Protestants maintained that he was never there. Semler, the highest uncircumcised authority I could quote to Mr. English, indeed says, "that Peter went from Antioch to Rome, was formerly believed without hesitation; and that he lived there in the second year of Claudius, and for twenty-five years, which superstitious opinion had become a general corruption, though unsupported by antiquity."* He plainly distinguished here between the two opinions, and rests the question upon the authority of the ancients. Now it is well known that not a single ancient authority can be adduced for the assertion that Peter never was at Rome, and Semler himself in another work says, "That Peter and Paul died at Rome, we believe, if we trust to Irenæus and Caius, and others SUFFICIENTLY ANCIENT: to confirm this account many additions to it were made in later ages." I presume, therefore, that Semler thought that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome. However, the question is, whether "most of the Protestants deny that plicity and truth. The death of James is related, Acts xii. That Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom under Nero, at Rome, is a matter of such invariable and ancient authority, that I see not upon what ground it is questioned. Protestants indeed deny that Peter lived twenty-five years at Rome; and some, that they may more successfully resist the Papists, deny that he died at Rome, or was there. But the more learned, having more diligently weighed the ancient authorities, by no means question this. But whether Peter died at Rome or elsewhere, all agree that he was crucified in testimony to his master, according to his prediction, John xxi. 18, 19." Limborch. Am. Col. p. 161-167. * Semleri Instit. ad Doctr. p. 150.

† Semleri Select. Cap. i. p. 19,

"

he was ever there." Let us hear Lardner: "Some learned men have denied that Peter ever was at Rome, as Scaliger, Salmasius, Frederick Spanheim, and others. Mr. Bower is much of the same mind. His words are, "from what has been hitherto said, every impartial judge must conclude, that it is at best very much to be doubted, whether St.Peter ever was at Rome. Nevertheless, there have been many learned men among the Protestants, as well as the Romanists, whose impartiality was never questioned, who have believed and argued very well that Peter was at Rome, and suffered martyrdom there. I refer to some: Cave, Pearson, LeClerc, Basnage, Barratier."* After entering into the detail of authorities upon the question, he says, "This argument may be censured by some as prolix, or even needless; but as some of our own times, as well as formerly, have denied or disputed this point, I have thought it expedient to let my readers see the evidences of what appears to myself, as well as to many other protestants, very certain, that St. Peter was at Rome, and suffered martyrdom there." And when we accordingly add the authority of Lardner to those he quotes himself, and to that of Semler, we shall better judge with what propriety it can be said, "most of the learned men of the

Lardner's history of the apostles and evangelists. Watson's ed. p. 432. † Ib. p. 442.

Protestants assert, that Peter never was in Rome."

The reader will indulge me now with a comparison of two different assertions of Mr. English. The one taken, in the heat of transcription, from Orobio, the other from I know not whom, perhaps original. Grounds of Christianity_examined.

Page 76.

which it was their business to avoid. Mahomet throughout the Koran, inculcates all the virtues, and pointedly reprobates vice of all kinds. His morality is merely the precepts of the Old AND New Testaments, modified a little, and expressed in Arabick. They are good precepts, and always to be listened to with respect, wherever and by whomsoever inculcated.

Page 164, &c.

One of the fathers ven-
tures to insinuate to
the Christians the ex-
pediency of deserting
from the army, to rid
themselves of their car-
nal employment.
we examine, in detail,
the principles of, this
religion, we shall see
that it interdicts every
thing that makes a na-
tion flourishing

Mr. English may attempt to explain this contradiction by urging his distinction between the morality peculiar to the New Testament, and that which it borrows from the Old. But it will not avail him, for two reasons; first, if, as he says, "the New Testament inculcates an excellent morality," and contains excellent precepts from the Old Testament, and teaches no immoralities, the reality of such a distinction as this is highly incredible; and if it be true, that the peculiar morality of the New Testament is pernicious to individual happiness, and to society, it can with no propriety be said, that "the New Testament

'teaches an excellent morality.' But, secondly, Mr. English speaks not only of the morality borrowed from the Old Testament, but that of the New also. "The morality of Mahomet is nothing but the precepts of the Old AND New Testaments:" they are good precepts." The solution of the contradiction is the blind and indecorous haste, with which Mr. English copied every thing which he thought was an objection to Christianity, not only without seeing whether it had not been refuted by others, but whether he had not or might not refute it himself. The way of contrast is pleasant, and the reader will indulge me in pointing out one more, though not connected with the immediate subject.

Page 1. Christianity is founded on Judaism, and the New Testament upon the Old.

Page 110. It is a singular and demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme of Christianity was borrowed from the religion of the ancient Persians.

The source of this contradiction is the same as of the last. The passage on the first page was transcribed from Collins, and passed so slightly through the mind of the copyist, as to leave no impression there.

ན

Mr. English closes the chapter which we have been considering, with some extracts from Celsus, from which it appears, that in the view of this heathen, the primitive Chris