wonderful works,' is owned by Julian the apoftate, who therefore reprefents him as a great magician, and one who had in his poffeffion a book of magical fecrets, left him by our Saviour. That the devils or

evil fpirits were fubject to him,' we may learn from Porphyry, who objects to Christianity, that fince Jefus had begun to be worshipped, fculapius and the rest of the gods did no more converfe with men. Nay, Celfus bimfelf affirms the fame thing in effect, when he says, that the power which feemed to refide in Chriftians, proceeded from the ufe of certain names, and the invocation of certain dæmons. Origen remarks on this paffage, that the author doubtlefs hints at thofe Chriftians who put to flight evil fpirits, and healed those who were poffeffed with them; a fact which had been often seen, and which he himself had feen, as he declares in another part of his discourse against Celfus; but at the same time he affares us, that this miraculous power was exerted by the ufe of no other name but that of Jefus, to which were added feveral paffages in his history, but nothing like any invocation to dæmons.

III. Celfus was fo hard fet with the report of our Saviour's miracles, and the confident atteftations concerning him, that though he often intimates he did not believe them to be true, yet knowing he might be filenced in fuch an answer, provides himself with another retreat, when beaten out of this ; namely, that our Saviour was a magician. Thus he compares the feeding of fo many thoufands at two different times with a few loaves and fishes, to the magical feafts of thofe Egyptian impoftors, who would prefent their fpectators with visionary entertainments that had in them neither fubftance nor reality: which, by the way, is to fuppofe, that a hungry and fainting multitude were filled by an apparition, or ftrengthened and refreshed with shadows. He knew very well that there were fo many witneffes and actors, if I may call them fuch, in these two miracles, that it was impoffible to refute fuch multitudes, who had, doubtless, Sufficiently spread the fame of them, and was therefore

B 3

in

in this place forced to refort to the other folution, that it was done by magic. It was not enough to fay, that a miracle which appeared to fo many thousand eye-witneffes was a forgery of Chrift's difciples, and therefore fuppofing them to be eye-witneffes, he endeavours to fhew how they might be deceived.

IV. The unconverted heathens, who were preffed by the many authorities that confirmed our Saviour's miracles, as well as the unbelieving Jews, who had actually feen them, were driven to account for them after the fame manner: for, to work by magic, in the heathen way of speaking, was, in the language of the Jews, to caft out devils by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Our Saviour, who knew that unbelievers in all ages would put this perverfe interpretation on his miracles, has branded the malignity of thofe men who, contrary to the dictates of their own hearts, started fuch an unreasonable objection, as a blafphemy against the Holy Ghoft, and declared not only the guilt, but the punishment of fo black a crime. At the fame time he condefcended to fhew the vanity and emptiness of this objection against his miracles, by reprefenting that they evidently tended to the deftruction of thofe powers, to whofe affiftance the enemies of his doctrine then afcribed them. An argument, which if duly weighed, renders the objection fo very frivolous and groundless, that we may venture to call it even blafphemy against common fenfe. Would magic endeavour to draw off the minds of men from the worthip which was paid to flocks and stones, to give them an abhorrence of those evil spirits, who rejoiced in the moft cruel facrifices, and in offerings of the greatest impurity, and, in fhort, to call upon mankind to exert their whole ftrength in the love and adoration of that one Being from whom they derived their existence, and on whom only they were taught to depend every moment for the happiness and continuance of it? Was it the bufinefs of magic to humanize our natures with compaffion, forgivenefs, and all the inftances of the most extensive charity? Would evil fpirits contribute to make men fober, chafte and tempe

rate,

rate, and, in a word, to produce that reformation, which was wrought in the moral world by thofe doctrines of our Saviour, that received their fanction from his miracles? Nor is it poffible to imagine, that evil spirits would enter into a combination with our Saviour to cut off all their correfpondence and intercourfe with mankind, and to prevent any for the future from addicting themfelves to thofe rights and ceremonies which had done them fo much honour. We fee the early effect which Christianity had on the minds of men in this particular, by that number of books, which were filled with the fecrets of magic, and made a sacrifice to Christianity, by the converts mentioned in the Acts of the Apoftles. We have likewise an eminent inftance of the inconfiftency of our religion with magic, in the hiftory of the famous Aquila. This person, who was a kinfinan of the Emperor Trajan, and likewise a man of great learning, notwithstanding he had embraced Chriftianity, could not be brought off from the ftudies of magic, by the repeated admonitions of his fellow Chriftians; fo that at length they expelled him their fociety, as rather chufing to lofe the reputation of fo confiderable a profelyte, than communicate with one who dealt in fuch dark and infernal practices. Befides, we may obferve, that all the favourers of magic were the moft profeffed and bitter enemies to the Christian Religion. Not to mention Simon Magus, and many others, I fhall only take notice of thofe two great perfecutors of Chriftianity,the emperors Adrian and Julian the apoftate, both of them initiated in the myfteries of divination, and fkilled in all the depths of magic, I fhall only add, that evil fpirits cannot be fuppofed to have concurred in the establishment of religion, which triumphed over them, drove them out of the places they poffeft, and divefted them of their influence on mankind ; nor would I mention this particular, though it be unanimously reported by all the chriftian authors, did it not appear, from the authorities above cited, that this was a fact confeft by Heathens themselves.

V. We now fee what a multitude of Pagan teftimo

nics

nies may be produced for all thofe remarkable paffages, which might have been expected from them, and, indeed, of feveral that I believe do more than anfwer your expectation, as they were not subjects in their own nature fo expofed to public notoriety. It cannot be expected they should mention particulars which were tranfacted among the difciples only, or among fome few even of the difciples themfelves; fuch as the transfiguration, the agony in the garden, the appearance of Chrift after his refurrection, and others of the like nature. It was impoffible for a heathen author to relate these things, becaufe if he had believed them, he would no longer have been a heathen, and by that means his teftimony would not have been thought of fo much validity. Befides, his very report of facts fo favourable to Chriftianity would have prompted men to say that he was probably tainted with their doctrine. We have a parallel case in Hecatæus, a famous Greek Hiftorian, who had feveral paffages in his book conformable to the hiftory of the Jewish writers, which, when quoted by Jofephus, as a confirmation of the Jewish history, when his heathen adverfaries could give no other antwer to it, they would need fuppofe that Hecatæus was a Jew in his heart, though they had no other reafon for it but because his history gave greater authority to the Jewish than to the Egyptian records.

SECTION III.

I. Introduction to a second lift of Pagan authors, whe give teftimony of our Saviour.-II. A passage concerning our Saviour, from a learned Athenian.-III. His converfion from Paganism to Christianity makes his evidence Stronger than if he had continued a Pagan.-IV. Of another Athenian Philofopher converted to Chriftianity.V. Why their converfion, inftead of weakening, ftrengthens their evidence in defence of Chriftianity.-VI. Their belief in our Saviour's history founded at first upon the principles of hiftorical faith.-VII. Their teftimonies extended to all the particulars of our Saviour's history.—VIII. As related by the four Evangelifts.

I. TO

I. TO this lift of heathen writers, who make mention of our Saviour, or touch upon any particulars of his life, I fhall add thofe authors who were at first heathens, and afterwards converted to Chriftianity; upon which account, as I fhall here fhew, their teftimonies are to be looked upon as more authentic. And in this lift of evidences, I shall confine myself to fuch learned Pagans as came over to Chriftianity in the three first centuries, because those were the times in which men had the best means of informing themselves of the truth of our Saviour's history, and because, among the great number of philofophers who came in afterwards under the reigns of Chriftian Emperors, there might be feveral who did it partly out of worldly motives.

II. Let us now fuppofe that a learned heathen writer who lived within fixty years of our Saviour's Crucifixion, after having fhewn that falfe miracles were generally wrought in obfcurity, and before few or no witneffes, fpeaking of thofe which were wrought by our Saviour, has the following paffage: But his works 'were always feen, because they were true; they were 'feen by thofe who were healed, and by those who were raifed from the dead. Nay, thefe perfons who were thus healed, and raised, were feen not only at the time of ' their being healed, and raised, but long afterwards. Nay, they were not feen only all the while our Saviour was upon earth, but furvived after his departure out of this world; nay, some of them were living in our 'days."

III. I dare fay you would look upon this as a glorious atteftation for the cause of Christianity, had it come from the hand of a famous Athenian philofopher. Thefe forementioned words, however, are actually the words of one who lived about fixty years after our Saviour's Crucifixion, and was a famous philofoper in Athens: but it will be faid, he was a convert to Chriftianity. Now confider this matter impartially, and fee if his teftimony is not much more valid for that reafon. Had he continued a Pagan philofopher, would not the world have

faid