A letter respectfully addressed to the Reverend Mr. Channing : relative to his Two sermons on infidelity

mm

^'4l

fltt

J»

IH i

■fH - $

IK

fli

&:£

» ■

LETTER

RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED

TO THE

REVEREND MR. CHANNING.

RELATIVE TO

HIS TWO SEEMONS

ON

INFIDELITY,

BY GEORGE BETHUNE EXGMSH, A. M

BOSTON :

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR.
1813.

LETTER, &c.

Rev. Sir,

YOUR eloquent and interesting
Sermons on Infidelity, I have read with the
interest arising from the nature of the subject
you have discussed, and the impressive man-
ner in which vou have treated it.

As it is understood that the appearance of
those Sermons was owing to a Book lately
published by me, I request your pardon for a
liberty I am about to take, which in any oth.
er circumstances I should blush to presume
upon — it is sir, with deference, and great
respect, to express my sentiments with regard
to some of the arguments contained in them,
where the reasoning does not appear to me
so unexceptionable as the language in which
it is enveloped, is eloquent and affecting. —
There are also some opinions of yours rela-
tive to matters of fact, in those discourses, to
which I would respectfullv solicit vour atteu-
tion.

It afforded me much pleasure, though it
caused me no surprise, to perceive you to say
in your introductory remarks, that these Ser-
mons were designed to procure for the argu-
ments for Christianity •'• a serious, and re-
spectful attention :?% and, that if you should
u be so happy as to awaken candid and pa-
tient euquirv.V your "principal object will
fce accomplished:" vou wish "that Chris-
12*

iianity should he thoroughly examined,** you
do " not wish to screen it from enquiry." It.
would cease, you observe to be your support
were you not K persuaded that it is able to
sustain the most deliberate investigation.**

In considering Christianity as a fair sub-
ject for discussion, you do justice to the cause
you so eloquently defend for Christianity
itself honestly, and openly professes to offer
itself, to the belief of all mankind, solely
on accouut of the reasons which support it :
and since its learned, and liberal advocates
always announce, and recommend it from the
Pulpit as reasonable in itself, and confirmed
by unanswerable arguments : no one who be-
lieves them sincere can doubt, that they are
perfectly willing to have its claims openly
discussed, and think themselves amply able
to give valid reasons, u for the faith that is in
them,** and which they so earnestly invite all
men to receive.

You observe, p. 13, that the writings of
Infidels, " have been injurious not so much
by the strength of their arguments, as by. the
positive, and contemptuous manner in which
they speak of Revelation, they abound in sar-
casm, abuse, and sneer, and supply the place
of reasoning, by wit and satire.** If so sir,
it is all in favour of the cause you defend ;
for the tiny weapons of wit, and ridicule, will
assuredly fly to shivers under a few blows
from the solid and massy ckvh of sound logic.
The man who attacks any system of .Religion

merely with wit, and ridicule, can never, I
conceive, be a very formidable antagonist. —
The mental imbecility of the man who could
touch such a subject as Religion in any shape
with no other arms, would render him a harm-
less adversarv, and the intrinsic weakness of
such shinning but slender weapons, when en-
countered with something more solid, would
eventually render him a contemptible one. I
therefore caunot help doubting, that wit and
ridicule alone, and unsupported by reasoning,
and good reasoning too, could ever have been
very successfully wielded against such a thing
as the Christian Religion, by its opposers.

No man it appears to me of common under-
standing will ever resign his religion on ac-
count of a few jokes, and bon mots. The ad-
herence of such men as are weak enough to
be subverted by such trifles, can do as little
honor to Christianity, as their abandoning it
for such reasons, can affect it with disgrace.
The belief of such men could never have been
more than habit, and their Infidelity nothing
else than a freak of folly, which is reproach-
ful only to themselves. But after all, this
vehement objection to wit and ridicule, ap-
pears to me a little imprudent ; for a sarcastic
opponent might reply, that sceptics, have
been not unfrequently attacked with irony
most severe, and sometimes sorely wounded
by vollies of wit shot from the pulpit, a place
too where it can be done without fear of re-
prisals. You know sir, that the famous War-

burton, for instance, used to amuse himself
with not only cutting down every unlucky
sceptic that came in his way, but he absolute-
ly cut them to pieces with the edge of ridicule,
most bitterly envenomed too with something
else. It seems therefore a little unreasona-
ble, that what is fair for one party, should not
be so for the other too. Besides, the advo-
cates of a cause, which is said not only not
to fear examination, but to challenge it, should
not, it appears to me, when taken at their
words shrink, and draw back, on account of
such trifles as wit, and ridicule ; because the
style of an investigation cannot certainly con-
ceal the immutable distinction between a good
argument and a bad one, from such learned
and penetrating adversaries as the Clergy ;
and moreover does it appear clear that an ad-
vocate after asserting a proposition, and de-
fying refutation, has any right to insist, that
his opponent should put his arguments in just
such a form as would be most convenient to
him P What would a penetrating Lawyer
think of the cause of his opponent, on finding
him to insist upon his arranging his objections,
and expressing his arguments just so that it
might be most easy to him to reply to them ?

For my own part, I have no claims to
wit, and if I have been sometimes sarcastic
it was more than I meant to be, it was the
premeditated consequence of bitter feelings
arising from considering myself as having
been betrayed by my credulity into taking;

a situation in society, which Iliad discovered
I must quit at no less a hazard than that the
destruction of all my plans and prospects for
life. At any rate I am satisfied, that no ridi-
cule of mine has been intentionally adduced
by me in order to corroborate a false posi-
tion, or a weak argument ; I believe that it
seldom appears except in the rear of some-
thing more respectable and efficient.

You observe, that Christianity " deserves
at least respectful, and serious attention, must
be evident to every man who has honesty of
mind." Nothing can be more true than this,
it is a subject which does deserve a respect-
ful, and serious attention : because every
thing claiming to be from God ought to be
carefully, coolly, and respectfully examined
on these accounts. 1. If it be from God it is
of the highest importance to the welfare of
mankind that its truth should be investigated
thoroughly, and settled firmly,

8. Because if it is not from God it must be
the fruit of either of error or fraud, if of the
first it ought to be rejected as a delusion ; if
of the second it ought to be cast off as a de-
ception practised in the name of the God of
truth, and therefore disrespectful to him.

It also merits, you most truly say, a res-
pectful examination on account of the charac-
ter of its founder, for the character of Jesus
you justly consider as too excellent and un-
exceptionable to be reproached. Whatever
may be said concerning the moral excellence

8

of that person's character I will cheerfully
assent to, and I could not listen without dis-
gust-to language impeaching his moral puri-
ty. This I can do without ceasing to suppose
him an enthusiast; for there appears to me
to be too many marks of it in the New Tes-
tament for the idea to be set aside by a few
eloquent exclamations, and notes of admira-
tion ; if I am wrong in this idea, or in others,
I will not prove indocile to arguments that
shall sufficiently show the contrary.

You observe, p. 16, " another considera-
tion which entitles Christianity to respectful
attention is this. That Jesus Christ appear-
ed at a time when there prevailed in the east
a universal expectation of a distinguished
personage who was to produce a great and
happy change in the world. This expecta-
tion was built on writings which claimed to
be prophetic, which existed long before Je-
sus was born."

I cannot help thinking the very great stress
which has been laid upon this " rumour
spread all over the east" a little unreasona-
ble. For 1. " A rumour" is not as I appre-
hend an adequate foundation on which to
build such a thing as the Christian religion,
which claims to be derived from heaven. 2.
Those who have brought forward with so
much earnestness this popular rumour, have
not, I conceive, paid due ^attention to the
causes that might naturally have produced it,
which were possibly these. There is in th©

9

Jewish prophets frequent mention of a great
deliverer, and it is represented that he should
appear in the time when the Jewish nation
should be suffering under most grievous af-
flictions, and who should deliver them there-
from. Now was it not perfectly natural for
the Jews, dispersed over Asia, to expect, and
to circulate the notion of this deliverer when
their own sufferings, inflicted by their ene-
mies, were intolerable ? If you will open Jo-
sephus, you will there read that about and
after the time of the crucifixion of Jesus the
Jews were dreadfully oppressed by the Ro-
mans, and were designedly driven to despe-
ration, by Floras with the express purpose of
exciting a rebellion, and thus prevent their
accusing him of his crimes before the tribunal
of Caesar. Was it at all unnatural therefore
for the Jews thus oppressed, and reading in
their sacred books, that they should be deli-
vered from their oppressors by the appearance
of their great deliverer when their sufferings
were at the heighth; was it extraordinary
that the Jews, writhing under the lash of ty-
rannical conquerors, and considering their
then circumstances, to expect this deliverer
at that time ? And to conclude, does it, after
all, appear that this rumour prevailed in
the life time of Jesus, or not till about thirty
years after his crucifixion?

You add, <^now this is a remarkable cir-
cumstance which distinguishes Jesus from
the founders of all other religions." This

10

was no doubt a slip of the memory, a* se
learned a man as Mr. Channing, no doubt
knows thfft the Mahometans, who are the
most numerous sect of religionists now in
the world, affirm, tliat there was a very
general expectation of their victorious pro-
phet Mahomet, about the time of his birth
grounded on tradition, and, as they say,
originally on very many texts of the Old
Testament, which texts, with divers more
from the New Testament, are urged by the
Mahometan Divines as to the same purpose :
these texts, and their irrelevancy are collect-
ed and shown by Father Maracci in his first
Dissertation prefixed to his edition of the
Koran, printed at Padua 1698. Collins, in
his answer to the Bishop of Litchfield, and
Coventry, states this fact, and refers to "Ad-
dison's first state of Mahometanism," p. 85.
u Life of Mahomet" before four treatises con-
cerning the doctrine of the Mahometans, p.
9. Maracci's Appendix ad Prodromum pri-
mum, p. 36 — 46,

In p. 18, you say, that the prophecies
with regard to the Messiah, " describe a de-
liverer cf the human race very similar to say
the least to the character in which Jesus ap-
peared." I must confess that after reading
again the prophecies collected in the third
chapter of " The Grounds of Christianity ex-
amined," this similarity stilt remains in-
visible to me. I hope yon will not be offend-
ed at my avowing that you appear to me te

i

11

be sensible of the difficulty of this affair of
the Messialiship, for you content yourself
with adducing that characteristic of the Christ
recorded in the Old Testament, his teaching
and enlightening the Gentiles with the know-
ledge of God, and true religion, as applica-
ble to Jesus, and sufficient to prove him the
Messiah. Yet supposing that this character-
istic would apply to Jesus, it would not, I
think, be sufficient to prove him to be the
Messiah or Christ ; since this character-
istic is merely one among twenty other marks
given, and required to be found. 2. It would,
it appears to me, prove Mahomet the Messi-
ah sooner than Jesus ; since Mahomet in per-
son converted more Gentiles to the know-
ledge and worship of one God during his
life time, than Christianity did in one hun-
dred years. 3. But what is still more to the
purpose, it cannot, I conceive, apply to Jesus
at all, since he did not fulfil even this solitary
characteristic; for he did not preach to the
Gentiles, but confined his mission and teach-
ing to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
It was Paul who established Christianity
among the Gentiles.

In p. 18, you appear to admit that all the
characteristic marks of the Messiah Mere not
manifested in Jesus, but will he manifested at
some future period. To which a Jew might
answer, by politely asking you, whether then
you do not require too much of him for the
present, in demanding faith upon credit ?
13

12

But that when Jesus of Nazareth in this fu-
ture time shall fulfil the prophecies ; will it
not be time enough to believe him to be the
Messiah ?

You ask, p. 19, " was ever character more
pacific than that of Jesus ? Can any religion
breathe a milder temper than his ? Into how
many ferocious breasts has it already infused
the kindest and gentlest spirit ? And after
all these considerations, is Jesus to be reject-
ed because some prophecies which relate to
his future triumphs are not yet accomplished?"
This argument I can easily conceive must
have had great weight with such a man as Mr.
Channing, whose heart accords with every
thing that is mild and amiable. But after all
my dear sir, what are " all these considera-
tions" to the purpose ? Show that Jesus was
as amiable and as good as the most vivid im-
agination can paint ; nay, prove him to have
been an angel from heaven, and it will not, it
seems to me, at all tend towards demonstrat-
ing him to be the Messiah of the Old Testa-
ment, and if his religion was as mild as doves^
and as beneficent as the blessed sun of heaven,
still I might respectfully insist, that unless he
answers to the description of the Messiah given
in the Old Testament, it is all irrelevant, and
" some prophecies" (or even one) unaccom-
plished, which it is expressly said should be
accomplished at the appearance of the MevSsi-
ah, are quite sufficient I conceive to nullify his
claims.

In the 29th page you say, that " the Gos-

19

pels are something more than loose and idle
rumours of events which happened in a dis-
tant age, and a distant nation. We have the
testimony of men who were the associates of
Jesus Christ ; who received his instructions
from his own lips, and saw his works with
their own eyes."

I presume that after what I have represent-
ed to Mr. Gary upon the subjest of the Gos-
pels according to Matthew and John, who
know are the only Evangelists supposed
to have heard with their ears, and seen with
their eyes the doctrines and facts recorded in
those books, you will be willing to allow,
that this is very strong language. You ob-
serve in your note top. 19, that the other
writings of the New Testament, (except Luke,
Acts, and Paul's Epistles) " may be all re-
signed, and our religion and its evidences will
be unimpaired." This language too appears
to me to be too strong, since if you give up all
but the writings you mention we shall by no
means have " the testimony of men who were
the associates of Jesus Christ, who received his
instructions from his own lips, and saw his
works with their own eyes," for in giving up
so much do you not resign the gospels accord-
ing to Matthew and John ?

2. It requires some softening I think on
these accounts ; since 1. Luke was not an eye
witness of the facts he records in his gospel,
it is only a hearsay story. 2. It contradicts
the other gospels. 3. It has been grossly in-
terpolated, 4. The learned Professor Marsh

14

in his dissertation upon the three first gospels
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (in his notes
to Michaelis' Introduction to the N. T.) rep-
resents, and gives ingenious reasons to prove,
that those gospels are Compilations from pre-
existing documents, written by nobody knows
who. So that the pieces from which the
three first gospels were composed were, ac-
cording to this Hypothesis, anonymous* and
the gospels themselves written by we do not
know what authors ; and yet, you know sir,
that these patch- work narratives of miracles
have passed not only for credible, but for in-
spired !

5. The Book of Acts was rejected by the
Jewish Christians, as containing accounts un-
true, and contradictory to their Acts of the
Apostles. It was rejected also by the En-
cratites, and the Severians, and I believe by
the Marcionites. The Jewish Christians
were the oldest Christian Church, aud they
pronounced that the Book of Acts in our Ca-
non was written by a partizan of Paul's ; and
it will be recollected that our Book of Acts is
in fact, principally taken up in recording the
travels and preaching of Paul, and con-
tains little comparatively of the other Apos-
tles. The Jewish Christians had a Book of
Acts different from ours. And besides the
fact, that the oldest Christian church, the mo-
ther church of Judea, with whom we should
expect to find the truth if any where, rejected
the Acts, Chrysostom Bishop of Constanti-
nople, at the end of the 4tb century, in a horn.

15

ily upon this Book says, that " not only the
author and collector of the Book, but the Book
itself was unknown to many." This mother
church had not only a book of Acts of the
apostles different from ours, but also a gospel
of their own, called the gospel of the twelve
apostles, which is supposed by the learned in
important particulars to differ from ours. Ac-
cording to Augustine however, this gos-
pel was publickly read in the churches as
authentick for 300 years. This gospel in the
opinion of Grabe, Mills, and other learned
men, was written before the gospels now re-
ceived as canonical. See Toland's Naza-
renus.

6. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans,
those to the Ephesians, and Colosians, are
nearly proved to be apocryphal by Evanson,
and about the rest there are some suspicious
circumstances. You refer the reader of your
Sermons in that noteto Paley's Evidences, 9th
chapter, for evidence for the authenticity of the
rest of the gospels ; but if the reader goes
there he will find, that all the testimony Pa-
ley quotes for the first 200 years after Christ
except that of Papias, Irenseus, and Tertul-
lian, (the value of whose testimony to the au-
thenticity of the gospels, has been considered
in the 16th ch. of my work ; and which may
further appear from these circumstances, that
Irenaeus considered the Book of Hermas an
inspired Scripture as much as he did the four
gospels, and that Tertullian contended stout-
13*

15

ly for the inspiration of the ridiculous book
of Enoch, one of the most stupid forgeries that
ever was seen,) the quotations and supposed
allusions in the earlier fathers are uncertain,
since it is acknowledged by Dodwell, and al-
so by others, that it cannot be known with any
certainty, whether these quotations and allu-
sions belong to ours or to apocryphal gospels.
And to conclude, would you not require as
much evidence for the authenticity of the gos-
pels, which relate supernatural events, as we
have for most of the classics, and yet if you
examine the subject closely, you will be sat-
isfied to your astonishment that we have not
so much as we have for the works of Virgil
or Cicero ; and that we have not by a great
deal so much testimony for the miracles of
Jesus, which were supernatural events which
require at least as great proof as natural ones,
as we have for the deaths of Pompey and of
x Julius Csesar, though you seem from your
note to think otherwise. As to Ceisus, Por-
phyry, and Julian, if they allowed the gos-
pels to be genuine, they might have done so,
and taken advantage of such an allowance to
show that they could not, from their contra-
dictions, have been written by men having a
mission from the God of Truth, But Sir, is it
certain that they did acknowledge it? since the
only fragments of their works upon Christi-
anity we have remaining, are just such parts
as their Christian answerers have picked out,
and selected ; the works themselves were
carefully burned. And that these answerers

1 17

have not acted fairly may be more than sus-
pected, I think, from a hint given us by
Jerom, (which you will find in Dr. Middle-
ton's Free Enquiry) that Origen in his answer
to Celsus, sometimes fought the devil at his
own weapons, i. e. lied for the sake of the
truth ; and it is notorious, that the Fathers of
the church, allowed this to be lawful, and
practised it abundantly. See the note at the
end.

You allow in the 20th page that the sin-
cerity of the propagators of opinions is no
proof of their truth ; and yet you seem to
think,that the twelve apostles must have been
correct, because the opinions they propagated
were, you think, contrary to their prejudices
as Jews. This argument cannot I conceive,
support the consequences you lay upon it,
were it true that the apostles had abandoned
their opinions as Jews about the nature of the
Messiah's Kingdom. But I believe you will
not be a little surprized, when I shall show
you, that in preaching Jesus as the Messiah
they did by no means adopt the very spiritual
ideas you ascribe to them, but in fact believ-
ed that Jesus would soon return and " restore
the Kingdom to Israel" in good earnest, and
in a sense by no means spiritual. This ar-
gument, if I can establish it, you observe, sir,
no doubt, must consequently subvert a very
considerable part of your system by which
you endeavour to acount for the discrepencies
which you do allow as yet to subsist between
the prophecies of the Messiah, and Jesus of

18

Nazareth. I beseech you therefore to heed
me carefully.

In Luke i. verse 32. The angel tells Ma-
ry that her son Jesus " should be great, and
be called the son of the Highest, and the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of
his father David, and he shall reign over the
house of Israel forever, and to his kingdom
there shall be no end," and in verse 67, &c.
Zachariah, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost
too, thus praises God concerning Jesus " Bles-
sed be the Lord God of Israel, because he
hath visited and redeemed his people, and he
hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in
the house of his servant David ; as he spake
by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have
been since the world began, that we should be
saved from our enemies, and from the hand
of all that hate as, 8£c. that we being deliver-
ed from the hand of our enemies should serve
him with holiness and righteousness before
him all the days of our liveS." [See the Orig-
inal.] You see, sir, the notion that these
words allude to, they certainly appear to me
to mean something else than deliverance
from spiritual foes. See also in the 2d ch.
25 verse, where Simeon a man who was
" looking for the consolation of Israel," and
was full of the Holy Ghost, expresses similar
sentiments. And Anna the prophetess also
spake concerning Jesus to all who " were
expecting deliverance in Jerusalem," i.e. un-
doubtedly deliverance from the Romans, The

19

carnal ideas of the Apostles with regard to
the nature of their Master's Kingdom, and
their consequent expectations with regard to
Jesus, before his crucifixion, are acknowledg-
ed ; and in the 21th chapt. of Luke 2 1st v.
they say in despair, u But we trusted that it
had been he who should have redeemed Israel."
And after the resurrection, and just before the
ascension of Jesus, after they had been for
forty days " instructed in the things pertaining
to the kingdom of God," which was the same
as that of the Messiah, by Jesus himself, they
do not seem to have had the least idea of the
metaphysical kingdom of modern Christians,
for they ask him " Lord wilt thou now (or
at this time) restore the kingdom to Israel ?"
And his answer is, not that it should never
be restored, but that " it was not for them
to know the times, and the seasons," see Acts
1. And even after the day of Pentecost, ch.
iii. verse 10, Peter tells the Jews to re-
pent, that their sins may be blotted out "when
the times of refreshing [i. e. of deliverance]
shall come from the face of the Lord, and he
shall send Jesus Christ [i. e. the Messiah]
before preached, (or promised) unto you,
whom the heavens must receive until the times
of the restoration of all things which God
hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy
prophets since the world began." From this
wre see, that the Apostles thought that Jesus
was gone to heaven for a time, and was to
return again [there is no mention whatever

so

in the Prophets of a double coming of th&
Messiah] and fulfil the prophecies with re-
gard to " the restoration of all things" to a
paradisiacal state, and the temporal kingdom
of the Messiah sittingupon the throne of David
in Jerusalem, all which is contained in the
words of " the holy prophets which have
been since the world be^an." And what
sort of a kingdom it was to be will appear
from the not very spiritual description of the
reign of Jesus upon earth during the Millen-
nium, described in the 20th chapter of Reve-
lations, and not only so, but the author of that
book represents the final, and permanent state
of the blessed as fixed, not in heaven, as
modern Christians suppose, but on a new
earth, or the earth renewed, and in a superb
city, called "the new Jerusalem."

In fact, the ideas of the twelve Apostles
upon the subject of the kingdom of the Mes-
siah were precisely as carnal as those of
their unbelieving brethren of the Jewish na-
tion. They believed, as has been shown
abundantly in the 15th chapter of "The
Grounds of Christianity Examined," that their
Master Jesus would come again, as he had
told them he would, in that generation, and
perform for Israel all the glorious things pro-
mised ; that he would come in a cloud with
power and great glory, and all the holy an-
gels with him ; that many from the east, and
from the west should sit down with Abraham,
Isa*C; and Jacob in that kingdom ; and that

2i

the disciples were to eat and drink at Jesus'
table in his kingdom, and were to sit on
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel. The author of the book of Revela-
tions, after describing the magnificence and
felicity of Jesus' kingdom upon earth, repre-
sents him as saying that he should come
quickly : and in the first chapters, that they
Who bad pierced him should see him coming
in the clouds. The Apostles, as appears
from the epistles, were on tiptoe with expec-
tation, and frequently assured their converts
that " the Lord is at hand, the judge stood
before the door, &c." And to conclude,
Can you not now, sir, conceive, and guess
the cause of the gradual disappearance of the
Jewish Christians after "that generation had
passed away ?" The fact was, that the Jew-
ish Christians never dreamed of that figment
" a spiritual Messiah." They expected that
Jesus would come again in " that genera-
tion" as he had told them he would ; he did
not come ; in consequence the Jewish Church,
after waiting, and waiting a great while, dwin-
dled into annihilation.

You conclude your most eloquent sermons
by an appeal to the feelings in behalf of opi-
nions which ought I think to be defended by
reason and proof rather than by sentiment.
You complain of ridicule in an examination
of this kind. I hope you will excuse my
expressing some doubts whether eloquent
sentiment, and appeals to the feelings are

22

less exceptionable in a discussion of the
causes why we ought to give Christianity a
respectful and dispassionate examination. If
I were so happy as to be so eloquent as you,
and in a manner which such power of per-
suasion as you possess would give me ability
to do, had described the burnings, the tor-
tures, the murders, and the plunderings of
the Jews daring the last thousand years, in
order to cause my readers to icish to find
reason to hate Christianity ; would you not
have said it was unfair? It cannot be neces-
sary to inform so finished a scholar as Mr.
Channing. that in a discussion about the truth
of a system the consideration of the conse-
quences of the system's being proved to be
false, is irrelevant and contrary to rule. You
will say that you were not discussing the
truth of a system, but the reasons why we
should give it a respectful examination. This
is true — The question you advised your audi-
tors to examine was, whether the Christian
religion was true or otherwise. Be it so. I
appeal then to your candour, whether it was
the way to send them to the important enqui-
ry unprejudiced, and unbiassed, to impress
them by authority, and by arguments which
are good only when used as subsidiary to
proof or demonstration ; and by terrifying
them with what you imagine would be the
consequences of finding that Christianity is
unfounded? Ah sir, does the advocate of a
cause "founded on adamant" wish to dazzle

23

the jtulges and fascinate the jurp before he
ventures to bring the merits of his cause to
trial? Must they be made to shed tears, must
their hearts be made to feel that you are
right, in order that their understandings may
be able to perceive it? Should the learned
and able champion of a system, who offers it
as true, and to be received only because it is
true, when its claims are threatened with a
scrutiny, lay so much stress upon its sup-
posed utility ; when the question is its truth?
Is it an argument that Christianity is true,
because if false, you think we should have no
religion left ? This argument no doubt looks
ludicrous to you, and yet I am told that it has
been gravely offered by some well meaning
men after reading your sermons, who thought
it of no small weight. You may see from
this, my dear sir, how easily simplicity is
satisfied.

You lay great stress upon the comforts de-
rived from believingJChristianity true. But
ought men to be encouraged to lean and build
their hopes on what may perhaps when ex-
amined turn out to be a broken reed? The
expiring Indian dies in peace — holding a
cow's tail in his hand. If he was in his full
health* and vigour of understanding, would
you think it charitable to let that man remain
uninformed of his delusion in trusting to such
a staff of comfort? would you not endeavour
to enlighten him, and make him ashamed of
his superstition? I know you would, and
14

24

you would do him a kindness deserving his
gratitude. To conclude, the Christian reli-
gion is either a divine and solid foundation
of morals, hope, and consolation, or it is not.
If it is, there is no reason in the world to
fear, that it can be undermined, or hurt in the
least. To believe so would be I conceive to
doubt the Providence of God. For it cannot
be supposed, that a religion really given by
the Almighty and All- wise can be undermin-
ed by a wretched mortal, a child of dust and
infirmity ; the supposition is monstrous, and
therefore no examination of its claims ought
to be deprecated, or frowned at by those
who think it " founded on adamant/' for no
man shrinks at having that examined which
he is positively confident of being able to
prove.

2. If this foundation be not divine and so-
lid it ought I conceive to be undermined, and
abandoned. For wilfully, and knowingly to
suffer confiding men to |>e duped, or allured
into building their hopes and consolation
upon a delusion, is in my opinion to maltreat,
and to despise them. And to suffer them to
be imposed upon is both unbrotherly and dis-
honest. And to advocate, or to insinuate a
defence of an unsound foundation upon the
principle of pious frauds, viz. because it is
supposed by its defenders to be useful, you
will no doubt agree with me is both absurd,
and immoral. For in the long run truth is
more useful than error, "nothing (says Lord

25

Bacon) is so pernicious as deified error. "
And it must not be supposed, or insinuated,
that the good God has made it necessary, that
the morals, comfort, and consolation of his
rational creatures should be founded on, or be
supported by a mistake and a delusion ; for
it would be virtually to deny his Providence.
In fine, Christianity comes to us as from God,
and says to us, " He that believeth shall be
saved, and he that believeth not, shall be
damned." Therefore, he that receives such
extraordinary claims without examination, is,
in my opinion, a wittol ; and he who suffers
hhnself to be compelled to swallow such pre-
tensions without the severest scrutiny, ac-
cording to my notions of things, has no claims
to be considered as a man of common sense.
Before I close my letter, it occurs to me to
observe, that you appear to me to have mis-
conceived the state of the case, in repre-
senting in your sermons, that if you give up
Christianity you will have no religion left.
Christianity, if I understand it, is properly
contained and taught in the New Testament
alone. I am not aware, my dear sir, that if
you were to give up the New Testament you
would be without a religion, or even what
you acknowledge as a Divine revelation. It
appears to me, that a Christian might, if he
chose, give up the New Testament and place
himself on the footing of the devout Gentiles
mentioned in the Acts, who worshipped the
one God, and kept the moral law of the Old

26

Testament. Yen will recollect, that I have
not attempted to affect the authority of the
Old Testament, which you acknowledge to
contain a Divine revelation. I never shall,
because, I would never quarrel with any
thing merely for the sake of disputing.
Whether the Old Testament contains a reve-
lation from God, or not, its moral precepts
are, as far as I know, unexceptionable ;
there is not, I believe, any thing extravagant
or impracticable in them, they are such as
promote the good order of society. Its reli-
gion in fact is merely Theism garnished,
and guarded by a splendid ritual, and gor-
geous ceremonies ; the belief of it can pro-
duce no oppression and vvretcheduess to any
portion of mankind, and for these reasons I
for one will never attempt to weaken its
credit, whatever may be my own opinion
with regard to its supernatural claims.

In fact, to speak correctly, the Old
Testament is at this moment the sole true
canon of Scripture, acknowledged as such
by genuine Christianity ; it was the only
canon which was acknowledged by Christ,
and his immediate Apostles. The books of
the New Testament are all occasional books,
and not a code or system of religion ; nor
were they all collected into one body, nor
declared by any even human authority to be
all canonical till several hundred years after
Jesus Christ. They are books written by
Christians, and contain proofs of Christianity

27

alleged from the Old Testament, bat contain
Christianity itself no otherwise, it appears to
me, than as explaining, illustrating, and con-
firming Christianity supposed to be taught
in the Oid Testament. They are mostly,
where they inculcate doctrines, Commenta-
vies on the Old Testament deriving from
thence, and giving what the writers imagined
to be contained in and hidden under the let-
ter of it. And upon the same principle
that the books of the New Testament
were received as canonical, so was the Pas-
tor of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, and
others, just as highly venerated by the early
Christians. But they did not at first, as I
apprehend their expressions, rank them with
the Old Testament, which was called <* the
Scriptures/' by way of excellence. The
Old Testament was in fact supposed by
the writers of the New, to contain Christian-
ity under the bark of the letter ; and they
represent Christianity as having been preach-
ed to the ancient Jews under the figure of
types, and allegories. See Gal. iii. 8. Heb.
xi.and the first Epistle of Paul to the Corin-
thians, ch. x. In a word, the Apostles pro-
fessed to " say none other things than those
which the prophets and Moses did say."
Acts xxvi. 32.

Jesus and his Apostles do frequently, and
emphatically style the books of the Old Tes-
tament " The Scriptures," and refer men to
them as their rule, and canon. And Paul
14*

says, Acts xxiv. 14, " After the [Christian]
way, which ye call heresy, so worship 1 the
God of my fathers : believing all things that
are written in the law, and the prophets. ??
But it does not appear, that any new books
were declared by them to have that charac-
ter. Nor was there any new canon of Scrip-
ture, or any collection of books as Scripture
made, whether of Gospels or Epistles
during the lives of the Apostles ; as is

well known to ycu. And if neither

Jesus nor his apostles declared any other
books to be canonical besides those of the
Old Testament, I would ask the Chris-
tian who did ? or who had a right and
authority to declare or make any books ca-
nonical ? If Christianity required a new ca-
eanon, or new digest of laws, it should seem
that it ought to have been done by Jesus and
his apostles, and not left to be executed by
any after them ; especially not left to be set-
tled long after their deaths by weak, entbusi-
tic, ignorant, silly and factious men, such as the
fathers, who were so badly informed of the gen-
uine writings of the founders of their religion,
that they were, when they came to collect and
make a new canon, greatly divided about the
genuineness of all books bearing the names
of the apostles, and contended with one ano-
ther bitterly about their authority ; and after
all decree to be genuine some which are pal-
pably forgeries.

But the truth is, that the present New
Testament Canon was collected and estab-
lished by the Gentile Christians. The Jewish
Christians received none of them, but acknow-
ledged nothing for Scripture but the books
of the Old Testament which was the sole
Canon left them by the twelve apostles. Their
Gospel and Acts, if my memory does not de-
ceive me, they regarded as histories only.
They were merely a small body of Jews who
thought that Jesus was the Messiah of the
Old Testament. This article was the only
one which made them Heretical : In all other
respects they were as other Jews ; after the
way which their countrymen called heresy,
so worshipped they the God of their Fathers
at the National Temple ; believing and
preaching « no other things than what [they
imagined] Moses and the Prophets did say."

I have made this statement and represen-
tation, sir, on two accounts. 1. In order to
repel the shocking and groundless imputation
which I understand that some pains have been
taken to fix upon me, I do not mean by you,
sir, for you know the contrary that the object
of my late publication was to aim at destroy-
ing all religion, and the annihilation of the
publick worship of God, a charge which I
reject with horror, and also with bitter indig-
nation, that it should ever have been attribut-
ed to me. God forbid ! that the publick
worship and stated reverence which all ought
to pay to the Great and Tremendous Being

80

from whom we receive life and its every bles-
5 : and to whose Providence we are sub-
ject; and by whose goodness wre are sus-
tained, should ever be caused to be neglected,
or forgotten, by any man, or by the subver-
tion of any opinions whatever. The proprie-
ty of the publick worship of God stands in-
dependent and without need of support from
the peculiar doctrines of any sect. And the
idea that this great duty would be superceded
by the dismission of the New Testament, is
so utterly groundless and absurd, that to make
it appear so, any man has only to recollect
that the public worship of the Supreme
existed before the New Testament was
written or thought of ; and to look round the
world and see millions of men worshipping
God in houses of prayer, who know nothing
about the New Testament except by report.
I regard, sir, the imputation I have spoken
of, as either a gross mistake of the simple, or
a cunning and deliberate calumny of the
crafty. 2. I have madethis statement and re-
presentation to show, that it does not follow,
that in giving up the New Testament Chris-
tians will be deprived of all religion. For
in retaining the Old Testament they would
adopt nothing new, and would retain nothing
but what they now acknowledge as contain-
ing a divine revelation; and in giving up
the New Testament they would not, as I
think has been shown, give up a jot of what
had ever any right to the name of Scripturea

31

Whether however, people give up both,
or retain one, or both, is their concern. 1
have stated- what I have merely to show, that
in giving up the New Testament they would
not necessarily give up more than a part of
their bibles, or any part of their bible, ex-
cept that whose authenticity cannot be prov-
ed ; nor any more of their faith, than that
part of it which for almost eighteen hundred
years has produced interminable disputes
among themselves, and misfortunes, and cause-
less reproach to others.
With great regard,

and the most respectful esteem,
I subscribe myself,
Reverend Sir,

Your obliged and humble servant,

GEO. BETHUNE ENGLISH,

33

NOTE TO PAGE it

Jerom speaking of the different manner which
writers found themselves obliged to use, in their con-
troversial, and dogmatical writings, intimates, that in
controversy whose end was victory, rather than truth,
it was allowable to employ every artifice which would
best serve to conquer an adversary; in proof of which
• • Origen. says he. Methodius, Eusebius. Apollinaris.
have written many thousands of lines against Celsu
and Porphyry : consider with what arguments, and
what sli problems they baffle what was contrived

against them by the spirit of the devil : and because
they arc sometimes forced to speak, they speak not
what they think* but what is necessary against those
who are called Gentiles. I do not mention the Latin
writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus,
Lactantius, Hilarius, lest I be thought not so much de-
fending myself, as accusing others, &e.v Op. Tom, 4.
p. 2. p. 256. Middleton's Free Enquiry, p. 153. It is
remarkable that the names mentioned by Jerom are
the names of the early apologists for Christianity.
When the Church got the upper hand however, they
found a better way to confute those wicked men, Celsus
and Porphyry* than by 6; slippery problems'' and by
speaking '* not what they thought (to be true) but what
was necessary against those who are called Gentiles,
viz. by seeking after, and burning carefully their
troublesome works. Of the fathers of the Church
who were its pillars, leaders, and great men, Dr. Mid-
dleton observes in his Preface to his Enquiry, &c, p.
31. as follows : '; I have shown by many indisputable
facts, that the ancient Fathers — were extremely cred-
ulous and superstitious, possessed with strong preju-
dices, and an enthusiastic zeal in favour not only of
Christianity in general, but of every particular doc-
trine, which a wild imagination could engraft upon it,

S3

and scrupling no art or means by which they might
propagate the same principles. In short they were of
a character from which nothing could be expected
that was candid and impartial ; nothing but what a
weak or crafty understanding could supply towards
confirming those prejudices with which they happen-
ed to be possessed, especially where religion was the
subject, which above all other motives strengthens ev-
ery bias, and inflames every passion of the human
mind. And that this was actually the case, I have
shown also, by many instances in which we find them
roundly affirming as true things evidently falge and
fictitious ; in order to strengthen as they fancied the
evidences of the Gospel ; or to serve a present turn of
confuting an adversary: or of enforcing a particular
point which they were labouring to establish."

In p. 81 of the Introductory Discourse, he says,
" Let us consider theu in the next place what light
these same forgeries [those of the Fathers of the
fourth centurv ( will aftbrd us in looking backwards
also into the earlier ages up to the times of the Apos-
ties. And first, when we refieet on that surprising
confidence and security with which the principal fath-
ers of this fourth age have affirmed as true what they
themselves had either forced, or what thev knew at
least to be forged : it is natural to suspect, that so bold
a defiance of sacred truth could not be acquired, or
hecome general at once, but must have been carried
gradually to that heighth, hy custom and the example
of former times, and a long experience of what the
credulity and superstition of the multitude (i. e. of
ehristians) would bear."

" Secondly, this suspicion will be strengthened by
considering, that this age (the 4th century) in which
Christianity was established by the civil power, had
no real occasion for any miracles. For which reason,
the learned among the Protestants have generally
supposed it to have been the very era of their cessa-
tion : and for the same reason the fathers also them-
selves, when they were disposed to speak the truth.

34

hare not scrupled to confess, that the miraculous
gifts were then actually withdrawn, because the
church stood no longer in need of them. So that it
must have been a rash and dangerous experiment, to
begin to forge miracles, at a time when there was no
particular temptation to it ; if the use of such fic-
tions had not long been tried, and the benefit of them
approved, and recommended by their ancestors ; who
wanted e\ery help towards supporting themselves un-
der the pressures and persecutions with which the
powers on earth were afflicting them."

'• Thirdly, if we compare the principal fathers of
the fourth with those of the earlier ages, we shall ob-
serve the same characters of zeal and piety in them
all, but more learning, more judgment, and less credu-
lity in the later fathers. If these then be found either
to have forged miracles themselves, or to have propa-
gated what they knew to be forged ; or to have been
deluded so far by other people's forgeries as to take
them for real miracles ; (of the one or the other of
which they were all unquestionably guilty) it will nat-
urally excite in us the same suspicion of their prede-
cessors, who in the same cause, and with the same zeal
were less learned and more credulous, and in greater
need of such arts for their defence and security."

" Fourthly. As the personal characters of the
earlier fathers give them no advantage over their suc-
cessors, so neither does the character of the earlier
ages afford any real cause of preference as to. the
point of integrity above the latter. The first indeed
are generally called and held to be the purest ; but
when they had once acquired that title from the au-
thority of a few leading men, it is not strange to find
it ascribed to them by every body else, without know-
ing or inquiring into the grounds of it. But whatever
advantage of purity those first ages may claim in some
particular respects, it is certain that they were defec-
tive in some others, above all which have since suc-
ceeded them. For there never was any period of time
in all ecclesiastical history, in which so many rank

35

heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so many
spurious books were forged and published by the Chris-
tians, under the name of Christ, and the apostles, and
the apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages ; sev-
eral of which forged books are frequently cited and
applied to the defence of Christianity by the most em-
inent fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine
pieces, and of equal authority with the scriptures
themselves. And no man surely can doubt but that
those who would either forge, or make use of forged
books, would in the same cause and for the same ends,
make use of forged miracles." [Let the reader re-
member that the Gospels according to Matthew and
John are forgeries, and then apply this reasoning of
Dr. Middleton's to the miracles contained in those
Gospels. With regard to all the miracles of the JVew
Testament, we know them only by report, and it is an
acknowledged, because a demonstrable fact, that the
age in which the accounts of these miracles were pub-
lished, was an age overflowing with imposture and
credulity. " Such," says Bisbop Fell, "was the license
of fiction in the first ages, and so easy the credulity,
that testimony of the facts of that time is to be receiv-
ed with great caution, as not only the pagan world,
but the church of God, has just reason to complain of
" its fabulous age.'* Stillingfleet says, " that antiquity
is defective most where it is most important, in the age
immediately succeeding that of the apostles." Now
be it recollected, that the Gospels first appeared in
this age of fraud and credulity; and be it further re-
membered, that the authenticity of the Gospels, accor-
ding to Matthew and John can be subverted, if marks
of imposture, which would cause the rejection of anv
other books, are sufficient to affect the authentici ty of
those received as sacred. It is to be remarked far
ther, that the church in its first ages was fMl of forged
books, giving accounts of the same events, different
from those of the books of the New Testament. The
different sects, and the church itself, was torn by as
many schisms then as it ever has been since, who mu-
tually accuse eaeh ether of corrupting the Christian
15

36

scriptures, and of lying, and cheating most abominably.
All reasoning therefore from books published in this
time, ancj whose authenticity is supported only by the
testimony of acknowledged liars, and which have been
tampered with too as these certainly were, is exceed-
ingly unsatisfactory. And yet such is the basis on
which rests the credibility of the miracles of the New
Testament.! Dr. Midd'eton, after having shown, be-
ginning at the earliest of the fathers immediately after
the apostles, that they were all most amazingly credu-
lous and superstitious ; and having demonstrated from
their own words, that from Justin Martyr downwards
they were all liars, observes as follows, p. 157, Free
Inquiry : " Now it is agreed by all, that these fathers,
whose testimonies I have been just reciting, were the
most eminent lights of the fourth century ; all of them
sainted by the catholic church, and highly reverenced
at this day in all churches, for their piety, probity,
and learning. Yet from the specimens of them above
given, it is evident, that they would not scruple to
propagate any fiction, howT gross soever, which served
to promote the interest either of Christianity in gene-
ral, or of any particular rite or doctrine which they
were desirous to recommend. St. Jerom in effect con-
fesses it ; for after the mention of a silly story, con-
cerning the Christians of Jerusalem, who used to shew
in the ruins of the temple, certain stones of a reddish
color, which they pretended to have beeu stained by
the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was
slain between the temple and the altar, he adds, but I
do not find fault with an error which flows from a ha-
tred of the Jews, and a pious zeal for the Christian
faith." If the miracles then of the fourth century, so
solemnly attested by the most celebrated and revered
fathers of the church, are to be rejected after all as
fabulous, if*must needs give a fatal blow to the credit
of all the miracles even of the preceding centuries ;
since there is not a single father whom I have men-
tioned in this fourth age, who for zeal and piety may
not be compared with the best of the more ancient, and
for know ledge and for learning be preferred to them

37

all. For instance, there was not a person in all the
primitive church more highly respected in his own
days than St. Epiphanius, tor the purity of his life as
well as the extent of his learning. Ho was master of
five languages, and has left behind him one of the most
useful works which remain to us from antiquity. St.
Jerom, who personally knew him, calls him the father
of all bishops, and a shining star among them ; the
man of God of blessed memory ; to whom the people used
to flock }n crowds, offering their little children to his
benediction, kissing his feet, and catching the hem of
his garment. [This holy man and light of the church,
the great man of his day, asserts upon his own know-
ledge, " that in imitation of our Saviour's miracle at
Cana in Galilee, several fountains and rivers in his
days were annually turned into wine. A fountain
at Cibyra, a city of Caria, and another at Gerasa in
Arabia, prove the truth of this. I myself h&vs drunk
out of the fountain at Cibyra, and my brethren out of
the other at Gerasa: and many testify the same thing
of the river Nile in Egypt. '' Advers. H acres, 1. 2. c.
130. Middleton's Inquiry, p. 151, 152.'] " AH the
rest (Dr. Middleton goes on to say) were men of the
same character, who spent their lives and studies in
propagating the faith, and in combatting the \he->
and the heresies of their times. Yet none of them
have scrupled, we see, to pledge their faith for the
truth of facts which no man of sense can believe, and
which their warmest admirers are forced to give
up as fabulous. If such persons then could wilfully
attempt to deceive; and if the sanctity of their char-
acters cannot assure us of their fidelity, what better
security can we- have from those who lived before
them ? or what cure for our scepticism with regard to
any of the miracles above mentioned? Was the first
asserter of them, Justin Martyr* more pious, cautious,
learned, judicious, or less credulous than Epiphanius ?
Or were those virtues more conspicuous in Irenceus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Jirnobius, and Lactuntius, than
in Jithanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin ?
Nobody, 1 dare say, will venture to affirm it. If these

38

later fathers, then, biassed by a false zeal or interest,
could be tempted to propagate a known He, or with all
their learning and knowledge could be so weakly cre-
dulous as to believe the absurd stories which they
themselves attest, there must be always reason to sus-
pect, that the same prejudices would operate even
more strongly in the earlier fathers, prompted by the
same zeal and the same interests, yet endued with
less learning, less judgment, and more credulity."

Such Christian reader, were the fathers, the lead-
ers, and the great men of the church, and the apolo-
gists for your religion. And it is upon the credibility
of these convicted knaves that ultimately, and sub-
stantially depends your belief. For it is upon their
tesimony and tradition that you receive and believe in
the authenticity of the N.T. its doctrines, and miracles.
I hope that if you choose to build your faith upon the
testimony of such witnessegfthat you will not think it
unreasonable in me to presume to doubt the truth of
opinions and miracles supported by the testimony of
men like the fathers. I am willing, because I think it
reasonable, to let every man follow his owu judgment,
and do I ask too much to be permitted without offence
to enjoy the same liberty with regard to these things;
which I conceive no fair man will now say, (if what
has been brought forward be true) arc positively
proveable as true, and worthy of unhesitating assent :
For the case is thus. The gospels are accused of
being written by credulous ane superstitious authors
whose names are not certainly known; as containing
too inconsistent and contradictory accounts of prodi-
gies and miracles; and also palpable marks of for-
gery. Now to convince a thinking man, that histo-
ries of such suspected characrlr, containing relations
of miracles, are divine, or even really written by the
persons to whom they are ascribed, and not either some
of the many spurious productions, with which it is
notorious and acknowledged, the age in which they
appeared abounded, calculated to astonish tbe credu-
lous, and superstitious ! or else writings of authors
who were themselves infected with the grossest super-

39

stitious credulity, what is the testimony? For the first
hundred years after the lives of the supposed authors,
none at all. And the earliest fathers who speak of
them are all convicted of gross credulity, and incapa-
city to distinguish genuine from fictitious writings, (for
they admitted as genuine Scripture many books confes-
sedly nonsensical forgeries,) but what is worse, are
manifestly guilty by the evidence of their own words
of having been palpable liars, cheats, and forgers.
But, "it is an obvious rule in the admission of evidence
in any cause whatsoever, that the more important the
matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied, and
unexceptionable ought the characters of the witnesses to
be. And when no court of justice among us in deter-
mining a question of fraud to the value of six pence,
will admit the testimony of witnesses who are them-
selves notoriously convicted of the same offence of
which the defendant is accused ;" how can it be ex-
pected that any reasonable unprejudiced person should
reasonably be required to admit similar evidence, i. e.
the testimony of such men as the fathers in favor of
the divine authority of books which are accused of be-
ing the offspring of fraud and credulity; and which
relate too to a case of the greatest importance possi-
ble, not to himself only, but to the whole human race ? i
For my own part,' I cannot; and I think I could not,
without renouncing all those rules and principles of
evidence, and of good sense, which in all other cases
are universally respected. iVnd when we consider the
character of those by whom these histories were first
received and believed, the unreasonableness of insist-
ing upon the belief of these accounts will appear aggra-
vated. What was the character of the early Gentile
Christians? this we can ascertain from only two
source*— --the writings of their leaders, and those of
their heathen contemporaries. According to the lat-
ter they were very weak and credulous. " The primi-
tive Christians were perpetually reproached for their
gross credulity by all their enemies. Celsus says that
they cared neither to receive, nor to give any reason
of their faith, aud that it was an usual saying with

40

them, do not examine, but believe only, and thy faith
will save thee. Julian affirms, that the sum of all their
wisdom was comprised in this single precept, believe.
The Gentiles, says Aruobius, make it their constant
business to laugh at our faith, and to lash our creduli-
ty with their facetious jokes.'7

" The fathers on the other hand, defend themselves
by saying, that they did nothing more on this occasion
than what the philosophers had always done; that
Pythagoras' precepts were inculcated by an ipse dixit,
and that they had found the same method useful with
the vulgar, who were not at leisure to examine things ;
whom they taught therefore to believe, even without
reasons: and that the heathens themselves, though
they did not eonfess it in words, yet practised the
same in their acts." Middleton's Free Enquiry. In-
trodue. Disc. p. 92. Lueian say.*, M that whenever any
crafty juggler expert in his trade, and who knew kovv
to make a right use of things, went over to the Chris-
tians, he was sure to grow rich immediately, by mak-
ing a prey of their simplicity." [De Morte Pereg.]

If we turn to the writings of the earliest fathers ;
from these writings of the great men of the Church at
that time we shall form but a very mean idea of the
understandings of the little ones, since their writings
are not one whit superior to the * godly Epistles" of
the lowest orders Gf fanatics in the last, and present
century, they are remarkable for nothing more than
manifesting the extreme simplicity, and credulity, to-
gether with the sincere piety of the writers. The
fathers who succeeded them were better informed, but
not at all behind them in credulity, and enthusiasm.
Tertullian, the most powerful mind among them dur-
ing the first two hundred years, reasons as .follows.
u The Son of God was crucified: it is no shame to
own it, because it is a thing to be ashamed of. The
Sou of God died : it is wholly credible, because it is
absurd. ^Vhen buried he rose again to life : it is cer-
tain, because it is impossible." Be Carne Chris ti, § 5.
After this we must not be surprised to hear the same
man say ;* that the true disciples of Christ, have no-

41

thing more to do with cariosity er enquiry, but when
they are once become believers, their sole business is to
believe on.'- De Prsescrip. Hoeret. § 8. " The gospel
(says Dr. Middleton, p. 193) indeed soon began to
make a considerable progress among the vulgar, and
to gain some few also of a more distinguished rank ;
yet continued to be held in such contempt by the gene-
rality of the better sort, through the three first centu-
ries, that they scarce ever thought it worth their whila
to make any enquiry about it, or to examine the merit
of its pretensions. The principal writers of Rome,
who make any mention of the Christians, about the
time of Trajan, plainly show, that they knew nothing
more of them, or their religion, than what they had
picked up, as it were by chance, from the gross misre-
presentation of common fame, and speak of them ac-
cordingly, as a set of despicable, stubborn, and even
wicked enthusiasts. ;' And that till the time of Con-
stantine u they were constantly insulted and calumni-
ated by their heathen adversaries as a stupid, eredu-
Itiis, and impious sect ; the scum of mankind, and the
prey of crafty impostors.5' p. 195. And in p. 197. he
represents them as making the same kind of figure in
the Roman empire as the Slethodists, Moravians, and
French Prophets did in his time in England. Such
were the men from whom has originated the establish-
ed religion of the enlightened nations of the nine-
teenth century. !

ERRATA.

P. 31 , 1. 8, for " then," read " them"

Y. 40, 1. 7 from the bottom, after pray, insert m you"

Idem, I. 3 from the bottom, in the" note, for iX translated," read

" untranslated"

Y 82, L 8 from the bottom, for "Corinthians," read * Cerinthi-

ansV
P. 84, I. 17, foe "Aiii," read "by."
Y. 1-20, 1. 6 from the bottom, for "in," read " on."
P. 122, 1. 8, for «■ heal," read "heel"

I

k13i3vw

■ '*.*