( i- )

mous Lord Herbert of Cherbury ; and not froma faithful translation of the text, which I thinkperfectly harmless. In saying this, I feel my-self supported by the sentiments of the judiciousDr. Lardner, who, after examining and weigh-ing the opinions for and against the tendency ofthe work, supposes it written as a counterpart tothe life of Pythagoras , and free from any directallusion to the life of Christ.* Even in suchparts of his work as might be supposed to bearon particular passages in the history of ourblessed Saviour, neither the language (save inone solitary instance) nor the artless simplicityof the scriptures, are so much as followed.—Nothing can be imagined, says Mr. John Le-land, more different than Philostratus ’s mannerof writing, stuffed with rhetorical flourishesand vain ostentations of learning, is from theplain sober narrative of the evangelists, whichhath all the characters of genuine unaffectedsimplicity, and a sincere regard for truth.

Dr. Lardner observes, he was confirmed inhis opinion by perusing the judicious reflectionsof Dr. Parker, bishop of Oxford, on the charac-

* Gibbon allows that, “ tho’ancient stories of Pythagoras and Aristeas , the cures performed at the shrine of iEsculapius,and ihe fables related, of Apollonius of Tt/ana, were frequent-ly oppose to the miracles of Christ; yet he agrees with Dr,Lardner, in thinking, that when Philostratus composed hisLife of Apollonius , he had no such intention.”