SECTION II.

1. What facts in the hiftory of our Saviour might be taken notice of by Pagan authors.

II. What particular facts are taken notice of, and by what Pagan au

thors.

III. How Celfus represented our Saviour's miracles.

IV. The fame reprefentation made of them by other unbelievers, and proved unreasonable.

V. What facts in our Saviour's history not to be expected from Pagan

writers.

I. WE now come to confider what undoubted authorities are extant among the Pagan writers; and here we muft premife, that fome parts of our Saviour's hiftory may be reasonably expected from Pagans. I mean, fuch parts as might be known to thofe who lived at a diftance from Judæa, as well as to those who were the followers and eyewitneffes of Chrift.

• That

II. Such particulars are most of these which follow, and which are all attefted by fome one or other of thofe heathen authors who lived in or near the age of our Saviour and his disciples. 'Auguftus Cæfar had ordered the whole empire to be cenfed or taxed,' which brought our Saviour's reputed parents to Bethlehem: this is mentioned by feveral Roman hiftorians, as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion. That a great light, or a new Star, appeared in the Eaft, 'which directed the wife men to our Saviour:' this is recorded by Chalcidius. That Herod, the king of Palestine, so often mentioned in the Roman hiftory, made a great flaughter of innocent children,' being fo jealous of his fucceffor, that he put to death his own fons on that account: this character of him is given by feveral hiftorians; and this cruel fact mentioned by Macrobius, a heathen author, who tells it as a known thing, without any mark or doubt upon it. That our Saviour had been in Egypt,' this Celfus, though he raises a monftrous ftory upon it, is fo far from denying, that he tells us our Saviour learned the arts of magic in that country. That Pontius Pilate was governor of Judæa; that our Saviour was brought in judgment before him, and by him con 'demned and crucified: this is recorded by Tacitus. That many 'miraculous cures, and works out of the ordinary courfe of nature, were wrought by him:' this is confeffed by Julian the Apoftate, Porphyry, and Hierocles, all of them not only Pagans, but profeffed enemies and perfecutors of Chriftianity. That our Saviour fore'told feveral things which came to pafs according to his predictions this was attefted by Phlegon, in his annals, as we are affured by the learned Origen against Celfus. That, at the time when

our Saviour died, there was a miraculous darkness and a great earthquake: this is recorded by the fame Phlegon the Trallian, who was likewife a Pagan, and freeman to Adrian the emperor. We may here obferve, that a native of Trallium, which was not fituate at fo great a distance from Palestine, might very probably be informed of

fuch

fuch remarkable events as had paffed among the Jews in the age im mediately preceding his own times, fince feveral of his countrymen, with whom he had converfed, might have received a confufed report of our Saviour before his crucifixion, and probably lived within the fhake of the earthquake, and the fhadow of the eclipfe, which'are recorded by this author. That Chrift was worshipped as a God among the Chriftians, that they would rather fuffer death than • blafpheme him; that they received a facrament, and by it entered into a vow of abftaining from fin and wickednefs;' conforming to the advice given by St. Paul; that they had private affemblies of worship, and used to join together in hymns:' this is the account which Pliny the younger gives of Chriftianity in his days, about fe venty years after the death of Chrift, and which agrees in all its circumftances with the accounts we have, in Holy Writ, of the first state of Chriftianity after the crucifixion of our bleffed Saviour. That St. Peter, whofe miracles are many of them recorded in Holy Writ, did many 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 them, we may learn from Porphyry, who objects to Chriftianity, that, fince Jefus had begun to be worshipped, Efculapius and the reft of the Gods did no more converse with men. Nay, Celfus himself affirms the fame thing in effect, when he fays, 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 thofe who were poffeffed with them; a fact which had been often feen, and which he himself had feen, as he declares in another part of his difcourfe against Celfus; but at the fame time affures 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 hiftory, but nothing like any invocation to dæ

mons.

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 anfwer, 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 fifhes, to the magical feafts of thofe Egyptian impoftors who would prefent their Ipectators with vifionary 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 fhadows. 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 doubtlefs fufficiently fpread the fame of them, and was therefore 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-witnefles, 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 fpeaking, was in the language of the Jews to cast 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 those men who, contrary to the dictates of their own hearts, ftarted 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 emptinefs of this objection against his miracles, by reprefenting, that they evidently tended to the deftruction of those 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 ground lefs, that we may venture to call it even blafphemy against common fenfe. Would magic endeavour to draw off the minds of men from the worship that was paid to ftocks and stones, to give them an abhorrence of thofe evil fpirits who rejoiced in the most cruel facrifices, and in offerings of the greateft impurity; and, in fhort, to call upon mankind to exert their whole ftrength in the love and adoration of that Being from whom they derived their exiftence, 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, forgiveness, and all the inftances of the most extenfive charity? Would evil fpirits contribute to make men fober, chafte, and temperate, 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 fpirits 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 rites. and ceremonies which had done them fo much honour. We see the early effect which Chriftianity had on the minds of men in this particular, by that number of books which were filled with the fecret of magic, and made a facrifice to Chriftianity, by the converts mentioned in the Acts of the Apoftles. We have likewife an eminent inftance of the inconfiftency of our religion with magic, in the hiftory of the famous Aquila. This perfon, who was a kinfman of the emperor Trajan, and likewife a man of great learning, notwithftanding he had embraced Chriftianity, could not be brought off from the studies of magic by the repeated admonitions of his fellow Chriftians; fo that at length they expelled him their fociety, as rather choofing to

VOL. V.

G

lofe

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 most profeffed and bitter enemies to the Chriftian religion. Not to mention Simon Magus and many others, I fhall only take notice of two great perfecutors of Chriftianity, the emperors Adrian and Julian the apoftate, both of them initiated in the myfteries of divination, and skilled in all the depths of magic. I fhall only add, that evil fpirits cannot be fuppofed to have concurred in the establishment of a religion which triumphed over them, drove them out of the places they poffeffed, and divefted them of their influence on mankind; nor would I mention this particular, though it be unanimously reported by all the ancient Christian authors, did it not appear, from the authorities above cited, that this was a fact confefled by Heathens themselves.

V. We now fee what a multitude of Pagan teftimonies 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 themselves; 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 thefe 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 fay that he was probably tainted with their doctrine. We have a parallel cafe in Hecatæus, a famous Greek historian, 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 hiftory, when his Heathen adverfaries could give no other anfwer to it, they would need fuppofe that Hecatus was a Jew in his heart, though they had no other reafon for it, but because his hiftory gave greater authority to the Jewish than the Egyp tian records.

SECTION

İ. Introduction to a fecond lift of Pagan Authors, who give teflimony of

our Saviour.

II. A paffage concerning cur Saviour, from a learned Athenian.

III. His converfion from Paganifm to Chriflianity makes his evidence fronger than if he had continued a Pagan.

IV. Of another Athenian Philofopher converted to Chriftianity.

V. Why their converfion, instead of weakening, strengthens their evidence in defence of Chriftianity.

VI. Their belief in our Saviour's biflory founded at firft upon the prin ciples of hiftorical faith.

VII. Their teftimonies extended to all the particulars of our Saviour's hiftery, VIII. As related by the four Evangelifts.

I. TO this lift of Heathen writers, who make mention of our Saviour, or touch upon any particulars of his life, I fhall add those authors who were at firft Heathens, and afterwards converted to Christianity; upon which account, as I fhall here fhew, their teftimonies are to be looked upon as the most authentic. And in this lift of evidences, I fhall confine myfelf 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 themfelves of the truth of our Saviour's hiftory, and becaufe 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.

11. 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, becaufe they were true; they were feen by thofe who were healed, and by "thole who were raifed from the dead. Nay, thefe perfons who were "thus healed and raised, were seen not only at the time of their "being healed and raffed, 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, fome of them were living, "in our days."

III. I dare fay you would look upon this as a glorious atteftation, for the caufe of Chriftianity, had it come from the hand of a famous Athenian philofopher. These forementioned words, however, are actually the words of one who lived about fixty years after our Saviour's crucifixion, and was a famous philofopher 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, that he was not fincere in what he writ, or did not believe it? for, if fo, would not they have told us he would have embraced Chriftianity? This was indeed the cafe of this excellent man: he

G 2

had