صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Lis army in person in eight general engagements,* | fishermen, with a conqueror at the head of his and undertook, by himself or his lieutenants, army. We compare Jesus without force, without fifty military enterprises.

From this time we have nothing left to account for, but that Mahomet should collect an army, that his army should conquer, and that his religion should proceed together with his conquests. The ordinary experience of human affairs, leaves us little to wonder at, in any of these effects: and they were likewise each assisted by peculiar facilities. From all sides, the roving Arabs crowded round the standard of religion and plunder, of freedom and victory, of arms and rapine. Beside the highly painted joys of a carnal paradise, Mahomet rewarded his followers in this world with a liberal division of the spoils, and with the persons of their female captives. The condition of Arabia, occupied by small independent tribes, exposed it to the impression, and yielded to the progress, of a firm and resolute army. After the reduction of his native peninsula, the weakness also of the Roman provinces on the north and the west, as well as the distracted state of the Persian empire on the east, facilitated the successful invasion of neighbouring countries. That Mahomet's conquests should carry his religion along with them, will excite little surprise, when we know the conditions which he proposed to the vanquished. Death or conversion was the only choice offered to idolaters. "Strike off their heads! strike off all the ends of their fingers!t kill the idolaters wheresoever ye shall find them!" To the Jews and Christians was left the somewhat milder alternative of subjection and tribute, if they persisted in their own religion, or of an equal participation in the rights and liberties, the honours and privileges, of the faithful, if they embraced the religion of their conquerors. "Ye Christian dogs, you know your option, the Koran, the tribute, or the sword."'ll The corrupted state of Christianity in the seventh century, and the contentions of its sects, unhappily so fell in with men's care of their safety, or their fortunes, as to induce many to forsake its pro'fession. Add to all which, that Mahomet's victories not only operated by the natural effect of conquest, but that they were constantly repre-sented, both to his friends and enemies, as divine declarations in his favour. Success was evidence. Prosperity carried with it, not only influence, but proof. "Ye have already (says he, after the battle of Bedr) had a miracle shown you, in two armies which attacked each other; one army fought for God's true religion, but the other were infidels." Again; "Ye slew not those who were slain at Bedr, but God slew them.-If ye desire a decision of the matter between us, now hath a decision come unto you."**

power, without support, without one external circumstance of attraction or influence, prevailing against the prejudices, the learning, the hierarchy, of his country; against the ancient religious opinions, the pompous religious rites, the philosophy, the wisdom, the authority of the Roman empire, in the most polished and enlightened period of its existence; with Mahomet making his way amongst Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests and triumphs, in the darkest ages and countries of the world, and when success in arms not only operated by that command of men's wills and persons which attends prosperous undertakings, but was considered as a sure testimony of divine approbation. That multitudes, persuaded by this argument, should join the train of a victorious chief; that still greater multitudes should, without any argument, bow down before irresistible power; is a conduct in which we cannot see much to surprise us; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes by which the establishment of Christianity was effected.

The success, therefore, of Mahometanism, stands not in the way of this important conclusion; that the propagation of Christianity, in the manner and under the circumstances in which it was propagated, is a unique in the history of the species. A Jewish peasant overthrew the religion of the world.

I have, nevertheless, placed the prevalency of the religion amongst the auxiliary arguments of its truth; because, whether it had prevailed or not, or whether its prevalency can or cannot be accounted for, the direct argument remains still. It is still true that a great number of men upon the spot, personally connected with the history and with the author of the religion, were induced by what they heard, and saw, and knew, not only to change their former opinions, but to give up their time, and sacrifice their ease, to traverse seas and kingdoms without rest and without weariness, to commit themselves to extreme dangers, to undertake incessant toils, to undergo grievous sufferings, and all this, solely in consequence, and in support, of their belief of facts, which, true, establish the truth of the religion, which, if false, they must have known to be so.

PART III.

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR

OBJECTIONS.

CHAPTER I.

The Discrepancies between the several Gospels.

Many more passages might be collected out of the Koran to the same effect. But they are unnecessary. The success of Mahometanism during this, and indeed, every future period of its history, bears so little resemblance to the early propagation of Christianity, that no inference whatever can I KNOW not a more rash or unphilosophical conjustly be drawn from it to the prejudice of the duct of the understanding, than to reject the subChristian argument. For, what are we compar-stance of a story, by reason of some diversity in ing? A Galilean peasant accompanied by a few

Mod. Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 255.
Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 255.

Sale's Koran, c. viii. p. 140.

Ib. c. ix. p. 149.

the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches.

Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 337. ¶ Sale's Koran, c. iii. p. 36. When accounts of a transaction come from the

** Ib. c. viii. p. 141.

mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom that it

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not write histories, but memoirs; which is perhaps the true name and proper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do not undertake, or ever meant, to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete account of all the things of importance, which the person, who is the subject of their history, did or said; but only, out of many similar ones, to give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered themselves more inmediately to their attention, came in the way of their inquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their particular design at the time of writing.

is not possible to pick out apparent or real in- respective credit of their histories. We have in consistencies between them. These inconsisten- our own times, if there were not something indecies are studiously displayed by an adverse corous in the comparison, the life of an eminent pleader, but oftentimes with little impression person, written by three of his friends, in which upon the minds of the judges. On the contrary, there is very great variety in the incidents selected a close and minute agreement induces the suspi- by them; some apparent, and perhaps some real cion of confederacy and fraud. When written contradictions; yet without any impeachment of histories touch upon the same scenes of action, the the substantial truth of their accounts, of the aucomparison almost always affords ground for athenticity of the books, of the competent informlike reflection. Numerous, and sometimes import- ation or general fidelity of the writers. ant, variations present themselves; not seldom also, absolute and final contradictions; yet neither one nor the other, are deemed sufficient to shake the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the execution of Claudian's order to place his statue in their temple, Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed-time; both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt, whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order was given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis of Argyle's death, in the reign of Charles the Second, we have a very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned to be hanged, This particular design may appear sometimes, which was performed the same day; on the con- but not always, nor often. Thus I think that the trary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Échard, concur particular design which Saint Matthew had in in stating that he was beheaded; and that he was view whilst he was writing the history of the recondemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon surrection, was to attest the faithful performance the Monday.* Was any reader of English his- of Christ's promise to his disciples to go before tory ever sceptic enough to raise from hence a them into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, question, whether the Marquis of Argyle was who seems to have taken it from him, has recordexecuted or not? Yet this ought to be left in un-ed this promise, and he alone has confined his certainty, according to the principles upon which narrative to that single appearance to the disciples the Christian history has sometimes been attacked. which fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the Dr. Middleton contended, that the different hours great and most public manifestation of our Lord's of the day assigned to the crucifixion of Christ, person. It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint by John and by the other evangelists, did not ad- Matthew's mind, and he adapted his narrative to it. mit of the reconcilement which learned men had But, that there is nothing in Saint Matthew's lanproposed; and then concludes the discussion with guage, which negatives other appearances, or which this hard remark: "We must be forced, with seve-imports that this his appearance to his disciples in ral of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency."+ But what are these consequences? By no means the discrediting of the history as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing that repugnancy be not resolvable into different modes of computation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have taken place.

Galilee in pursuance of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is made pretty evident by Saint Mark's Gospel, which uses the same terms concerning the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itself records two other appearances prior to this: "Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him as he said unto you." (xvi. 7.) We might be apt to infer from these A great deal of the discrepancy observable in words, that this was the first time they were to the Gospel, arises from omission; from a fact or see him: at least, we might infer it, with as much a passage of Christ's life being noticed by one reason as we draw the inference from the same writer, which is unnoticed by another. Now, words in Matthew: yet the historian himself did omission is at all times a very uncertain ground not perceive that he was leading his readers to of objection. We perceive it, not only in the com- any such conclusion; for in the twelfth and two parison of different writers, but even in the same following verses of this chapter, he informs us of writer when compared with himself. There are two appearances, which, by comparing the order a great many particulars, and some of them of im- of events, are shown to have been prior to the apportance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiqui-pearance in Galilee. "He appeared in another ties, which, as we should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish wars. Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have, all three, written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the rest,§ yet no objection is from thence taken to the

[blocks in formation]

form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and they went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them: afterward he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen."

Probably the same observation, concerning the particular design which guided the historian. may be of use in comparing many other passages of the Gospels.

CHAPTER II.
Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles.

A SPECIES of candour which is shown towards every other book, is sometimes refused to the Scriptures; and that is, the placing of a distinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually question the credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have delivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from observation, narrative from argument.

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, much controversy and much objection has been raised concerning the quotations of the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it is said, are applied in a sense, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from those to which they belong, in the original. It is probable to my apprehension, that many of those quotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothing more than accommodations. They quoted passages of their Scripture, which suited, and fell in with, the occasion before them, without always undertaking to assert, that the occasion was in the view of the author of the words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from books especially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of all countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than in the writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confined to their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with more solemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise declaration, that they originally respected the event then related, are, I think, truly alleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of the writers of the New Testament, in interpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected either with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what was passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it clearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit? Does it diminish it? Has it any thing to do with it?

possess enables us now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to believe, that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected the approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflection will occur, as that which we have made with respect to the more partial, perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient error concerning the duration of St. John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said, which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the part of impostors.

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter, is contained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the apostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me the apostles' testimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; give me the facts, and I have complete security for every conclusion I want.

But although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist to return this answer; I do not think that it is the only answer which the objection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most reasonable distinctions, will exclude all uncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger.

First, to separate what was the object of the apostolic mission, and declared by them to be so, from what was extraneous to it, or only incidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to the religion, nothing need be said. Of points incidentally connected with it, something may be added. Ďemoniacal possession is one of these points: concerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit the examination, or even the production of the argument on either side of the question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgment. And it is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they who think it was a general, but erroneous opinion, of those times; and that the writers of the New Testament, in common with other Jewish writers of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinking upon the subject, which then universally prevailed, need not be alarmed by the conAnother error imputed to the first Christians, cession, as though they had any thing to fear from was the expected approach of the day of judgment. it, for the truth of Christianity. The doctrine I would introduce this objection by a remark upon was not what Christ brought into the world. It what appears to me a somewhat similar example. appears in the Christian records, incidentally and Our Saviour, speaking to Peter of John, said, accidentally, as being the subsisting opinion of the "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to age and country in which his ministry was exerthee?" These words, we find, had been so mis-cised. It was no part of the object of his revelaconstrued, as that a report from thence "went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." Suppose that this had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, and that the particular circumstance, from which the mistake sprang, had been lost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case,) some, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how little justice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such a presumption taken up, the information which we happen to

* John xxi. 22.

tion, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of spiritual substances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected with testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the use of his speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was ascribed; and the like of every other cure wrought upon those who are said to have been possessed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the popular explication of the cause was well founded, or not. The matter of fact, the change, so far as it was an object of sense, or of testimony, was in either case the same.

Secondly, that, in reading the apostolic writings, we distinguish between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to them

by revelation properly so called; yet in propound- | Christianity answerable with its life, for the ciring these doctrines in their writings or discourses, cumstantial truth of each separate passage of the they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce Old Testament, the genuineness of every book, them, by such analogies, arguments, and consider- the information, fidelity, and judgment of every ations, as their own thoughts suggested. Thus writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but the call of the Gentiles, that is, the admission of unnecessary difficulties, into the whole system. the Gentiles to the Christian profession without a These books were universally read and received previous subjection to the law of Moses, was im- by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and his parted to the apostles by revelation, and was at- apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred tested by the miracles which attended the Chris- to them, alluded to them, used them. Yet, except tian ministry among them. The apostles' own where he expressly ascribes a divine authority to assurance of the matter rested upon this founda- particular predictions, I do not know that we can tion. Nevertheless, Saint Paul, when treating strictly draw any conclusion from the books beof the subject, offers a great variety of topics in its ing so used and applied, beside the proof, which proof and vindication. The doctrine itself must it unquestionably is, of their notoriety, and recepbe received: but it is not necessary, in order to tion at that time. In this view, our Scriptures defend Christianity, to defend the propriety of afford a valuable testimony to those of the Jews. every comparison, or the validity of every argu- But the nature of this testimony ought to be unment, which the apostle has brought into the dis-derstood. It is surely very different from what it cussion. The same observation applies to some is sometimes represented to be, a specific ratificaother instances; and is, in my opinion, very well tion of each particular fact and opinion; and not founded; "When divine writers argue upon any only of each particular fact, but of the motives aspoint, we are always bound to believe the conclu-signed for every action, together with the judgsions that their reasonings end in, as parts of di- ment of praise or dispraise bestowed upon them. vine revelation: but we are not bound to be able Saint James, in his Epistle, says, "Ye have to make out, or even to assent to, all the premises heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the made use of by them, in their whole extent, un- end of the Lord." Notwithstanding this text, the less it appear plainly, that they affirm the pre-reality of Job's history, and even the existence of mises as expressly as they do the conclusions proved by them."*

CHAPTER III.

The Connexion of Christianity with the Jewish
History.

such a person, has been always deemed a fair subject of inquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines. Saint James's authority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more. Saint Paul, in his second Epistle to Timothy,† has this similitude: "Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth." These names are not found in the Old Testament. And it is uncertain, whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing then extant, or from tra

UNDOUBTEDLY our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic institution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to be very difficult to assign any other cause for the commence-dition. But no one ever imagined, that Saint Paul ment or existence of that institution; especially is here asserting the authority of the writing, if it for the singular circumstance of the Jews' ad- was a written account which he quoted, or making hering to the unity, when every other people slid himself answerable for the authenticity of the tra into polytheism; for their being men in religion, dition; much less, that he so involves himself with children in every thing else; behind other nations either of these questions, as that the credit of his in the arts of peace and war, superior to the most own history and mission should depend upon the improved in their sentiments and doctrines re- fact, whether Jannes and Jambres withstood Molating to the Deity. Undoubtedly, also, our Sa-ses, or not. For what reason a more rigorous inviour recognizes the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as Christians to go. But to make

* Burnet's Expos. art. 6.

terpretation should be put upon other references, it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other passages of the Jewish history stand upon no bet ter evidence than the history of Job, or of Jannes and Jambres, (I think much otherwise;) but I "In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the mean, that a reference in the New Testament, to eternity, the omnipotence, the omniscience, the omni- a passage in the Old, does not so fix its authority, presence, the wisdom, and the goodness, of God; in as to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or intheir opinions concerning Providence, and the creation, to the separate reasons upon which that credibilipreservation, and government of the world." Campbell on Mir. p. 207. To which we may add, in the acts of ty is founded; and that it is an unwarrantable, as their religion not being accompanied either with cruel-well as unsafe rule to lay down concerning the ties or impurities: in the religion itself being free from a species of superstition which prevailed universally in the popular religions of the ancient world, and which is to be found perhaps in all religions that have their origin in human artifice and credulity, viz. fanciful con nexions between certain appearances and actions, and the destiny of nations or individuals. Upon these con ceits rested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so much even of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the charms and incantations which were practised in those countries by the common people. From every thing of this sort the religion of the Jews, and the Jews alone, was free. -Vide Priestley's Lectures on the Truth of the Jewish and Christian Revelation, 1794.

Jewish history, what was never laid down con cerning any other, that either every particular of it must be true, or the whole false.

I have thought it necessary to state this point explicitly, because a fashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of his school, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Christianity through the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class are founded in misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all proceed upon a supposition,

* Chap. v. 11.

† Chap. iii. 8.

which has not been made out by argument, viz. | salem, Is not this he whom they seek to kill that the attestation, which the Author and first But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing teachers of Christianity gave to the divine mission to him: do the rulers know indeed that this is the of Moses and the prophets, extends to every point very Christ? Howbeit we know this man, whence and portion of the Jewish history; and so extends he is, but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth as to make Christianity responsible in its own whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as credibility, for the circumstantial truth (I had al- he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye most said for the critical exactness) of every nar- know whence I am: and I am not come of my. rative contained in the Old Testament. self, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man hath done?"

CHAPTER IV.

Rejection of Christianity.

WE acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted great numbers, did not produce a universal, or even a general conviction in the minds of men, of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this want of a more complete and extensive success, is called the rejection of the Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to form a strong objection to the reality of the facts which the history contains.

This passage is very observable. It exhibits the reasoning of different sorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle, which persons of all sorts are represented to have acknowledged as real. One sort of men thought, that there was something very extraordinary in all this; but that still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was a circumstance in his appearance which militated with an opinion concerning Christ, in which The matter of the objection divides itself into they had been brought up, and of the truth of two parts; as it relates to the Jews, and as it re- which, it is probable, they had never entertained lates to Heathen nations: because the minds of a particle of doubt, viz. that "When Christ these two descriptions of men may have been, cometh, no man knoweth whence he is." Another with respect to Christianity, under the influence sort were inclined to believe him to be the Mesof very different causes. The case of the Jews, siah. But even these did not argue as we should; inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was original-did not consider the miracle as of itself decisive of ly addressed to them, offers itself first to our consideration.

the question; as what, if once allowed, excluded all farther debate upon the subject; but founded their opinion upon a kind of comparative reason

miracles than those which this man hath done?"

Another passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the same purpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Lazarus: "Jesus," he tells us (xi. 43, 44,) "when he had thus spoken, cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth: and he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus said unto them, Loose him, and let him go." One might have suspected, that at least all those who stood by the sepulchre, when Lazarus was raised, would have believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelist does not so represent it :-"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which

"Now, upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; with us, there is but one ques-ing, "When Christ cometh, will he do more tion, viz. whether the miracles were actually wrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to the acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the conclusion. If we believe the works, or any one of them, we believe in Jesus. And this order of reasoning is become so universal and familiar, that we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought, in the mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age, was totally different from this. After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated by various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the ap-Jesus did, believed on him; but some of then prehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did not irresistibly carry, even those who saw them, to the conclusion intended to be drawn from them; or so compel assent, as to leave no room for suspense, for the exercise of candour, or the effects of prejudice. And to this point, at least, the evangelists may be allowed to be good witnesses; because it is a point, in which exaggeration or disguise would have been the other way. Their accounts, if they could be suspected of falsehood, would rather have magnified, than diminished, the effects of the miracles.

went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done." We cannot suppose that the evangelist meant by this account, to leave his readers to imagine, that any of the spectators doubted about the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unquestionably he states the miracle to have been fully allowed: yet the persons who allowed it, were, according to his representation, capable of retaining hostile sentiments towards Jesus. "Believing in Jesus" was not only to believe that he wrought miracles, but that he was the Messiah. With us there is no difference John vii. 21-31. "Jesus answered, and said between these two things: with them, there was unto them, I have done one work, and ye all mar- the greatest; and the difference is apparent in vel. If a man on the sabbath day receive circum- this transaction. If Saint John has represented cision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; the conduct of the Jews upon this occasion truly are ye angry at me, because I have made a man (and why he should not I cannot tell, for it rather every whit whole on the sabbath-day? Judge makes against him than for him), it shows clearly not according to the appearance, but judge righte- the principles upon which their judgment proous judgment. Then said some of them of Jeru-ceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly

« السابقةمتابعة »