffed of; and yet, deducing the principal properties, ufually afcribed to im material principles, from material and mechanical caufts: a fyftem, which, however new in the fingularity and fimpliity of its deductions, is fo perfectly confiftent with the New tonian theory, that it ferves not only to illuftrate its principal doctrines, but to fulfil the wifh, and confirm the fufpicion of that great philofopher, as expreffed in the preface to his admirable Principia. Utinam naturæ phænomena ex principiis mechanicis derivare liceret. Nam multa me movent ut nonnihil fufpicer ea omnia ex viribus quibufdam pendere poffe, quibus corporum particulæ per caufas nondum cognitas, vel in fe mutuo impelluntur et cohærent, vel ab invicem fugantur et recedent; quibus viribus ignotis, philofophi hactenus naturam fruftra ten tarunt. I am, Sir, yours, &c. W. KENRICK, Sec Inftaurat. Mag. Lib. IX, FO FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE To the AUTHORS of the LONDON REVIEW. GENTLEMEN, A tranflation having been lately made into the German language of Mr. W. Bowyer's valuable book, entitled "Conjectures on the New Teftament, &c." it has of course fallen under the particular confideration of that eminent critic, Profeffor Michaelis, in his periodical Review of the works of the learned. Now, as this book, appearing fome time before the commencement of your labours, has not been taken notice of by you, I thought I could not do you a greater pleafure, or fhew the great regard I bear to the learned and ingenious author better, than by tranfmitting you a tranflated copy of the profeffor's criticifmns on his work. The defects and errors in point of language, you will, I hope, excufe, as English is not eafily written by a foreigner. I am your humble fervant, Conjectures on the New Teftament, collected. F. A. V. The first edition of this interefting and now very much improved book was published, together with a Greek New Testament after Wettein's critical opinions, in the year 1763, which I have spoken of in my introduction to the New Testament. "The author was unknown at the time, when I wrote my introduction. He was only called by the initial letters G. B. according to the title of his book: Cura Typis et Sumptibus G. B. But now it is certain by accounts from London, that he is the truly learned printer William Bowyer;-that accordingly the letters G. B. fignify Guilielmus Bowyerus. I am told, that this gentleman, befides those parts of learning, which this very book fhews him truly master of, is very learned in the Hebrew language. Moreover he is the only printer in London, who keeps a well-provided fet of taftern types; in fo much, that every book, wherein feveral of the Eastern languages occur together, must be printed by him. Several years ago we had from his prefs Channing's Arabic edition of Rhazes de Variolis et morbillis. He deferves therefore to be known in Germany as a fingularity. But the end of his preface raises fome fear in me, that we fhall not long enjoy this fingularity, because he describes himself as old, languishing, gouty, and afflicted with the stone, and begs for indulgence Our Correspondent's fears have proved prophetic. This very able printer died, Nov. 18, 1777, in the 78th year of his age. He preferved to the end of life his zealous attachment to literature; and hath munificently endeavoured to perpetuate a learned race of printers, by a noble provifion for that purpofe in his will. Rev. 3 Q2 towards towards the imperfections of his book, for the fake of his age and illnefs. I am fure, every true connoiffeur will grant this very willingly So ne imperfections the collection has indeed; but imperfections, which for the greatest part, are very well accounted for by the circumstances which the author mentions. Nevertheless, he has done fo much, particularly in the fecond edition, that every lover of science will cer tainly with, to be often under the neceffity of granting patience to fo few imperfections. "The defign of this collection is, not to give various readings out of manufcripts, but only the critical conjectures of the learned. How useful it is to have as compleat a collection of these conjectures as poffibe, I will now not rehearse, having spoken thereof in my introduction. I add now only a fingle remark, which came fince into my mind, writing in that place, undetermined for or against con jectures; a remark which is for conjectures, and makes it pretty probable that the true reading fometimes may be loft in all the manufcripts we have, notwithstanding the very confiderable number of them. We have abfolutely not one manufcript from the 4th century, and certainly very few from the 6th; and it appears by the Fathers, that in the manufcripts of the first centuries, which we have no more, many various readings have frequently been found, which now are found but very scarce, perhaps in one or two of all our later manufcripts; becaufe a famous commentator perhaps did not like them; or the tran fcribers found them fcandalous and obfcure, and accordingly altered, or left them our. Should it, therefore, be impoffible, that a various reading would be wanting in all our manufcripts, which was a very common one in the first centuries-This is not only poffible, but real. In the Gofpel of St. Matth. xxvii. 16, 17. not one or two, but many manufcripts had Inoor, Baga Bau in the time of Origen; and the Ephetian manufcript, out of which the Armenian tranflation in the 5th century was made, muft ftill have had this reading, because Barrabas is called in the Armenian tranflation Jefus Barrabas. But now not one of all our manuscripts has it; and we learn from Origen, that it was thought unfit, that Barrabas fhould be called Jelus, and that it therefore was left out. What once has happened, may have happened oftener. And therefore one or the other various reading, wanting in all our numerous, but latter manufcripts, and in the few old versions, may very well be rettored by critical conjectures. Very feldom this will be the cafe, to be fure; but, fee my Introduction. Werftein had mentioned fome conjectures among his various readings; but, as Mr. Bowyer obferves, too fhort; without mentioning the reasons which they are founded on, and without quoting the place, where more of them was to be read: to fupply thele wants, and to collect as many conjectures as poffible, was the defign of Mr. Bowyer. The first part of this defign he has fulfilled. Though he speaks concifely, yet he fpeaks clear and amply enough, to teach his readers, why the learned conjecturer difliked the vulgar reading, and how his conjec« ture is to be understood, If, neverthelets, fome obfcurities fhould remain, every body may confult the author himself, who is therefore quoted. Sometimes it feemed to me, as if the true meaning of the |