tians were notorious offenders, and stood charged with the crime of poverty, and even slave. ry, and worse than all, of being some of them females. This last crime is thought now less heinous than in the days of Celsus, and though Mr. English, in the course of his book, has some sneers at silly women,' it is generally understood at present that they are no worse than silly men; and that upon the whole, their interest in this life and the next, and their portion of providential regard, is equal to that of men.

6

Two remarks only upon these extracts will suffice; 1. that to quote the authority of a bitter enemy for a character of any cause, savours either of unfairness or extreme simplicity; and 2. that if Mr. English loves truth much better than his own argument, he will find some quotations in the sequel from Celsus, which will highly gratify him.

Mr. English much regrets the loss of Celsus, and thinks him, though too sarcastick, a man of observation. Will he accept of the following, from the fragments which are preserved of this author, as a motto for the second edition of his work upon the Jewish controversy? The contention between the Jews and Christians is foolish, and their dispute about Christ is according to the proverb, a quarrel about an ass's shadow. There is no dignity in the inquiry, for both believe it was prophesied by a divine spirit, that a Saviour would come to the human race, but can

not agree whether the predicted person has come or not.”*

* Ευηθέστατα ερίζεσι προς άλληλες χριστιανοι και Ιδδαίοι, και μηδεν διαφέρει αυτῶν ὁ προς αλληλος διαλογος περι Χριστου, της κατα την παροιμίαν καλόμενης ον8 σκιας μαχης. Μηδεν σεμνον εστι εν τη Ιεδαίων και χριστιανων προς αλληλές ζητήσει πιστεύοντων μεν αμφοτερων οτι απο θει8 πνευματος προφητευ θη τις επιδημήσων σωτηρ τω γένει των ανθρώπων, 8κετι δε λογέντων περὶ τὸ εληλευθήναι τον προφητευόμενον, η μη. Origen contr. Cels. 1. iii § 1.

ομος

CHAPTER VIII.

I

THE tenth chapter of Mr. English's work is styled "Miscellaneous," in the table of contents. And in his letter to Mr. Cary, he fondly says, in this chapter, "the Old and New Testaments are, I think, irreconcileably entangled in desperate oppugnation."* would gladly have spared myself the tediousness of examining and refuting such objections as it contains, but as such importance is ascribed to it by its author, I fear he might quote to me his favourite words of bishop Beveridge, should I pass it over in silence. This chapter is copied without acknowledgment from R. Isaac's Bulwark of Faith.†

The first objection contained in this chapter is this, "Jesus says, (Matt. v. 43.) ye have heard that it was said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy." "This," says Mr. English, "is no where said in the law or the prophets, but on the contrary we read directly the reverse." Now Mr. English is aware that it is by no means certain, that when our Lord

* Letter to Mr. Cary, p. 15.

Viz. according to the pages of Wagenseil, from pp. 362, 364, 423, 428, 434, 364, 365, 480.

Grounds of Christianity examined, p. 79.

uses the expression, ye have heard it hath been said,' he means always, it is written in the law and the prophets.' On the contrary, it is to me unquestionable, that in this case at least, he refers to the prevalent interpretations of the Jewish doctors. To prove that these interpretations justified the assertion of our Lord, Mr. English will be satisfied with the authority of a Rabbi, whom he has himself quoted, that he who lived in idolatry was the common enemy of all, and as such might be slain by any one ;' or of Tacitus, an unsuspicious witness in the Christian cause, who tells us, that "the Jews hated all others as enemies."* I doubt not myself, that it was to this prevailing temper of the Jews that our Lord referred, though they might have been in the habit of justifying it by the quotation of passages from the law. At any rate, the quotations Mr. English makes from the Proverbs have no relation to the point, since the Proverbs were no part of the written or oral law. Whether we are capable of exercising any love to enemies beyond that of forbearance and common charity, is a question which Mr. English decides in the negative. It is not a question to be reasoned upon, and I can conceive from the tone of each of Mr. English's books, that a command to regard an enemy with genuine affection, must be to him,

• The Rabbi is Joseph Albo. The words of Tacitus are," adversus alios omnes hostile odium." Vid. Grotium ad Matt. v. 43.

as it was to his clients of old, a stumbling block.

"In Mark ii. 25. Jesus says to the Pharisees, Have ye not read what David did when he hungered, and those who were with him? How that he entered into the house of the Lord, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat shew bread? See the same also in Matt. ch. xii. 3. and Luke vi. 3. Now here is a great blunder, for this thing happened in the time of Ahimelech, and not in the time of Abiathar, his son."* When a man charges another with a blunder, it is fit he beware of his own correctness. Mr. English says, "See THE SAME also in Matt. xii. 3. and Luke vi. 3.” Whereas both Matthew and Luke omit the very thing, the name of the high priest, in which the blunder is alleged to consist. I might tell Mr. English also, that beside several ancient Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, the Cambridge manuscript, which Michaelis thinks may be the oldest Greek manuscript extant,t omits the words, in the time of Abiathar the high priest.‡ Considering this fact, and that they are not found in the parallel passages of the other evangelists, as also that the clause itself is such a note of designation as might well have crept from the margin into the text, I think it not unlikely that it was thus introduced. However, grant that Mark thus wrote, is it

* Grounds of Christianity examined, p. 50. † Marsh's Michaelis ii. 229.

Griesbach in loc.