edly ignorant, and their zeal in those matters, to which they had before expressed reluctance, are fo far from being unaccountable, that it would be a matter of just surprife, had they acted in a different manner. IT

It appears therefore, that they, who have urged against the Chriftian religion the objections before ftated, have extremely miftaken the grounds, upon which their arguments are rested. The only improbability in this cafe can be, that the disciples fhould promote with fo much ardour the enlarged and comprehensive views of their Master, although, whenever thofe views were intimated at an earlier period, they either "did not understand," or "could not bear" them. The only explanation, which can be given of this fact, at all fatisfactory to my mind, is, that they were fully perfuaded of his refurrection from the dead; and that his authority then, and not till then, had the effect of making them fubmit their thoughts, and their actions, implicitly to his direction. Nothing fhort of this can fufficiently account for their proceeding to propagate the Gospel doctrines after the death of Jesus; and particularly, for propagating them in

the

the manner, and to the extent, which are stated in the facred history *.

* I truft, that the reader is now enabled fully to appreciate the value of fome objections, or rather infinuations, relative to this very subject, which are to be found in Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory, Vol. I. pp. 455, 6. 4to. 1ft Edit. They are not, in my opinion, deferving of notice fo much from their own importance, as from their connection with that very fplendid monument of human industry and abilities. I wish I could add the praise of candour to that of learning and of talent, when I am defirous of stating the merits of this celebrated performance: but whatever may be thought of the motives which led to his attack upon Christianity, his mode of carrying on that attack has merited, and incurred, univerfal reprobation. See Mr. Porfon's admirable appreciation of Mr. Gibbon's merits, in Letters to Archdeacon Travis, preface, pp. 28, See alfo White's Bampton Lectures, p. 153. The fubject of the coincidence between the law and the Gospel is ably treated in the Lectures, pp. 362-383.

29.

CHAPTER

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE CHARACTER OF JESUS.

Malignity and extent of the charge, urged by unbelievers against the Chriftian religion.-Particularly as it affects the character of Jefus.-An objection against producing the testimony of his friends obviated.-Conceffions of his adverfaries upon this point.-Vanini.-Chubb.-Bolingbroke.

-Rouffeau.-Voltaire.-Paine.-Gibbon.-Lequinio.What the intentions of Jefus muft have been, according to the affumptions of his enemies.-Their own conceffions fhewn to be at variance with these affumptions.-Different grounds of argument, taken by unbelievers, examined. The imputation of impofture fhewn to be inconfiftent with the character of the virtues, which they allow him to have poffeffed.-Near infpection, to which the conduct of our Lord was fubjected.-Yet no inftance of any deviation from moral rectitude. -Compared with Minos.-Numa.-Lycurgus. Mahomet.-The fcheme of Jefus, if founded in fraud, less excufable than those of these acknowledged deceivers.-Confequently not imputable to one of his good character.-Inquiry whether he could have been actuated by any good motive to affume falfe pretenfions.-answered in the negative.

THE

HE adverfaries of Christianity have been ever forward to accufe it's friends of prejudice and bigotry, of a disposition to impute improper motives to their opponents,

It

and of a difinclination to hearken to the deductions of found reasoning. It will be readily allowed that, in a struggle for fuperiority, combatants fometimes overlook the real grounds of contest, and use improper weapons both of attack and defence. is unavoidable that, in proportion to the real or fancied importance of every object in difpute, the exertions of the contending parties fhould be increased; and that, as they are more or lefs folicitous for the honour or advantage of victory, their paffions fhould be ftimulated to a more or lefs violent degree of emotion. But it is not fo generally true, as has been pretended, that the parties in religious difputes are more virulent and intolerant, than where the cause of difference is wholly unconnected with theology*: nor if the fact be true,

does

*My meaning will perhaps be better understood, if I cite a paffage from Jacobus Facciolatus in his fpeech upon the following fubject: Latina lingua non eft ex Grammaticorum libris comparanda.

Percurrite, fi vacat, quæ folent homines libellorum fuorum initio longiffimè præfari, ubi cæteris, qui ante fe de re grammaticâ fcripsêre, diem dicunt; eorum lucubrationes mendofas, nugaces, fordidas, cloacinas (fit verbo Scioppiano venia) audaciffimè appellant; féque, ex Deorum immortalium fede quafi delapfos, allaturos optima pollicentur. Cúmque finguli et univerfi eadem recinant, quò fe vertant miferi adolefcentes? cui fe, tanquam duci, tradant germanâ latinitate inftituendos?

Numquid

does it caft that exclufive opprobrium upon the cause of religion, which unbelievers have affected to confider as properly resulting from it. Undoubtedly however it is

not

Numquid Varroni? at literarum porcus dicitur à Palæmone. Num Prifciano? at Græcum hominem Latinæ linguæ fucum feciffe exiftimat Alvarus. Num Vallæ? At ejus elegantias Ramirezius de Prado inelegantes appellat. Num Donato, num Probo, num Servio, num Charifio? At hos omnes passìm labi, et monftra effutire contendit Scioppius. Num denique Scioppio ipfi? at miferabilis literator dicitur ab Hornio, vir defultoriæ levitatis à Labbeo, canis grammaticus à Lambecio. Indignamini ad hæc, Auditores! fed artis, mihi credite, feu vitio, feu fato quodam fieri folet, ut nec fua quifquam afferre poffit, nifi çarpat aliena, nec aliena carpere, nifi modum excedat. Quàm indecoræ, quàm pudendæ, quàm propè infanæ fuêre contentiones illæ Poggii cum Vallâ, Politiani cum Merulâ, Scaligeri cum Erafmo, de rebus his minutiffimis, quafi de aris et focis! Quàm illa ridicula Francifci Philelphi cum Timotheo quodam Græco, qui, de vi fyllaba pugnaturi, eâ lege in aciem ex compofito defcenderunt, ut victus barbâ mulectaretur! etc. Edit. Walchii, Lips. 1715. p. 9.

The learned reader is doubtless well acquainted with the vindictive and favage retort of Scaliger upon Muretus, in confequence of the verses, which Muretus fent him as written by Trabeas, and which Scaliger published as genuine, in his Commentary upon Varro.

The general arrogance and intolerance of Scaliger, in the conduct of his literary controverfies, are very properly cenfured by Saxius in his Onomafticon. Vid. Analecta Partis 3æ. Tom. III. p. 644. Traj. ad Rhen. 1780.

For the violence and indecorum of even philofophical difputes, we may appeal to Lucian, Bis Accufat. Tom. II. p. 220. and Sympofium, five Lapithæ, 633, &c.

Above all, we may remind thofe, who inveigh with fo much bitterness against Odium Theologicum, that the partizans in Political quarrels have never been difpofed to yield the palm, either for obftinacy in opinion, vehemence in language, or illiberality in conduct.