Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

is not possible to pick out apparent or real in- | respective credit of their histories. We have in consistencies between them. These inconsisten- our own times, if there were not something indecies are studiously displayed by an adverse corous in the comparison, the life of an eminent pleader, but oftentimes with little impression person, written by three of his friends, in which upon the minds of the judges. On the contrary, there is very great variety in the incidents selected a close and minute agreement induces the suspi- by them; some apparent, and perhaps some real cion of confederacy and fraud. When written contradictions; yet without any impeachment of histories touch upon the same scenes of action, the the substantial truth of their accounts, of the aucomparison almost always affords ground for athenticity of the books, of the competent inform like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes import-ation or general fidelity of the writers. ant, variations present themselves; not seldom also, absolute and final contradictions; yet neither one nor the other, are deemed sufficient to shake the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the execution of Claudian's order to place his statue in their temple, Philover, in order of time, a regular and complete acplaces in harvest, Josephus in seed-time; both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt, whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order was given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis of Argyle's death, in the reign of Charles the Second, we have a very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded; and that he was

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not write histories, but memoirs; which is perhaps the true name and proper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do not undertake, or ever meant, to delicount of all the things of importance, which the person, who is the subject of their history, did or said; but only, out of many similar ones, to give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered themselves more immediately to their attention, came in the way of their inquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their particular design at the time of writing.

This particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor often. Thus I think that the particular design which Saint Matthew had in view whilst he was writing the history of the recondemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon of Christ's promise to his disciples to go before surrection, was to attest the faithful performance the Monday. Was any reader of English tory ever sceptic enough to raise from hence a them into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, question, whether the Marquis of Argyle was who seems to have taken it from him, has recordexecuted or not? Yet this ought to be left in un-ed this promise, and he alone has confined his certainty, according to the principles upon which narrative to that single appearance to the disciples the Christian history has sometimes been attacked. which fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the Dr. Middleton contended, that the different hours great and most public manifestation of our Lord's of the day assigned to the crucifixion of Christ, person. It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint by John and by the other evangelists, did not ad- Matthew's mind, and he adapted his narrative to it. mit of the reconcilement which learned men had [But, that there is nothing in Saint Matthew's lanproposed; and then concludes the discussion with guage, which negatives other appearances, or which this hard remark: "We must be forced, with seve-imports that this his appearance to his disciples in ral of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency." But what are these consequences? By no means the discrediting of the history as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing that repugnancy be not resolvable into different modes of computation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have taken place.

Galilee in pursuance of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is made pretty evident by Saint Mark's Gospel, which uses the same terms concerning the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itself records two other appearances prior to this: "Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilce: there shall ye see him as he said unto you." (xvi. 7.) We might be apt to infer from these A great deal of the discrepancy observable in words, that this was the first time they were to the Gospel, arises from omission; from a fact or see him: at least, we might infer it, with as much a passage of Christ's life being noticed by one reason as we draw the inference from the same writer, which is unnoticed by another. Now, words in Matthew: yet the historian himself did omission is at all times a very uncertain ground not perceive that he was leading his readers to of objection. We perceive it, not only in the comany such conclusion; for in the twelfth and two parison of different writers, but even in the same following verses of this chapter, he informs us of writer when compared with himself. There are two appearances, which, by comparing the order a great many particulars, and some of them of im- of events, are shown to have been prior to the apportance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiqui-pearance in Galilee. "He appeared in another ties, which, as we should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish wars. Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio. Cassius, have, all three, written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the rest, yet no objection is from thence taken to the

*See Biog. Britann.

form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country: and they went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them: afterward he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen."

Probably the same observation, concerning the

† Middleton's Reflections answered by Benson. Hist. particular design which guided the historian,

Christ. vol. iii. p. 50.

1 Lardner, Cred. part i. vol. ii. p. 735, &c.

§ Ibid. p. 743.

may be of use in comparing many other passages of the Gospels.

CHAPTER II.
Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles.

A SPECIES of candour which is shown towards every other book, is sometimes refused to the Scriptures; and that is, the placing of a distinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually question the credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have delivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from observation, narrative from argument.

possess enables us now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to believe, that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected the approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflection will occur, as that which we have made with respect to the more partial, perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient error concerning the duration of St. John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said, which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the part of impostors.

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter, is contained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the apostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me the apostles' testimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; give me the facts, and I have complete security for every conclusion I want.

But although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist to return this answer; I do not think that it is the only answer which the objection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most reasonable distinctions, will exclude all uncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger.

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, much controversy and much objection has been raised concerning the quota tions of the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it is said, are applied in a sense, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from those to which they belong, in the original. It is probable to my apprehension, that many of those quotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothing more than accommodations. They quoted passages of their Scripture, which suited, and fell in with, the occasion before them, without always undertaking to assert, that the occasion was in the view of the author of the words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from books especially which are in every one's hands, First, to separate what was the object of the are common with writers of all countries; but apostolic mission, and declared by them to be so, in none, perhaps, were more to be expected from what was extraneous to it, or only incidentthan in the writings of the Jews, whose litera- ally connected with it. Of points clearly extrature was almost entirely confined to their Scrip- neous to the religion, nothing need be said. Of tures. Those prophecies which are alleged with points incidentally connected with it, something more solemnity, and which are accompanied may be added. Demoniacal possession is one of with a precise declaration, that they originally these points: concerning the reality of which, as respected the event then related, are, I think, truly this place will not admit the examination, or even alleged. But were it otherwise; is the judg-the production of the argument on either side of ment of the writers of the New Testament, in in- | the question, it would be arrogance in me to deli- terpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected either with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what was passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it clearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit?-Does it diminish it? Has it any thing to do with it?

Another error imputed to the first Christians, was the expected approach of the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection by a remark upon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. Our Saviour, speaking to Peter of John, said, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" These words, we find, had been so misconstrued, as that a report from thence "went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." Suppose that this had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, and that the particular circumstance, from which the mistake sprang, had been lost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case,) some, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how little justice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such a presumption taken up, the information which we happen to

* John xxi. 22.

ver any judgment. And it is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they who think it was a general, but erroneous opinion, of those times; and that the writers of the New Testament, in common with other Jewish writers of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinking upon the subject, which then universally prevailed, need not be alarmed by the concession, as though they had any thing to fear from it, for the truth of Christianity. The doctrine was not what Christ brought into the world. It appears in the Christian records, incidentally and accidentally, as being the subsisting opinion of the age and country in which his ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of his revelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of spiritual substances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected with testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the use of his speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was ascribed; and the like of every other cure wrought upon those who are said to have been possessed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the popular explication of the cause was well founded, or not. The matter of fact, the change, so far as it was an object of sense, or of testimony, was in either case the same.

Secondly, that, in reading the apostolic writings, we distinguish between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to them

by revelation properly so called; yet in propound- Christianity answerable with its life, for the ciring these doctrines in their writings or discourses, cumstantial truth of each separate passage of the they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce Old Testament, the genuineness of every book, them, by such analogies, arguments, and consider- the information, fidelity, and judgment of every ations, as their own thoughts suggested. Thus writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but the call of the Gentiles, that is, the admission of unnecessary difficulties, into the whole system. the Gentiles to the Christian profession without a These books were universally read and received previous subjection to the law of Moses, was im- by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and his parted to the apostles by revelation, and was at- apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred tested by the miracles which attended the Chris- to them, alluded to them, used them. Yet, except tian ministry among them. The apostles' own where he expressly ascribes a divine authority to assurance of the matter rested upon this founda- particular predictions, I do not know that we can tion. Nevertheless, Saint Paul, when treating strictly draw any conclusion from the books beof the subject, offers a great variety of topics in its ing so used and applied, beside the proof, which proof and vindication. The doctrine itself must it unquestionably is, of their notoriety, and recepbe received: but it is not necessary, in order to tion at that time. In this view, our Scriptures defend Christianity, to defend the propriety of afford a valuable testimony to those of the Jews. every comparison, or the validity of every argu- But the nature of this testimony ought to be unment, which the apostle has brought into the dis-derstood. It is surely very different from what it cussion. The same observation applies to some is sometimes represented to be, a specific ratificaother instances; and is, in my opinion, very well tion of each particular fact and opinion; and not founded; "When divine writers argue upon any only of each particular fact, but of the motives aspoint, we are always bound to believe the conclu-signed for every action, together with the judg sions that their reasonings end in, as parts of di-ment of praise or dispraise bestowed upon them. vine revelation: but we are not bound to be able Saint James, in his Epistle, says, "Ye have to make out, or even to assent to, all the premises heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the made use of by them, in their whole extent, un-end of the Lord." Notwithstanding this text, the less it appear plainly, that they affirm the pre-reality of Job's history, and even the existence of mises as expressly as they do the conclusions proved by them."*"

CHAPTER III.

such a person, has been always deemed a fair subject of inquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines. Saint James's authority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more. Saint Paul, in his

The Connexion of Christianity with the Jewish second Epistle to Timothy, has this similitude:

History.

[ocr errors]

Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth." These names are not found in the Old Testament, And it is uncertain, whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing then extant, or from tra

UNDOUBTEDLY Our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic institution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to be very difficult to assign any other cause for the commence-dition. But no one ever imagined, that Saint Paul ment or existence of that institution; especially is here asserting the authority of the writing, if it for the singular circumstance of the Jews' ad- was a written account which he quoted, or making hering to the unity, when every other people slid himself answerable for the authenticity of the trainto polytheism; for their being men in religion, dition; much less, that he so involves himself with children in every thing else; behind other nations either of these questions, as that the credit of his in the arts of peace and war, superior to the most own history and mission should depend upon the improved in their sentiments and doctrines re-fact, whether Jannes and Jambres withstood Molating to the Deity. Undoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognizes the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as Christians to go. But to make

Burnet's Expos. art. 6.

ses, or not. For what reason a more rigorous interpretation should be put upon other references, it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other passages of the Jewish history stand upon no better evidence than the history of Job, or of Jannes and Jambres, (I think much otherwise;) but I mean, that a reference in the New Testainent, to a passage in the Old, does not so fix its authority, as to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or into the separate reasons upon which that credibility is founded; and that it is an unwarrantable, as well as unsafe rule to lay down concerning the Jewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other, that either every particular of

"In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness, of God; in their opinions concerning Providence, and the creation, preservation, and government of the world." Campbell on Mir. p. 207. To which we may add, in the acts of their religion not being accompanied either with cruelties or impurities in the religion itself being free from a species of superstition which prevailed universally in the popular religions of the ancient world, and which is to be found perhaps in all religions that have their ori-it must be true, or the whole false." gin in human artifice and credulity, riz. fanciful connexions between certain appearances and actions, and the destiny of nations or individuals. Upon these conceits rested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so much even of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the charms and incantations which were practised in those countries by the cominon people. From every thing of this sort the religion of the Jews, and the Jews alone, was free. -Vide Priestley's Lectures on the Truth of the Jewish and Christian Revelation, 1794.

I have thought it necessary to state this point explicitly, because a fashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of his school, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Christianity through the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class are founded in misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all proceed upon a supposition,

* Chap. v. 11.

1 Chap. iii. 8

which has not been made out by argument, viz. 1 salem, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? that the attestation, which the Author and first But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing teachers of Christianity gave to the divine mission to him: do the rulers know indeed that this is the of Moses and the prophets, extends to every point very Christ? Hourbeit we know this man, whence and portion of the Jewish history; and so extends he is, but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth as to make Christianity responsible in its own whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as credibility, for the circumstantial truth (I had al- he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye most said for the critical exactness) of every nar- know whence I am: and I am not come of myrative contained in the Old Testament. self, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people beliered on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man hath done?"

CHAPTER IV.

Rejection of Christianity.

WE acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted great numbers, did not produce a universal, or even a general conviction in the minds of men, of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this want of a more complete and extensive success, is called the rejection of the Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to form a strong objection to the reality of the facts which the history con

tains.

The matter of the objection divides itself into two parts; as it relates to the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations: because the minds of these two descriptions of men may have been, with respect to Christianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case of the Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was originalIy addressed to them, offers itself first to our consideration.

This passage is very observable. It exhibits the reasoning of different sorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle, which persons of all sorts are represented to have acknowledged as real. One sort of men thought, that there was something very extraordinary in all this; but that still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was a circumstance in his appearance which militated with an opinion concerning Christ, in which they had been brought up, and of the truth of which, it is probable, they had never entertained a particle of doubt, viz. that "When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is." Another sort were inclined to believe him to be the Messiah. But even these did not argue as we should; did not consider the miracle as of itself decisive of the question; as what, if once allowed, excluded all farther debate upon the subject; but founded their opinion upon a kind of comparative reasonWhen Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man hath done?" Another passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the same purpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Lazarus: “Jesus," he tells us (xi. 43, 44,) “when he had thus spoken, cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth: and he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said unto them, Loose him, and let him go." One might have suspected, that at least all those who stood by the sepulchre, when Lazarus was raised, would have believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelist does not so represent it:-"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which

"Now, upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; with us, there is but one ques-ing, tion, viz. whether the miracles were actually wrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to the acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the conclusion. If we believe the works, or any one of them, we believe in Jesus. And this order of reasoning is become so universal and familiar, that we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought, in the mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age, was totally different from this. After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated by various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the ap-Jesus did, believed on him; but some of them prehension of the writers of the New Testament, went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them the miracles did not irresistibly carry, even those what things Jesus had done." We cannot supwho saw them, to the conclusion intended to be pose that the evangelist meant by this account, to drawn from them; or so compel assent, as to leave leave his readers to imagine, that any of the specno room for suspense, for the exercise of candour, tators doubted about the truth of the miracle. Far or the effects of prejudice. And to this point, at from it. Unquestionably he states the miracle to least, the evangelists may be allowed to be good have been fully allowed; yet the persons who witnesses; because it is a point, in which exag-allowed it, were, according to his representation, geration or disguise would have been the other way. Their accounts, if they could be suspected of falsehood, would rather have magnified, than diminished, the effects of the miracles.

capable of retaining hostile sentiments towards Jesus. "Believing in Jesus" was not only to believe that he wrought miracles, but that he was the Messiah. With us there is no difference John vii. 21-31. "Jesus answered, and said between these two things: with them, there was unto them, I have done one work, and ye all mar- the greatest; and the difference is apparent in vel. If a man on the sabbath-day receive circum- this transaction. If Saint John has represented cision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; the conduct of the Jews upon this occasion truly are ye angry at me, because I have made a man (and why he should not I cannot tell, for it rather every whit whole on the sabbath-day? Judge makes against him than for him), it shows clearly not according to the appearance, but judge righte- the principles upon which their judgment proous judgment. Then said some of them of Jeru-ceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly

or not, the relation itself discovers the writer's | Jesus work what miracles he would, still the anown opinion of those principles: and that alone possesses considerable authority. In the next chapter, we have a reflection of the evangelist, entirely suited to this state of the case: "but though he had done so many miracles before them, yet believed they not on him." The evangelist does not mean to impute the defect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles; but to their not perceiving, what all now sufficiently perceive, and what they would have perceived, had not their understandings been governed by strong prejudices, the infallible attestation which the works of Jesus bore to the truth of his pretensions.

The ninth chapter of Saint John's Gospel contains a very circumstantial account of the cure of a blind man: a miracle submitted to all the scrutiny and examination which a sceptic could propose. If a modern unbeliever had drawn up the interrogatories, they could hardly have been more critical or searching. The account contains also a very curious conference between the Jewish rulers and the patient, in which the point for our present notice is their resistance of the force of the miracle, and of the conclusion to which it led, after they had failed in discrediting its evidence. "We know that God spake unto Moses; but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is." That was the answer which set their minds at rest. And by the help of much prejudice, and great unwillingness to yield, it might do so. In the mind of the poor man restored to sight, which was under no such bias, and felt no such reluctance, the miracle had its natural operation. Herein," says he, "is a marvellous thing that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know, that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began, was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing." We do not find that the Jewish rulers had any other reply to make to this defence, than that which authority is sometimes apt to make to argument, "Dost thou teach us ?"

If it shall be inquired, how a turn of thought, so different from what prevails at present, should obtain currency with the ancient Jews; the answer is found in two opinions which are proved to have subsisted in that age and country. The one was, their expectation of a Messiah of a kind totally contrary to what the appearance of Jesus bespoke him to be; the other, their persuasion of the agency of demons in the production of supernatural effects. These opinions are not supposed by us for the purpose of argument, but are evidently recognised in Jewish writings, as well as in ours. And it ought moreover to be considered, that in these opinions the Jews of that age had been from their infancy brought up; that they were opinions, the grounds of which they had probably few of them inquired into, and of the truth of which they entertained no doubt. And I think that these two opinions conjointly afford an explanation of their conduct. The first put them upon seeking out some excuse to themselves for not receiving Jesus in the character in which he claimed to be received; and the second supplied them with just such an excuse as they wanted. Let

* Chap. xii. 37.

swer was in readiness, "that he wrought them by the assistance of Beelzebub." And to this answer no reply could be made, but that which our Saviour did make, by showing that the tendency of his mission was so adverse to the views with which this being was, by the objectors themselves, supposed to act, that it could not reasonably be supposed that he would assist in carrying it on. The power displayed in the miracles did not alone refute the Jewish solution, because the interposition of invisible agents being once admitted, it is impossible to ascertain the limits by which their efficiency is circumscribed. We of this day may be disposed, possibly, to think such opinions too absurd to have been ever seriously entertained. I am not bound to contend for the credibility of the opinions. They were at least as reasonable as the belief in witchcraft. They were opinions in which the Jews of that age had from their infancy been instructed; and those who cannot see enough in the force of this reason, to account for their conduct towards our Saviour, do not sufficiently consider how such opinions may sometimes become very general in a country, and with what pertinacity, when once become so, they are, for that reason alone, adhered to. In the suspense which these notions, and the prejudices resulting from them, might occasion, the candid and docile and humble minded would probably decide in Christ's favour; the proud and obstinate, together with the giddy and the thoughtless, almost universally against him.

This state of opinion discovers to us also the reason of what some choose to wonder at, why the Jews should reject miracles when they saw them, yet rely so much upon the tradition of them in their own history. It does not appear, that it had ever entered into the minds of those who lived in the time of Moses and the prophets, to ascribe their miracles to the supernatural agency of evil beings. The solution was not then invented. The authority of Moses and the prophets being established, and become the foundation of the national polity and religion, it was not probable that the later Jews, brought up in a reverence for that religion and the subjects of that polity, should apply to their history a reasoning which tended to overthrow the foundation of both.

II. The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially of men of rank and learning in it, is resolved into a principle which, in my judgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument, or any evidence whatever, viz. contempt prior to examination. The state of religion amongst the Greeks and Romans, had a natural tendency to induce this disposition. Dionysius Halicarnassensis remarks, that there were six hundred different kinds of religions or sacred rites exercised at Rome. * The superior classes of the community treated them all as fables. Can we wonder then, that Christianity was included in the number, without inquiry into its separate merits, or the particular grounds of its pretensions? It might be either true or false for any thing they knew about it. The religion had nothing in its character which immediately engaged their notice. It mixed with no politics. It produced no fine writers. It contained no curious speculations. When it did reach their knowledge, I doubt not

* Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 371.

« AnteriorContinuar »