ther the religion contained any opinions dangerous to government; but of its doctrines, evidences, or books, he had not informed himself with any degree of care; he had regarded the whole with negligence and disdain.

Q. What may be observed of Tacitus?

A. The name which he has given to Christianity, "exitiabilis superstitio," (a pernicious superstition), and by which he disposes of the whole question of the merits of the religion, afford a proof how little he knew, or concerned himself to know, about the matter. Would any unbeliever of the present age apply this epithet to the Christianity of the N. T. or not allow that it was entirely unmerited? Read the instructions given by a great teacher of this religion, to those very Roman converts of whom Tacitus speaks, a very few years before the time of which he is speaking.*

Read this, and then think of" exitiabilis superstitio!"

Q. But if we be not allowed to produce our books against the Heathen authority, what may at least be permitted?

A. To confront theirs with one another. Of this "pernicious superstition," what could Pliny find to blame, when he instituted something like an examination into the conduct and principles of the sect? He discovered nothing, but that they were wont to meet together on a stated day before

*See Romans vii. 9.-xiii. 13.

it was light, and sing among themselves a hymn to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but to be guiltless of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it.

Q. From the words of Tacitus what observations may we draw?

First; That we are warranted in calling the view which the learned men of that age took of Christianity, an obscure and distant view. Had Tacitus known more of it, of its precepts, duties, or design, however he had discredited the story, he would have respected the principle. He would have described the religion differently, though he had rejected it.

Secondly we may remark, how little reliance can be placed upon the most acute judgments, in subjects which they are pleased to despise. Had not Christianity survived to tell its own story, it must have gone down to posterity as a "pernicious superstition;" upon the credit of Tacitus's account, strengthened by the name of the writer, and the reputation of his sagacity.

Thirdly; That this contempt prior to examination, is an intellectual vice, from which men of the greatest faculties of mind are not free. Indeed they are perhaps most subject to it. Such feel themselves seated upon an eminence, and look down from their height upon the follies of mankind. This habit of thought is very apt to produce hasty, contemptuous, and, by consequence, erroneous judgments.

Fourthly; We need not be suprised at many writers not mentioning Christianity, when they who did so entirely misconceived its nature and character; and, in consequence, regarded it with negligence and contempt.

To the knowledge of the greatest part of learned Heathens, the facts of the Christian history could only come by report. The books, probably, they had never looked into. The settled habit of their minds long had been, an indiscriminate rejection of all such reports. With such, truth has no chance. It depends upon distinction. If they would not inquire, how should they be convinced?

Q. Into what two classes is it not unreasonable to suppose, that the heathen public, especially that part which is made up of men of rank and education, were divided?

A. Those who despised Christianity beforehand, and those who received it.

Q In correspondency with which division, how would the writers of that age also be divided?

A. Into two classes; those who were silent about Christianity, and those who were Christians. Q. What else may be alleged?

A. It is also sufficiently proved, that the notion of magic was resorted to by the heathen adversaries of Christianity, as that of diabolical agency had before been by the Jews. Justin Martyr alleges this as his reason for arguing from prophecy, rather than from miracles. Origen imputes this evasion to Celsus; Jerome to Porphyry and Lactantius to the heathen in general.

CHAP. V.

That the Christian Miracles are not recited, or appealed to, by early Christian Writers themselves, so fully or frequently as might have been expected.

Q. How does Paley consider this objection? A. First, as it applies to the letters of the apostles, preserved in the New Testament; and secondly, as it applies to the remaining writings of other early Christians.

Q. How does he treat the first part of the question?

1

A. The epistles of the apostles are either hortatory or argumentative. So far as they were occupied in delivering lessons of duty, or in fortifying and encouraging the constancy of the disciples under their trials, there appears no occasion for more of these references than we find.

So far as they are argumentative, the nature of their argument accounts for the infrequency of these allusions. These epistles were not written to prove the truth of Christianity. Nothing could be so preposterous as for the disciples of Jesus to dispute amongst themselves, or with others, concerning his office or character, unless they believed that he had shown, by supernatural proofs, that there was something extraordinary in both. Mi

raculous evidence, therefore, forming not the texture but the ground of these arguments, if it be occasionally discerned, it is exactly so much as ought to take place, supposing the history to be

Further it may be added, that the apostolic epistles resemble in this respect the apostolic speeches it is unwarrantable to contend, that the omission, or infrequency, of the recital of miracles in the speeches of the apostles, negatives the existence of the miracles, when the speeches are given in immediate conjunction with the history of those miracles and a conclusion which cannot be inferred from the speeches, without contradicting the whole tenor of the book which contains them, cannot be inferred from letters, which, in this respect, are similar only to the speeches.

To prove this similitude, it may be remarked, that although in St Luke's Gospel Peter is represented to have been present at many decisive miracles, wrought by Christ; and although the second part of the same history ascribes other decisive miracles to Peter himself, Acts iii. 1. v. 1. ix. 34, 40. yet out of six speeches of Peter, there are but two in which reference is made to the miracles wrought by Christ; and only one in which he refers to miraculous powers possessed by himself.

Stephen's long speech contains no reference whatever to miracles, though it be expressly re

ated of him almost immediately before the speech,