« AnteriorContinuar »
* no other fellow-workers unto the kingdom of that the account which even they themselves give God, which had been a comfort unto him, save us is not very consistent with itself. So fatally only Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus, who was does a bad cause draw men, whether they will or called Justus ;"'* which evidently, excludes St. no, into errors and mistakes. Peter. And in that to Timothy, which Baronius 5. The truth is, the learned men of that church confesses to have been written a little before his are not well agreed among themselves, to give in martyrdom, (though probably it was written at the their verdict in this case. And indeed how should same time with the rest above mentioned,) he they, when the thing itself affords no' solid fountells him, that “at his first answer at Rome, no dation for it? Onuphrius, a man of great learnman stood with him, but that all men forsook him;"+ ing and industry in all matters of antiquity, and which we can hardly believe St. Peter would have who (as the writer of Baronius's life informs us) done, had he then been there. He further tells designed before Baronius to write the history of him, that “only Luke was with him ;" that Cre- the church, goes away by himself, in assigning scens was gone to this place, Titus to that, and the time of St. Peter's founding his see both at Tychicus left at another. Strange, that if Peter Antioch and Rome. For finding, by the account was at this time gone from Rome, St. Paul should of the sacred story, that Peter did not leave Jutake no notice of it as well as the rest! Was he dæa for the first ten years after our Lord's ascenso inconsiderable a person as not to be worth the sion, and consequently could not in that time erect remembering? or his errand of so small import- his see at Antioch, he affirms that he went first ance as not to deserve a place in St. Paul's ac- to Rome, whence returning to the council at Jecount, as well as that of Crescens to Galatia, or rusalem, he thence went to Antioch, where he reof Titus to Dalmatia ? Surely the true reason was, mained seven years, till the death of Claudius ; that St. Peter as yet had not been at Rome, and and having spent almost the whole reign of Nero 80 there could be no foundation for it.
in several parts of Europe, returned in the last of 4. It were no hard matter further to demon- Nero's reign to Rome, and there died. An opistrate the inconsistency of that account which nion for which he is sufficiently chastised by BaBellarmine and Baronius give us, of Peter's being ronius and others of that party. And here I canat Rome from the time of the apostolical synod at not but remark the ingenuity (for the learning Jerusalem. For if St. Paul went up to that coun- sufficiently commends itself) of Monsieur Valois, cil fourteen years after his own conversion, as he who freely confesses the mistake of Baronius, Peplainly intimates, and that he himself was con- tavius, &c. in making Peter go to Rome in the verted in year 35, somewhat less than two year 44, the second year of Claudius, whereas it years after the death of Christ, then it plainly ap- is plain, says he, from the history of the Acts, that pears that this council was holden in the year 48, Peter went not out of Judæa and Syria, till the in the sixth year of Claudius, if not somewhat death of Herod, the fourth of Claudius, two whole sooner; for St. Paul's dia dikateocapwv crwr does not years after. Consonant to which, as he observes, necessarily imply that fourteen years were com is what Apollonius, a writer of the second centupletely past ; dia signifying circa, as well as post; ry, reports from a tradition current in his time, but that it was near about that time. This being that the apostles did not depart asunder till the granted, (and if it be not, it is easy to make it twelfth year after Christ's ascension, our Lord good) then three things amongst others will follow himself having so commanded them. In confirfrom it. First, that whereas, according to Bellar- mation whereof, let me add a passage that I meet mine and Baronius, St. Peter after his first coming with in Clemens of Alexandria, where from St. to Rome, (which they place in the year 44, and Peter he records this speech of our Saviour to his the second of Claudius,) was seven years before apostles, spoken, probably either a little before his he returned thence to the council at Jerusalem ; death or after his resurrection : “If any Israel they are strangely out in their story, there being ite shall repent, and believe in God through my but three, or at most four years between his going name, his sins shall be forgiven him after twelve thither and the celebration of that council. Se- years. Go ye into the world, lest any should say, condly ; that when they tell us, that St. Peter's We have not heard." This passage, as ordinaleaving Rome to come to the council, was upon the rily pointed in all editions that I have seen, is occasion of the decree of Claudius, banishing all scarce capable of any tolerable sense; for what is Jews out of the city, this can no ways be ; for the meaning of a penitent Israelite's being parOrosius does not only affirm but prove it from doned after twelve years ?" It is therefore proJosephus, that Claudius's decree was published in bable, yea, certain with me, that the stop ought the ninth year of his reign, or anno Chr.51 ; three to be after apaprial, and pera dwdexa etn joined to the years at least after the celebration of the council. following clause, and then the sense will run clear
Thirdly; that when Baronius tells us,ll that the and smooth : “If any Jew shall repent and believe reason why Peter went to Rome after the break- the gospel, he shall be pardoned: but after twelve ing up of the synod, was because Claudius was years, go ye into all the world; that none may now dead, he not daring to go before for fear of pretend that they have not heard the sound of the the decree; this can be no reason at all, the coun- gospel." The apostles were first to preach the cil being ended at least three years before that gospel to the Jews for some considerable time, decree took place; so that he might safely have twelve years after Christ's ascension, in and about gone thither without the least danger from it. It Judæa, and then to betake themselves to the promight further be showed (if it were necessary) vinces of the Gentile world, to make known to
them the glad tidings of salvation ; exactly an* Acts iv. 10, 11.
11 Tim. iv. 16. swerable to the tradition mentioned by Appollo• Gal. ii 1.
ll Ad. Ann. 58, Q. 51. nius. Besides, the Chronicon Alexandrinum tells
us, that Peter came not to Rome till the seventh , as much concerned in it as the other. Thus Epiyear of Claudius, anno Christi, 49. So little cer- phanius, reckoning up the bishops of that see, tainty can there be of any matter wherein there places Peter and Paul in the front, as the first is no truth. Nay, the same excellent man, before bishops of Rome : “Peter and Paul, apostles, bementioned, does not stick elsewhere to profess, he came the first bishops of Rome; then Linus," &c. wonders at Baronius, that he should make Peter And again, a little after : "The succession of the come from Rome, banished thence by Claudius's bishops of Rome was in this manner ; Peter and edict, to the synod at Jerusalem the same year, Paul, Linus, Cletus,” &c. And Hegesippus, viz. the ninth of Claudius ; a thing absolutely in- speaking of their coming to Rome, equally says of consistent with that story of the apostle's acts re- them, that they were Doctores Christianorum, corded by St. Luke, wherein there is the space of sublimes operibus, clari magisterio: "The instrucno less than three years, from the time of that tors of the Christians, admirable for miracles, and synod to the decree of Claudius. It being evi- renowned for their authority.” However, grantdent, what he observes, that after the celebration ing not only that he was there, but that he was of the council, St. Paul went back to Antioch; bishop, and that for five-and-twenty years togeafterwards into Syria and Cilicia, to preach the ther, yet what would this make for the unlimited gospel; thence into Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia ; sovereignty and universality of that church, unfrom whence he went into Macedonia, and first less a better evidence than "feed my sheep" could preached at Philippi, then at Thessalonica and be produced for its uncontrolable supremacy and Berca, afterwards stayed some considerable time dominion over the whole Christian world? at Athens, and last of all went to Corinth, where 7. The sum is this: granting what none that he met with Aquila and Priscilla, lately come from has any reverence for antiquity will deny, that St. Italy, banished Rome, with the rest of the Jews, Peter was at Rome; he probably came thither by the decree of Claudius ; all which, by an easy some few years before his death, joined with and and reasonable computation, can make up no less assisted St. Paul in preaching of the gospel, and than three years at least.
then both sealed the testimony of it with their 6. That which caused Baronius to split upon so blood. The date of his death is differently asmany rocks, was not so much want of seeing them, signed by the ancients. Eusebius places it in which a man of his parts and industry could not the year 69, in the fourteenth of Nero; Epiphabut in a great measure see, as the unhappy ne- nius in the twelfth. That which seems to me cessity of defending those unsound principles most probable is, that it was in the tenth, or the which he had undertaken to maintain. For being year 65; which I thus compute. Nero's burning to make good Peter's five-and-twenty year's pre- of Rome is placed by Tacitus, under the consulsidency over the church of Rome, he was forced ship of C. Lecanius and M. Licinius, about the to confound times, and dislocate stories, that he month of July, that is, anno Chr. 64. This act might bring all his ends together. What foun-procured him the infinite hatred and clamours of dation this story of Peter's being five-and-twenty the people, which having in vain endeavored seyears bishop of Rome has in antiquity, I find not; veral ways to remove and pacify, he at last reunless it sprang from hence, that Eusebius places solved upon this project, to drive the odium upon Peter's coming to Rome in the second year of Clau- the Christians ; whom therefore, both to appease dius, and his martyrdom in the fourteenth of the gods and please the people, he condemned as Nero; between which there is just the space of guilty of the fact, and caused to be executed with five-and-twenty years; whence those that came all manner of acute and exquisite tortures. This after concluded that he sat bishop there all that persecution we may suppose began about the end time. It cannot be denied but that in St. Jerome's of that, or the beginning of the following year.translation it is expressly said, that he continued And under this persecution, I doubt not, it was five-and-twenty years bishop of that city: but then that St. Peter suffered, and changed earth for it is as evident that this was his own addition, heaven. who probably set things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being to be found in the Greek copy of Eusebius. Nor indeed does he ever there or elsewhere positively affirm St. Peter
AN APPENDIX to have been bishop of Rome, but only that he preached the gospel there; and expressly affirms,
TO THE PRECEDING SECTION, that he and St. Paul being dead, Linus was the first bishop of Rome.* To which I may add, that Containing a vindication of St. Peter's being when the ancients speak of the bishops of Rome,
at Rome. and the first originals of that church, they equally attribute the founding and the episcopacy and go- FINDING the truth of what is supposed and grantvernment of it to Peter and Paul, making the one ed in the foregoing section, to wit, St. Peter's
going to and sutfering at Rome, not only doubted * Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 2, p. 71.
of heretofore in the beginning of the Reformation, The words of Eusebius are, that Clemens was the while the paths of antiquity were less frequented third among the bishops from Peter and PaulLinus having been the first, and Anencletus the placed on the right hand, and Peter on the left; and second. On this passage the learned editor, Valesius ihat though Eusebius indeed does not here number observes, that it is not to be supposed that Paul was the apostles in the order of bishops, he, in his more honorable than Peter because damed first; Chronicon, ascribes the Roman episcopacy to Peter that in the seals of the Roman church he was alone.
and beaten out; but now again, lately, in this with Irenæus, or rather a little before him, was broad day-light of ecclesiastical knowledge, not Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, a man of singular only called in question, but exploded as most vain eminency and authority in those times; who, in an and fabulous, and that especially by a foreign pro- epistle which he wrote to the church of Rome, fessor of name and note, * it may not be amiss, compares the plantation of Christianity which having the opportunity of this impression, to make Peter and Paul had made both at Rome and Co. some few remarks for the better clearing of this rinth; and says further, that after they had sown matter.
the seeds of the evangelical doctrine at Corinth, 2. And first, I observe that this matter of fact they went together into Italy, where they taught is attested by witnesses of the most remote an- the faith, and suffered martyrdom. tiquity, persons of great eminency and authority, 4. Towards the latter end of the second cen. and who lived near enough to those times to know tury flourished Clemens of Alexandria, presbyter the truth and certainty of those things which they of that church, and regent of the catechetic reported. And perhaps there is scarce any one school there, who in his book of Institutions, gives piece of ancient church history for which there is the very same testimony which we quoted from more clear, full
, and constant evidence, than there Papias before; they being both brought in by is for this. Not to insist on that passage of Ig- Eusebius as joint evidence in this matter. Ter. natius, in his epistle to the Romans, which seems tullian, who lived much about the same time at yet to look this way, it is expressly asserted by Carthage, that Clemens did at Alexandria, and Þapias, bishop of Hierapolis or Phrygia, who (as had been, is probable, more than once at Rome, Irenæus tells us) was scholar to St. John, and fel- affirms most expressly, more than once and again, low-pupil with St. Polycarp; and though we that the church of Rome was happy in having its should, with Eusebius, suppose it was not St. doctrine sealed with apostolic blood; and that John the apostle, whose scholar he was, but an- Peter was crucified in that place, or, as he exother sirnamed the Elder, that lived at Ephesus, presses it, passioni Dominicæ ada quatus ; that yet will this set him very little lower in point of Peter baptized in Tiber, as John the Baptist had time. Now, Papias says not only that St. Peter done in Jordan and elsewhere; that when Nero was at Rome, and preached the Christian faith first dyed the yet tender faith of Romo with the there, but that he wrote thence his first epistle, blood of its professors, then it was that Peter was and by his authority confirmed the gospel, which girt by another, and bound to the cross. St. Mark, his disciple and follower, at the request
5. Next to Tertullian succeeds Caius, an ecof the Romans, had drawn up. And that we may clesiastical person, as Eusebius calls him, flourishsee that he did not carelessly take up these things ing in the year 204, in the time of pope Zephyrin; as common hearsays, it was his custom, wherever who, in a book which he wrote against Proclus, he met with any that had conversed with the one of the heads of the Cataphrygian sect, speakapostles, to pick up what memoirs he could meeting concerning the places where the bodies of St. with concerning them; and particularly to inquire Peter and St. Paul were buried, has these words : what Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what "I am able to show the very tombs of the apostles, Thomas or James, or the rest of the disciples of for whether you go into the Vatican or into the our Lord, had either said or done. Which suffi. Via Ostiensis, you will meet with the sepulchres ciently shows what care he took to derive the of those that founded that church," meaning the most accurate notices of these matters.
church of Rome. The last witness whom I shall 3. Next Papias comes Irenæus, a man, as St. produce in this case is Origen, a man justly reJerome styles him, of the apostolic times ; and verenced for his great learning and piety; and was, he tells us, Papias's own scholar; however, who took a journey to Rome while pope Zephyrin it is certain, from his own account that he was yet lived, on purpose, as himself tells us, to behold disciple to St. Polycarp, a man famous for his that church so venerable for its antiquity; and learning, gravity, and piety, throughout the whole therefore cannot but be supposed very inquisitive Christian world. About the year 179 he was to satisfy himself in all, especially the ecclesiastimade bishop of the metropolitan church of Lyons, cal antiquities of that place. Now he expressly in France ; a little before which he had been des- says of Peter, that after he had preached to the patched upon a message to Rome, and had con- dispersed Jews of the eastern parts, he came at versed with the great men there. Now, his tes- last to Rome, where, according to his own request, timony in this case is uncontrollable ; for he says, he was crucified with his head downwards. Lower that Peter and Paul preached the gospel at Rome, than Origen I need not descend; it being granted and founded a church there; and elsewhere, that by those who oppose this story, that in the time of the great and most ancient church of Rome was Origen, the report of St. Peter's going to, and founded and constituted by the two glorious apos- suffering martyrdom at Rome, was commonly retles, Peter and Paul; and that these blessed apostles, ceived in the Christian church. And now I would having founded this church, delivered the episco- fain know, what one passage of those ancient pal care of it over unto Linus. Contemporary times can be proved either by more, or by more
considerable evidence than this is : and, indeed, * Spanheim, the anthor alluded to, is a writer of those first ages of the church have been trans
considering how small a portion of the writings of great learning and ability, but he expresses his opinions with the spirit of'a controversialist; and mitted to us, there is much greater cause rather not only disputes facts which contradict bis views, to wonder that we should have so many witnesses but too frequently ascribes the actions and senti- | in this case, than that we have no more. ments of those to whom he is opposed to false mo 6. Secondly; I observe that the arguments tives.-ED.
brought to shake the credit of this story, and the
exceptions made to these ancient testimonies, are, antiquity, when they had so many evidences and very weak and trifling, and altogether unbe- opportunities of satisfying themselves in the truth coming the learning and gravity of those that of things, which to us are utterly lost. That bemake them. For arguments against it, what can fore his time many frivolous traditions began to be more weak and inconcluding than to assert the take place, and that he himself is sometimes mis. fabulousness of this story, because no mention is taken; the proper inference from which, if purmade of it by St. Luke, in the apostolical history; sued to its just issue, must be this, either that he no footsteps of it to be found in any of St. Paul's is always mistaken, or at least that he is so in epistles written from Rome: as if he might not this. come thither time enough after the accounts of 9. The authority of Dionysius of Corinth is the sacred story do expire. That St. Peter was thrown off with this, that it is of no greater value never at Rome, because Clemens Romanus says than that of Irenæus: that churches then began nothing of it in his epistle to the Corinthians, when to emulate each other, by pretending to be of aposyet he mentions St. Paul's coming to the bounds tolical foundation ; and that Dionysius herein conof the west ; and what yet is more absurd, be- sulted the honor of his own church, by deriving cause no notice is taken of it by the Roman his- upon it the authority of those two great apostles torians who wrote the acts of that age; especially Peter and Paul; and in that respect setting it on Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio: as if these great the same level with Rome : which yet is a mere writers had had nothing else to do but to fill their suggestion of his own, and so far as it respects commentaries with accounts concerning Christians, Dionysius, is said without any just warrant from whom it is plain they despised and scorned, and antiquity. Besides, his testimony itself is called in looked upon as a contemptible, execrable sort of question, for affirming that Peter and Paul went men; and therefore very little beside the bare together from Corinth into Italy, and there taught mention of them, and that too but rarely, is to be and suffered martyrdom at the same time. Against met with in any of their writings; much less can their coming together to Corinth, and thence passit be expected that they should give an account ing into Italy, nothing is brought; but that the acof the accidents and circumstances of particular count St. Luke gives of the travels and preachChristians: besides that, this whole way of reason- ings of these apostles is not consistent with St. ing is negative, and purely depends upon the Peter's coming to Rome under Claudius ; which silence of some few authors, which can signify let them look to whose interest it is that it should nothing where there is such a current and uncon- be so; I mean them of the church of Rome. trollable tradition, and so many positive authorities And for his saying that they suffered martyrdom to the contrary. And yet these are the best, and Kata tov avrov karpov, at the same time; it does not almost only arguments that are offered in this necessarily imply their suffering the same day and matter.
year, but admits of some considerable distance of 7. And of no greater force or weight are the time : it being elsewhere granted by our author, exceptions made to the testimonies of the an- that this phrase, kara TETOV TOV Xpovov, is often cients, which we have produced, as will appear by used by Josephus in a lax sense, as including what a summary enumeration of the most material of happened within the compass of some years. them. Against Papias's evidence, it is excepted, 10. To enervate the testimony of Clemens that he was as Eusebius characters him “a man of Alexandrinus, it is said, (with how little pretence a very weak and undiscerning judgment," and that of reason let any man judge,) that Eusebius quotes he derived several things strange and unheard of it out of a book of Clemens, that is now lost; and from mere tradition. But all this is said of him that he tells us not whence St. Clemens derived by Eusebius, only upon the account of some the report : that abundance of apocryphal writings doctrinal principles and opinions, and some rash were extant in his time ; and that he himself inand absurd expositions of our Saviour's doctrine, serts a great many frivolous traditions into his carelessly taken up from others, and handed down writings. Which if it were granted would do no without due examination; particularly his millen- service in this cause; unless it were asserted, that nary of Chiliastic notions : but what is this to in- all things he says are doubtful or fabulous, because validate his testimony in the case before us, a some few are so. matter of a quite different nature from those 11. Much after the same rate it is argued against mentioned by Eusebius? May not a man be mis. Tertullian, that he was a man of great credulity ; taken in abstruse speculations, and yet be fit that he sets down some passages concerning Śt. enough to judge in ordinary cases? As if none John which are not related by other writers of but a man of acute parts and a subtile apprehen- those times; that he was mistaken in our Sa. sion, one able to pierce into the reasons, consis- viour's age at the time of his passion ; that he tency, and consequences of doctrinal conclusions, was imposed upon in the account he says Tiberius were capable to deliver down matters of fact, the emperor sent to the senate concerning Christ; things fresh in memory, done within much less which, forsooth, must needs be false, because no than a hundred years; 'in themselves highly pro- mention is made of it by Suetonius, Tacitus, or bable, and wherein no interest could be served, Dio. either for him to deceive others, or for other to 12. The exceptions to Cajus are no whit strongdeceive him.
er than the former, viz. ; that he flourished but in 8. Against Irenæus it is put in bar, that he gave the beginning of the third century, when many not this testimony till after his return from Rome; false reports were set on foot; and that it is not that is, about a hundred and forty years after St. reasonable to believe, that in those times of perPeter's first pretended coming thither; which is secution the tombs of the apostles should be unno great abatement in a testimony of so remote ! defaced, and had in such public honor and venera
tion. As if the places where the apostles were sacred in the Christian church, with rude reflecburied could not be familiarly known to Christians, tions and spiteful insinuations, is a course, I conwithout being commonly shown to their heathen fess, not over ingenuous, and might give too much persecutors, or without erecting pompous and occasion to our adversaries of the church of Rome, stately monuments over their graves, to provoke to charge us (as they sometimes do, falsely enough) the rage and malice of their enemies to fall foul with a neglect of antiquity, and contempt of the
fathers; but that it is notoriously known, that all 13. Against Origen, nothing is pretended, but the great names of the Protestant party, men most what is notoriously vain and frivolous; as, that celebrated for learning and piety, have always paid perhaps his reports concerning the travels of the a most just deference and veneration to antiquity; Apostles are not sufficiently certain : that in some and upon that account have freely allowed this other cases he produces testimonies out of apo- story of St. Peter's going to Rome, as our author, cryphal writings; and that many things are report- who opposes it, is forced to grant. ed concerning himself which are at best obscure 15. Fourthly ; it deserves to be considered, and ambiguous; and that Baronius and Valesius whether the needless questioning a story so well cannot agree about the time of his journey to attested, may not in time open too wide a gap to Rome. I have but lightly touched upon most of shake the credit of all history. For if things done these exceptions, because the very mention of at so remote a distance of time, and which have all them is enough to supersede a studied and operose the evidence that can be desired to make them confutation ; and, indeed, they are generally such good, may be doubted of or denied, merely for the as may with equal force be levelled almost against sake of some few weak and insignificant excepany ancient history.
tions which may be made against them, what is 14. Thirdly; I observe how far zeal, even for there that can be secure ? There are few pasthe best cause, may sometimes transport learned sages of ancient history, against which a man of men to secure it by undue and imprudent methods; wit and parts may not start some objections, either and such as one would think were made use of from the writers of them, or from ihe account of rather to show the acumen and subtilty of the the things themselves; and shall they therefore author than any strength or cogency in the argu- be presently discarded, or condemned to the numments.* Plain it is, that they who set themselves ber of the false or fabulous? If this liberty be into undermine this story, design therein to serve dulged, farewell church history ; nay, it is to be the interests of the Protestant cause, against the feared, whether the sacred story will be able long vain and just pretences of the see of Rome, and to maintain its divine authority. We live in an utterly to subvert the very foundations of that title age of great scepticism and infidelity, wherein whereby they lay claim to St. Peter's power. men have, in a great measure, put off the reverThis indeed, could it be fairly made good, and with-ence due to sacred things; and witty men seem out offering violence to the authority of those an- much delighted to hunt out objections, bestow cient and venerable sages of the Christian church, their censures, expose the credit of former ages, would give a mortal blow to the Romish cause, and to believe little but what themselves either and free us from several of their groundless and see or hear. And therefore it will become wise sophistical allegations. But when this cannot be and good men to be very tender how they loosen, done without calling in question the first and most much more remove the old landmarks which the early records of the church, and throwing off the fathers have set, lest we run ourselves before we authority of the ancients, non tali auxilio-truth be aware into a labyrinth and confusion, from needs no such weapons to defend itself, but is able whence it will not be easy to get out.* to stand up, and triumph in its own strength, without calling in such indirect artifices to support it. * The value of these observations will be acWe can safely grant the main of the story, that knowledged by every candid inquirer after truth: St. Peter did go to Rome, and came thither nor can it be doubled but that, next to the generattv , (as Origen expressly says he did) abouting of angry feeling, the greatest evil which results the latter end of his life, and there suffered mar- from the existence of religious disputes, is the habit tyrdom for the faith of Christ; and yet is this no of scepticism they foster, so that doubt is engendered
disadvantage to ourselves; nay, it is that which with regard to one class of truths by the very pro| utterly confounds all their accounts of things, and cess employed to subdue it in respect to another.
proves their pretended story of St. Peter's being This, however, is a consequence of the disingenutwenty-five years bishop of that see, to be not dertaken in the spirit of partizanship, and is not a
ousness with which inquiries are pursued when unonly vain, but false, as has been sufficiently shown necessary attendant upon controversy, as the natuin the foregoing section. But to deny that St. ral t' uit of difference of opinion among men of acPeter ever was at Rome, contrary to the whole tive: nd inquisitive intellects. To question the restream and current of antiquity, and the unani- aliiy of a fact which cannot be distinctly disproved mous consent of the most early writers, and that is to place the system contended for in peril; for the merely upon little surmises, and trifling cavils ; moment it is allowed that the disputed circumstance
and in order thereunto to treat the reverend is of such value to the opposite argument, that not I fathers, whose memories have ever been dear and to dispute it is to leave the adversary in possession
of the field, one of these things must of necessity
follow-either the testimony of history is invalidat• The observation of Lord Bacon (Advancemented by bold attacks on evidence sufficiently probable of Learning, p. 13) may be aptly applied to more for conviction in all ordinary cases; or the victory than one class of disputants: " It is good to ask the remains on the side of those who have the fact, so question which Job asked of his friends, ' Will you confessedly important, for the support of their opilie for God, as one man will do for another ?!”-ED. I nions.-Ev. 89