1802.] 
holy houfe of Loretto, and the liquefac- 
tion of St. Januarius’s blood, is treated. 
Thus the fame term is made to denote 
widely different ftates of unbelief; and, 
in reality, it means no more than this, that 
he to whom I apply the word does not be- 
lieve what I do. ‘There is, it is faid, in 
this country ome believer of the an- 
cient Heathen fyftem of mythology. Sup- 
- pofing himfelf the reprefentative of Gen- 
tile orthodoxy, with what difdain might 
he treat all the votaries of modern reli- 
gions as upftart infidels! How jutftly 
might he re-place the apoftate Julian by 
the apoftate Conftantine ! 
One certainly would not propofe to the 
fatellites of lordly eftablifhments the dif- 
ufe of fo convenient a mode of filencing an 
adverfary, as fixing upon him an odious 
appellation. They arein poffeffion of the 
right of doing it, and, while backed 
with the civil power, it anfwers their pur- 
pofe extremely well. But, it may be 
worth the confideration of thofe who are 
confcious of being themfelves diffenters 
from authorifed fyftems, how far they are 
politic or confiftent in branding thofe 
who deviate fomewhat farther, with oppro- 
brious epithets, which are fo eafily retort- 
ed upon themfelves. Softening down in- 
jidel to unbeliever, which I oblerve prac- 
tifed by fome of the gentler and civiller 
polemics, is a mere euphemifm, which 
dioes not alter the effence of the thing. 
They are ftill chargeable with the impro- 
priety of ufing a relative term as pofitive, 
and with the prefumption (as I fhall ven- 
ture to call it) of making their own fyftem 
of belief the ftandard of that of others. 
Unbeliever, in a religious fenfe, may be 
one who is fo with refpeét to the being’ 
and attributes of a God with refpec& to a 
future ftate; with refpect tothe truth of 
any divine revelation, or the nature of the 
perfons promulgating it ; with refpeét to 
the authority or the creeds of any parti- 
cular church. Who has aright to place 
himfelf out of the clafs, and the majority 
of all others in it? 
A man of true candour, in all difcuf 
fions involving diverfity of opinion, will 
be careful to fix no epithet upon an adver- 
fary, which, by its laxity, is capable of 
conveying a meaning beyond the ftrict 
truth. The infamous ufe lately made 
of the term Facobin is a pregnant example 
of the mi(chief arifing from the applica- 
tion of undefined terms, which may be 
made to imply whatever malignity would 
fuggeft, or credulity will receive. | 
ORTHOPHILUS. 
Objfervations on Mr, Marfh by Mr. Evanfon. 
347 
To the Editor of the Mouthly Magazine. 
| i the profecution of a Hiftory of Car- 
thage, on which, during a confiderable 
time, I have been occupied, I have ob= 
ferved occafional references to a publica- 
tion by Chriftopher Hendreich, entitled 
“© Carthago five Carthaginienfium Respub~ 
lica.* An gdition, which appeared at 
Francfert on the Oder in the year 16645 
is, I believe, the only impreffion. 
My endeavours hitherto to procure the 
book have been unfuccefsful. None of the 
libraries, private or public, to which I 
have obtained accefs, contain it, and, with 
{carcely an exception, it is unknown to the 
London bookfellers. The references and 
quotations in which I have feen it men- 
tioned, afcertain neither the extent to 
which it is original, nor, if merely a come 
pilation from ancient authors, its value in 
comprehenfivenefs and arrangement. They 
afford, indeed, little inight into the pres 
cife nature of its contents. 
Sept. 27) 1802. HANNIBAL, 
a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
F you have read Mr. Marth’s ingee 
nious and ftudioufly laboured Differ- 
tation upon the Origin of the three firft 
Gofpels ; whatever you were before, you 
muft now be fully convinced, that there is 
no fatisfactory hiftoric evidence of their 
authenticity exifting; and that, to account 
at all for their manifeft contradictory in- 
confiftencies with each other, their ableft 
advocates are forced to recur to fylteme | 
founded upon mere conjectural hypo- 
thefes, highly improbable, and therefore 
inadmiffible. Confequently, Sir, you muft 
be fenfible of the great advantage it would 
be to the caufe of Chriftianity, to have 
the real author of two of the hiftorical 
books of the New Teftament clearly afcer- 
tained. 
To me, Sir, that appears to have been 
done by Silas or Silvanus, who, according 
to my apprehenfion, by adopting the firft 
perfon plural, Acts xvi. 10. and xx. 5 
declares, as plainly as words can do it, 
that he was the author of both the Evan- 
gelical Hiftories addreffed to Theophilus. 
My reafons for aflerting this fact I ftated 
at fome lengtl{ in the 107th and three fol- 
lowing pages of the Diffonance of the 
Evangelifts, and in the thirty-fir& and 
five following pages of my Letter tm Dr, 
Prieftley’s Young Man, This chie:»a- 
3 5B: ta 
