Retrofpe of Domeftic Literatureex—Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. 
Mr. Marsu_ has publifhed, as a re- 
joinder to the anonymous author of the 
Remarks on Michaelis and his Commen- 
tator, ** Az Illufiration of the Hypothe/s 
propofed in the Differtation on the Origin 
and Gompofition of the three firft Canoni- 
cal Gofpels.” 
This hypothefis, built upon fasts labo- 
rioufly collected and moft ingenioufly ap- 
plied, brought down upon the learned au- 
thor an attack from an anonymous writer 
(fuppofed to be the Bifhop of Oxford.) 
To thefe ‘ Remarks” Mr. Marth pub- 
lifted a very abie, and what is generally 
confidered to be a very fatisfactary, reply. 
His anonymons adverfary re-publifhed his 
Remarks, with a fhort Preface; and this 
re-publication has called forth the Illuf- 
tration of the Hypothefis, which itis pro- 
bable will be deemed a complete vindica- 
tion of Mr. Marhh and his fyftem from 
fome very illiberal charges, and fome to- 
tally unfounded objections brought by 
the remarker; and at tne fame time a 
juftification of all the charges which Mr. 
Marfh had advanced againft him in his 
firft reply. The controverfy has been 
carried on with too much afperity, but it 
has called forth the learning and acutenefs 
of one of the moft learned and acute theo- 
Jogians of the prefent day, and will al- 
ways be ftudied with delight and inftruc- 
tion by thofe who intereft themfelves in 
examining the truth of revelation. 
_ _ Mr. M‘Conocute has publithed a «* Di 
fertation concerning the Writer of the 
Fourth Gofpel.” 
be bypothefis here for the firft time 
propofed, is, that John the Apoftle and 
John the Evangelitt were different perfons. 
It is a very curious fubject of enquiry, and 
will probably be taken up by other theo- 
fogians who will canvais it with fill 
greater rigour and acutenefs, <¢ It ap- 
pears tome, (fays this ingenious author) 
that Jobn the fon of Zebedee, or Jokn the 
“Apoltle, whofe occupation, before he was 
called by our Saviour, had confined him 
to the fea of Tiberias and its banks, was 
not the author of this (John’s) Gofpel ; 
that the author was a native of Jeru‘alem; 
that he, or fome of h:s relations, had pro- 
perty in the city of Jerufalem, or near to 
it, that he atreAded upon Jefus when he 
was at Jerufalem, or when he tarricd in 
what is called in the New Teftament the 
land of Judes, but that he feldom acecm- 
panied him into Gallilee.”? If, on fur. 
ther examination, this hypothefis faall be 
found tenable, it will folve many ferious 
difficuitics, 2nd 1econcile many incongrui- 
ties. 
Mr. Grecory Biunr, as he hus 
MontTuty Mac, No, 117. 
641 | 
mouroufly and antithetically calis himfelf, 
has addretled “* Six mare Letiers to Gran- 
ville Sharp, Ef. on bis Remarks upon tbe 
Ujes of the Article in the Greek Tefta- 
ment.” 
He is an antagonift of great power and 
fkill, but has not conducted himfcif with 
{ufficient courtefey in the combat: he is 
a conqueror, but a mercilefs one. 
Mrs. Marrior’s ** Elements of Relie 
gion’ contain what fhe terms a fimple de- 
duction of Chriftianity fram its fource to 
its prefent circumftances, The work is 
addrefled to a young lady in a feries of 
letters, combining narrative and reflec- 
tion. Inthe firft three are treated the 
fundamental topics of religion, the ex- 
iitence and providence of God, and the 
importance and actual communication of 
divine revelations. In the fucceeding 
forty-two the Hittory of the Old and New 
Teitaments is deduced, and the remain- 
ing four comprife a very brief fketch of 
fuofequent ecclefiattical hiftory. The 
work is indicative of a pious and reflect- 
ing mind, but is occafionally deficient in 
that candour towards thofe who differ in 
opinion from the author, which conftitutes 
tne true Chrittian fpirit. 
The fame remark we are compelled to 
make on Mr. MENDHAM’s %* Expojfition | 
of the Lord’s Prayer 3 a work altoge- 
tner fenfible, pious, and ‘ufeful; but in 
which we fee fome highly venerable names 
fpoken of in an extremely indecorous and 
perfectly unwarrantable manner. 
Dr. SHepuHERD, Archdeacon of Bed- 
ford, has publifhed a volume of ‘ Ser- 
mons on feveral Occafions.” 
Mr. Warner, ot Bath, has alfo pre- 
fenied the public with a volume of ** Pras- 
tical Sermons.” 
Weare alfo indebted to Mr. THEO- 
PHItLus Sr. Joun, MryPuomas Tay- 
LER, and toa Layman, refpectively for 
a volume of Sermons. 
We mutt altogether decline the enume- 
ration of Faft Sermons, Confecration Ser- 
mons, &c. &c.; fingling out of the mafs, 
Dr. Parr’s ‘* Faft Sermon,” Dr. REES’s, 
Mr. Jervis’s, and Mr. Betsuam’s, all 
of which will reward the-reader, 
ECCLESFASTICAL HISTORY. 
“© Perigdical Accounts relative to the 
Baptifi Mifisnary Society for propagating 
tae Gofpel among the Heathens.” 
“< Tranfations of the Mifionary Society, 
Vol. I 
There are few works more inftructive 
and incerejng than thefe, the titles of 
which we have jult twanfehibed. Theex- 
hauttlefs zeal and extravagant fanaticifin- 
of the miffionares fupgorts them under, 
4P incredible 
