'the same subject more accurately: he was then one of the judges, and a principal adviser of the persecution; and not contented with that piece of wickedness, he also pursued those with his writings whom he had brought into trouble. For he composed two books, not entitled, Against the Christians, lest he should seem to bear hard upon them, but To the Christians,' that he might be thought to advise them in a kind and friendly manner in which books he ⚫ endeavoured to shew, that the sacred scriptures overthrow themselves by the contradictions ' with which they abound: he particularly insisted upon several texts as inconsistent with each other; and indeed on so many, and so distinctly, that one might suspect he had some time professed the religion which he now exposed. However, the sacred scriptures may have by 'some accident or other fallen into his hands: but the scriptures are as far from inconsistencies ' as he was from the truth.—But he chiefly reviled Paul and Peter, and the other disciples, as 'propagators of falsehood: who nevertheless,' as he says, were ignorant and illiterate, and some of them got their livelihood by fishing; as if he was displeased, that some Aristophanes or Aristarchus had not handled the subject.'

6

But it hence follows, that they were not cunning and designing men, being entirely unacquainted with the arts of deceit. And how should unlearned men, of their own heads, contrive a plausible story in every part, and throughout consistent, when the most learned philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno, have delivered inconsistencies and contradictions? For this is the nature of falsehood, that it cannot hold together: but the doctrine of Christ's disciples being true, it is all of a piece and consistent throughout; and therefore it satisfies and gains followers, because it is built upon solid reason. Nor did they invent this religion for the sake of any worldly profit whatever: for the precepts of it give no encouragement to voluptuousness, and in their whole conduct they shewed a contempt of those things which are 'most valued. Nor did they only lay down their lives for the truth, but knew beforehand that they should do so, and also foretold it; and plainly declared to all others who embraced the same doctrine, that they must expect the like sufferings. But he says, that Christ was banished by the Jews, and after that got together nine hundred men, and committed robbery. Who can withstand such an authority? By all means let us believe him; for perhaps some Apollo told it him in his sleep. Many robbers have been executed in all times, and are exe'cuted daily. You have condemned a great many: but who of them after crucifixion has been 'esteemed as a god, or even as a man? But possibly you have the more easily believed this, because your people have deified the murderer Mars: which however you would not have • done if he had been crucified by order of the court of Areopagus. Moreover,' as Lactantius goes on to say, this writer endeavours to overthrow Christ's miracles, though he does not deny the truth of them: he aims to shew, that like things, or even greater, were done by Apollonius. It is somewhat strange that he omitted Apuleius, of whom many wonderful things are commonly said.-Christ, it seems, must be reckoned a magician, because he did many

Christianos, ut humane ac benigne consulere putaretur.

In

quibus ita falsitatem scripturæ sacræ arguere conatus est, tamquam sibi esset tota contraria. Nam quædam capita, quæ repugnare sibi videbantur, exposuit; adeo multa, adeo intima enumerans, ut aliquando ex eadem disciplinâ fuisse videatur ---nisi forte casu in manus ejus divinæ literæ inciderunt.Tantum enim abest a divinis literis repugnantia, quantum ille abfuit a veritate. Præcipue tamen Paulum Petrumque laceravit, cæterosque discipulos, tamquam fallaciæ seminatores; quos eosdem tamen rudes et indoctos fuisse testatus est. Nam quosdam eorum piscatorio artificio fecisse quæstum ; quasi ægre ferret, quod illam rem non Aristophanes aliquis, aut Aristarchus commentatus sit Ib. cap. 2.

Abfuit ergo ab his fingendi voluntas, et astutia, quoniam rudes fuerunt. Aut quis possit indoctus apta inter se et cohærentia fingere; cum philosophi doctissimi, Plato, et Aristoteles, et Epicurus, et Zenon, ipsi sibi repugnantia et contraria dixerint.' Hæc est enim mendaciorum natura, ut cohærere non possint. Illorum autem traditio, quia vera est, quadrat undique, ac sibi tota consentit : et ideo persuadet, quia constanti ratione suffulta est. Non igitur quæstûs et commodi gratiâ religionem istam commenti sunt; quippe qui

et præceptis, et re ipsâ, eam vitam secuti sunt, quæ et voluptatibus caret, et omnia quæ habentur in bonis spernit; et qui non tantum pro fide mortem subierint, sed etiam morituros esse se et scierint, et prædixerint; et postea universos, qui eorum disciplinam secuti essent, acerba et nefanda passuros. Ipsum autem Christum affirmavit, a Judæis fugatum, collectà nongentorum hominum manu, latrocinia fecisse. Quis tantæ auctoritati audeat repugnare? Credamus hoc plane. Nam fortasse hoc illi in somnis Apollo aliquis nuntiavit. Tot semper latrones perierunt, et quotidie pereunt: utique multos et ipse damnasti. Quis eorum, post crucem suam, non dicam deus, sed homo appellatus est? Verum tu forsitan ex eo credidisti, quia vos homicidam Martem consecrâstis, ut deum : quod tamen non fecistis, si illum Areopagitæ in crucem sustulissent. Item, cum facta ejus mirabilia destrueret, nec tamen negaret, voluit ostendere Apollonium vel paria vel etiam majora fecisse. Mirum, quod Apuleium prætermisit, cujus solent et multa et mira memorari-Si magus Christus, quia mirabilia fecit, peritior utique Apollonius, qui, ut describis, cum Domitianus eum punire vellet, repente in judicio non comparuit, quam ille, qui et comprehensus est, et cruci affixus. Ib. cap. 3.

:

⚫ wonderful things but Apollonius is more able, because, as you say, when Domitian would have put him to death, he escaped: whereas Christ was apprehended and crucified.'

More follows concerning Apollonius, but I think I need not proceed any farther.

Lactantius has not told us the name of this writer; but from the author of the book of the Deaths of Persecutors, different * from Lactantius, but contemporary with him, we learn, that b he was Hierocles, at first vicar, afterwards president in Bithynia, of whom he expressly says, that he was a persecutor, and an adviser of the persecution.

C

Hierocles is also mentioned by Epiphanius, as præfect at Alexandria in the time of Dioclesian's persecution.

Against his work Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote an answer, still extant, of which I shall now give an account: by which it will farther appear, that Lactantius and Eusebius speak of the same author, and the same work.

d

Eusebius at the beginning tells his friend, to whom he addresseth himself, that Hierocles had made a comparison of our Saviour and Master with Apollonius of Tyana, giving the preference to the latter. To this part he intended to confine himself: for, says he, As for the rest of his work, which he calls Philalethes, or Lover of Truth, I do not think it needful to take much notice of it; it not being his own, but shamefully borrowed from others, and ⚫ had been already fully answered by Origen in his answer to the work of Celsus, called "The 'true Word.” '

Referring therefore,' says Eusebius, to that work of Origen, such as are desirous to inform ⚫ themselves more particularly of our religion, we shall at this time examine the comparison made ' of Jesus Christ and Apollonius by this Philalethes.'

e

"In the

He admires then and extols this man, as if by some divine and hidden wisdom, and not by • magical arts, he had performed great wonders, saying in these very words: “ They are continually crying up Jesus for opening the eyes of the blind, and other like works." And presently after he adds: "But it ought to be considered upon how much better grounds we receive such things, and how much more reasonably we judge of divers excellent men." After which, passing over Aristeas of Proconnesus, and Pythagoras, and other ancients, he goes on. ' time of our ancestors, in the reign of Nero, flourished Apollonius of Tyana, who, 'having when 'very young sacrificed at Ægis in Cilicia to that good god Esculapius, wrought many and won• derful works: some of which I shall mention, omitting others.” Then he recites his extra'ordinary works from the beginning.' [It were to be wished that Eusebius had not abridged as he does here: it would certainly have been a great curiosity to have had that passage at length, to see what works Hierocles ascribed to Apollonius]. And afterwards says, in these very words: "To what purpose have I mentioned these things? That all may perceive our just and reasonable judgment, and the levity of the Christians: forasmuch as we do not esteem him who ⚫ did these things a god, but a man favoured by the gods:" [as if the heathen people were very

That he is different from Lactantius, I argued largely some while ago ; Vol. ii. p. 264-267. At the end of that argument are mentioned several learned men, who have been of the same opinion. Το them ought to be added Dr. Chapman, in his Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Sudbury, p. 125.

Nam cum incidisses in Flaccinum Præfectum, non pusillum homicidam, deinde in Hieroclem ex Vicario Præsidem, qui auctor et consiliarius ad faciendam persecutionem fuit, postremo in Priscillianum successorem ejus, documentum omnibus invicta fortitudinis præbuisti. De Mortib. Persecut. cap. 16. • Κεληιανος μεν ην έπαρχος της Θηβαΐδος, Αλεξανδρειας δε Ἱεροκλης, Epiph. Η. 68. num. 1.

Αρ. 8ν, ω φιλοίης, κακεινα σε το συγγραφεως αξίον αποθαυ μαζειν, & τῷ ἡμεῖεξῳ Σωτηρι τε και διδασκαλῳ τον Τυανέα ξυγκρίνων, παρεδοξολογει. Προς μεν γαρ τα λοιπα των εν τῳ Φιλαλήθει— δεν αν είη σπεδαιον επι το παρόνίος ίσασθαι, μη αυτε ίδια τυίχανοντας σφοδρα δε εναιδώς εξ έτερων εκ αυτοις μονοναχι νοημασιν, αλλα και ρήμασιν και συλλάβαις προσε συλημενα. κ. λ. Euseb. Contr. Hier. p. 511. ad calc. Dem. Evang.

e

Θαυμάζει αν και αποδεχεται θεια τινι και αῤῥήτω σοφια όχι δε γοητείαις σοφίσμασι τεθαυματορίηκεναι φασκων αυτού Ακεε δ' ἂν ὁ φησιν αυταις συλλάβαις. Άνω δε και κατω θρυλ

λεσι, σεμνυνονίες τον Ιησεν, ως τυφλοις αναβλεψαι τε παρασχονlα, και τινα τοιαυία δρασανία θαυμασια. Ελα τινα μεταξύ είπων, επιλεξει. Σκεψώμεθα γε μην έσῳ βελτιον και συνετωτερον ήμεις εκδεχώμεθα τα τοιαυία, και ήν περί των εναρείων εχωμεν γνωμην ανδρών. Ib. p. 512. B. C.

Γός αφ' ὑπερἱερασαίο τῳ φιλανθρωπῳ Ακληπιῳ, πολλα και θαύματα διεπραξαῖο· ὧν τα πλείω παρεις, ήμιν ποιησομαι μνήμην. Ειδα καλαλεξει απο πρώτο αρξάμενος τα παραδοξα. Μεθ' ά και επιλεξει ταυία κατα λεξιν. Τίνος εν ἕνεκα τετων εμνήσθην; Ίνα εξῃ συγκρίνειν την ημετεραν ακριβή και βεβαίαν εφ' έκασῳ κρισιν, και την των Χρισιανών κεφοτητα είπες ήμεις μεν τὸν τοιαυία πεποιηκοτα, ο θεόν, αλλά θεοις κεχαρισμένον ανδρα ήδεμεθα· οἱ δε δι' ολίδας τερατειας τινας τον Ιήσων θεον ανα[ορευεσι. Τελῳ επιφέρει μεθ' έτερα φασκων· κάκεινο λογισασθαι αξιον, ὅτι τα μεν το Ιησε Πείρος και Παύλος, και τινες τείων παραπλήσιοι, κεκομπασιν, ανθρωποι ψεύσαι, και απαιδευτοι, και γοητες. Τα δε Απολλώνια Μαξιμος ὁ Αιδεύς, και Δαμις ὁ φιλοσοφος, ὁ συνδιατρίψας αυτω, και Φιλοσταίος δ Αθηναίος, παιδεύσεως μεν επί πλείσοις ήκονίες, το δ' αληθες τιμωνίες, δια φιλανθρωπιαν, ανδρος γενναία, και θεοις φίλο πράξεις μη βελομενοι λαβειν. Ταύτα ρημασιν αυτοις Ἱεροκλει τῳ καθ' ήμων επιγεγραφοι φιλαλήθη λόγον, ειρηται. Euseb. ib. p. 512, 513.

τω

scrupulous of giving the title of deity to none but such as well deserved it, when they had such a rabble of paltry deities, young and old, males and females, good and bad. Moreover, if Philostratus may be relied upon, Apollonius himself was called a god by many, and in his life-time: and he accepted the title, saying, that every good man is honoured with it. Πάλιν κρείο, το χωριό

οι άνθρωποι Θεον σε ονομαζεσιν; Οτι πας, είπεν, ανθρωπος, αγαθος νομιζόμενος, Θε8 επωνυμία τιμαται. Apoll. Vit. 1. viii. cap. 5. p. 325. in.] "Whereas they for the sake of a few tricks call Jesus God." [The works of Jesus were not a few, but numerous, great, truly wonderful, and conspicuous beyond all contradiction]. "It is also reasonable to think, that the actions of Jesus have been magnified by Peter and Paul, and others like them, ignorant men, liars and impostors. But the things of Apollonius have been written by Maximus of Ægis, and Damis a philosopher, who conversed with him, and Philostratus the Athenian, men of great learning and being lovers of truth, and friends to mankind, they were unwilling that the actions of so great a man, dear to the gods, should lie hid." So writes Hierocles in his work against us, entitled by him Philalethes. The case is this: Damis, who was very conversant with Apollonius, was a native of Assyria: there he became acquainted with Apollonius, upon his travelling into that country, and after'wards wrote the history of what happened after his acquaintance with him. The history of Maximus is very short and imperfect: but Philostratus of Athens having met with these and 'some other histories of Apollonius, as he says, composed a history of his life from his birth to ⚫ his death.'

a

b

That Eusebius there gives a true account of the work of Philostratus, may be perceived by any who will look into the introduction to it: and yet he omits one particular in that introduction, which may be justly reckoned to render the truth of Philostratus's history suspected. For having mentioned Maximus and Damis, as observed by Eusebius, he adds: For there is no regard to be had to Moragenes, who wrote four books concerning Apollonius, but was unac'quainted with many things concerning him.' Which may induce us to conclude, that in those books were some things not very much to the honour of Apollonius: and Philostratus does himself afterwards quote Moragenes for an account of the writings of Apollonius. Therefore Philostratus, as it seems, put together what he thought to be to the advantage of his hero, and omitted other things.

C

However, omitting other things,' says Eusebius, 'we shall confine ourselves to the history ⚫ written by Philostratus, by which we shall clearly shew, that Apollonius was far from deserving to be compared with our Saviour Jesus Christ, as is pretended by the author of Philalethes." Whereupon he proceeds to examine the Life of Apollonius, written by Philostratus in eight books, upon each of which he makes remarks.

And though this answer of Eusebius to Hierocles is short, I suppose it was sufficient, and such as was suited to the circumstances of things at that time. The greatest part of the objections in this work of Hierocles were trifling and stale, and such as had been already answered by Origen, and other learned apologists, and which all Christians in general were able to confute. All that was new in Hierocles was a comparison of our Saviour with Apollonius: this had never been attempted by any before: to that therefore Eusebius confined himself, as before said.

III. Eusebius has recorded a great cruelty of this Hierocles, when præfect of Alexandria, though he has not expressly named him. It is in his book of the Martyrs of Palestine, where he writes of the sufferings of Christians in that country. But having in the fourth chapter of that book related the grievous sufferings of Apphianus at Cæsarea, a young man about twenty years of age, of a good family and a liberal education, he is led in the following chapter to relate the martyrdom of desius at Alexandria, though it did not happen till some while afterwards. For Edesius was brother of Apphianus, not only in a religious sense, but also by nature, as he had the same father: and he had made greater progress in learning than his brother. He also led a philosophical life, and wore their cloak. He

a Philost. de Vit. Apol. 1. 1. c. 3.

с

Ou yaş Mosuleval me aporexlesy, Bishia per qualiter as Απολλώνιον τεταρα, πολλά δε περὶ τήν ανδρα αβοησαι.

Ibid.

Vid. ib. 1. i. cap. 41.

being at Alexandria, and beholding the judge insulting the Christians, who were brought before him in the most opprobrious manner, though they were men of great gravity; and also delivering women, some of which were devoted to virginity, into the hands of bawds to be abused by them, he was exceedingly provoked, and going up to the judge, reproved 'him in word and deed: for which he was condemned to the severest torments, and then thrown ' into the sea.'

b

It is supposed, that Ædesius struck the judge: for which he has been censured by some; but I think it must be acknowledged, that the provocation was very great. And when a magistrate departs from his dignity, and reviles prisoners at his bar, and condemns virtuous and modest women to the stews for prostitution, and thus acts contrary to all the laws of decency and good manners, as well as of strict justice, he forfeits the respect that would be otherwise due to him.

c

For certain these are strange things in a man of letters, as Hierocles was: whose learning is readily acknowledged by Eusebius in his confutation of him. Nor is it much to be wondered at, that a man of an honourable family, and a liberal education, as Edesius was, should think he had a right to expose a magistrate whose proceedings were so extraordinary.

d

There was another of this name, a Platonic philosopher, who taught at Alexandria in the fifth century, and wrote of Providence and Fate, and likewise a Commentary upon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, as they are called. These two were confounded by many learned men for some time. But that mistake has been since corrected, and it is now universally allowed, that Hierocles governor of Bithynia and præfect of Alexandria, who wrote against the Christians, and was answered by Eusebius of Cæsarea, and Hierocles the Platonic philosopher of Alexandria, were two different persons.

IV. It is now high time that we should make remarks upon the accounts of the work of Hierocles, which we have seen in Lactantius and Eusebius.

с

1. Hierocles had read the scriptures of the New Testament, if not of the Old likewise. He observed particularly upon a great many passages of the books of the New Testament, endeavouring to shew them inconsistent with each other. This shews that those books were now well known, and that they were greatly respected by Christians. If, therefore, the credit of these books was overthrown, the Christian religion must fall with it. In the imperial edict for Dioclesian's persecution in 303, it was expressly ordered, not only that the Christian churches should be demolished, but also that their scriptures should be burned: and this was the first time that any such order was published by any of the heathen persecuting emperors. it is a proof, as was before observed, that the heathen people were then sensible of the import ance of those scriptures, which the Christians made use of as the ground of their religion, the rule of their conduct, and the great support of their steadiness and zeal.

And

2. Hierocles bears testimony to the existence of the several parts of the New Testament, the gospels and the epistles: for, as Lactantius says, he reviled Peter and Paul, and the other disciples; who, as he says, were ignorant and illiterate, and some of them got their livelihood by fishing.' And, as quoted from Eusebius, he says: It is also reasonable to think, that the 'works of Jesus have been magnified by Peter and Paul, and the others like them, ignorant men, liars and impostors.' By the other disciples, and the others, like Peter and Paul,' plainly meaning our evangelists: as we also learn from Eusebius, who says: He gives the preference to Philostratus above our divine evangelists, not only upon account of his superior learning, but likewise upon account of his superior regard to truth.'

f

Here is a testimony to the genuineness of the scriptures now received by us: here are references to six at least of the eight writers of the books of the New Testament: Peter and Paul are expressly named; and there are references to the gospels of the four evange lists. The books now received by us therefore are the same which were received by the

Christians of that time; and were received by them from their ancestors, and were respected by them as genuine and authentic.

9. Hierocles did not dispute the genuineness or antiquity of the writings of our apostles and evangelists; but he endeavoured to disparage them, calling them illiterate, liars and 'impostors.' This last charge is manifestly false, their writings having in them all the marks of truth and credibility that can be wished for or desired. But some of the writers, as we own, were unlearned; but Paul was learned both in Jewish and Greek learning, and knew the world: nor was Luke altogether illiterate. Barnabas, who joined the apostles soon after our Saviour's resurrection, was a Levite, and a man of good understanding, and very remarkable for his generosity. Jesus, in the time of his abode on this earth, notwithstanding the meanness of his outward circumstances, had some affectionate and respectful friends and followers of great distinction, attracted solely by the excellence of his words, the greatness of his works, and the amiableness of his conduct. Such were Jaïrus, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea: And "among the rulers many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." John xii. 42. And there were men of lower rank, of very good understanding, who were open and undaunted in their profession, notwithstanding discouragements. See John v. 1-16. and ixth throughout. And among women, "Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and divers others:" one of whom was Mary of Magdala, usually mentioned in precedence before all the rest. Luke viii. 1—3. And soon after our Lord's resurrection, there were great accessions made to him and his apostles of persons of all characters, too many to be here enumerated. These are things that must assure us of the truth of the history of Jesus, as written by his apostles and evangelists; things which cannot be said of Apollonius, or any other.

4. Hierocles did not deny the truth of our Saviour's miracles, such as " giving sight to the blind," and other like works recorded by the just mentioned writers: but he endeavoured to disparage and depreciate them by ascribing them to magical arts; which is altogether unreasonable, because the works are such as could be done by the power of God only, to which they are always ascribed by the historians. He likewise insinuated, that there might be reason to suspect, that the evangelists had magnified our Saviour's works beyond the truth and reality. Which insinuation is also unreasonable: forasmuch as the historians of the Lord Jesus have not particularly recorded all the great works done by him, but have quite omitted very many, and contented themselves with a general mention or reference to others.

There is another great advantage which the historians of the Lord Jesus have over Philostratus, on whom Hierocles relied for the accounts of Apollonius, that they were all contemporary with Jesus, and most of them his hearers and eye-witnesses: whereas Philostratus did not write till more than an hundred years after the death of Apollonius: but of that more hereafter.

5. By Lactantius we are told, that this writer, meaning Hierocles, gave out, that Jesus had been expelled from Judea, and after that, committed robbery, accompanied by a band of nine hundred men. If this be true, (nor is there any reason to doubt it,) it shews, that heathen people at that time made no scruple of inventing lies to the disparagement of our Saviour: and though those stories were quite groundless and very improbable, they might be regarded by many ignorant and prejudiced people, who had never read the scriptures, and had heard, that about our Saviour's time, and before the destruction of Jerusalem, there were many robbers in Judea.

6. Beside other just observations in Lactantius, one is this, that the respect shewn to Jesus by vast numbers of men, though he was crucified, is a demonstration, that he was not a man of a bad character. Robbers, and other malefactors, who suffer for their crimes, are never deified, nor much respected after their death.

7. We are assured both by Lactantius and Eusebius, that there was in Hierocles a comparison made of our Saviour and Apollonius, with a preference of this latter: and by Eusebius we are expressly assured, that Hierocles was the first who had formed such a comparison. This ought to be particularly attended to by us, and will engage us in some farther observations, which shall be reserved for another section, that I may not too much prolong this.

V. Says Cudworth in his Intellectual System: It is a thing highly probable, if not un

a B. 1. ch. iv. p. 265, 266. ed. 1678.