<e 
 = 
 
 be ee 
 ps 7 
 
 ¥ ij ch ai alan 
 yA AB Tidak 
 tan igi 
 
 say 
 
 i 
 
 Ah 
 dan 
 
 Pinas 
 1% 
 HAGA oat ey 
 Bach 
 
 uy je y 7 
 wy A tlhe 1 et § % Nee S95 Veli Ki 
 Recaete i ; AY Haat t ies coe tay YP 
 
 ce th SHARE AV ANEAD BEL/Y YAO ah 
 
 pry tay ie 
 a Ne 1 
 
 ine 
 pictress 
 
 Piet abe) Y 
 - 
 
 bi) Leake as 
 NERA ga eae 
 TAR Tl) Ree gen reg 
 
BT 1095:..B6. 18523 
 
 Bolton, William Jay, 
 1884. 
 
 The evidences of 
 
 ‘ ’ ty 4 
 Pay, vie eRe ' ; 
 ¥ : j 
 iy i { ; 
 { ; 
 ( ‘ } nM ct , \ 
 
suit 
 We 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 httos://archive.org/details/evidencesofchrisOObolt 
 
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE EARLY FATHERS. 
 
Cambridae : 
 Printey at the Anibersity ress, 
 
 For MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 London: GEORGE BELL. 
 
 Dublin: HODGES AND SMITH. 
 Grinburg): EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS. 
 @lasgotu: JAMES MACLEHOSE. 
 
 Orford: J. H. PARKER. 
 
THE 
 
 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 
 
 AS EXHIBITED IN THE WRITINGS OF 
 
 ITS APOLOGISTS DOWN TO AUGUSTINE. 
 
 AN ESSAY WHICH OBTAINED 
 
 THE HULSEAN PRIZE FOR THE YEAR 1882. 
 
 By Wed BOLTON 
 
 OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 * TTe(Oopar copwv Adyots.”’—GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS. 
 
 ‘¢ Discussi, fateor, sectas Antonius omnes, 
 Plurima quesivi, per singula queque cucurri, 
 Sed nihil inveni melius, quam credere Christo.”— 
 PAULINUS. 
 
 . 
 
 Cambridae : 
 MACMILLAN & CO. 
 
 1853. 
 
TO THE 
 
 RIGHT WORSHIPFUL THE VICE-CHANCELLOR; 
 THE 
 
 REVEREND THE MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE ; 
 AND THE 
 
 REVEREND THE MASTER OF ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, 
 
 IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE; 
 
 PERRIS SESS Acy. 
 
 IS BY PERMISSION MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
TO 
 
 EDWIN GUEST, Esa, D.C.L. THE MASTER, 
 
 THE REV. CHARLES CLAYTON, M.A., TUTOR, 
 
 AND THE FELLOWS, 
 
 OF 
 
 GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; 
 
 THIS ESSAY 
 IS DEDICATED 
 WITH SENTIMENTS OF GRATITUDE 
 
 AND ESTEEM 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 6 
 
tes Ki i 
 oe, 
 
 i 
 
 e | ‘ 
 ie x 
 y ew 
 et 
 hy wh 
 & 
 ue ‘a : 
 oy i 
 
 es es. 
 
 | | 
 
 apg AD? som 
 
 7% 
 
 7 © ; 
 é 
 
 eas Pie ea 
 
 ‘ i. a 
 
 F : L i . 
 
¥ 
 
 Cuauses directed by the Founpsr to be always prefixed 
 
 to the Huuszan Disserrartion. 
 
 CLAUSES from the WILL of the Rev. JOHN 
 HULSE, late of Elworth, in the County of Chester, 
 clerk, deceased: dated the twenty-first day of July, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and seventy-seven ; expressed in the words 
 of the Testator, as he, in order to prevent mistakes, 
 thought proper to draw and write the same him- 
 self, and directed that such clauses should every 
 year be printed, to the intent that the several per- 
 sons, whom it might concern and be of service to, 
 might know that there were such special donations 
 or endowments left for the encouragement of Piety 
 and Learning, in an age so unfortunately addicted 
 to Infidelity and Luxury, and that others might 
 be invited to the like charitable, and, as he humbly 
 hoped, seasonable and useful Benefactions. 
 
 He directs that. certain rents and profits 
 
 (now amounting to about a hundred pounds yearly) 
 
 be paid to such learned and ingenious person, in the 
 
 University of Cambridge, under the degree of Master 
 
 of Arts, as shall compose, for that year, the best 
 
 Dissertation, in the English language, on the Kvi- 
 
 dences in general, or on the Prophecies or Miracles 
 
 in particular, or any other particular Argument, 
 
 whether the same be direct or collateral proofs of the 
 
v1 
 
 Christian Religion, in order to evince its truth and 
 excellence; the subject of which Dissertation shall be 
 given out by the Vice-Chancellor, and the Masters of 
 Trinity and Saint John’s, his Trustees, or by some of 
 them, on New Year’s Day annually; and that such 
 Dissertation as shall be by them, or any two of them, 
 on Christmas Day annually, the best approved, be also 
 printed, and the expense defrayed out of the Author’s 
 income under his Will, and the remainder given to 
 him on Saint John the Evangelist’s Day following ; 
 and he who shall be so rewarded, shall not be 
 admitted at any future time as a Candidate again in 
 the same way, to the intent that others may be 
 invited and encouraged to write on so sacred and 
 sublime a subject. 
 
 He also desires, that immediately following the last 
 of the clauses relating to the prize Dissertation, this 
 invocation may be added: ‘ May the Divine Bless- 
 ing for ever go along with all my benefactions ; and 
 may the Greatest and the Best of Beings, by his 
 all-wise Providence and gracious influence, make the 
 
 same effectual to His own glory, and the good of my 
 
 fellow-creatures !” 
 
 Subject proposed by the Trusrens for the Year 1852. 
 
 “ The Evidences of Christianity as exhibited in the 
 
 Writings of its Apologists down to Augustine 
 inclusive.” 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The subject stated—patience and candour requisite ; : 1 
 Its interest, historical—ecclesiastical—local ; : : Ye 
 
 Its importance, presumed from its tendency to remove prejudice, 
 by an investigation consonant with the theory of the Church 
 of England—to lower the value of modern sceptical argu- 
 ments—to speak for the intelligence and learning of the 
 Fathers—to furnish matter apposite to our own times—this 
 
 last and most important point proved from the ethical and 
 permanent nature of religion, as well as from the identity of 
 material error in all ages, there being at the same time no 
 antecedent grounds for doubting the capacity or appliances 
 
 of the Apologists; also by its ae ane to assist mis- 
 sionary enterprise ; Sil : A 3 
 
 The want of a treatise of this kind : : ; 3 ‘ ; 9 
 
 Our sources of information—a sketch of the Apologies necessary 
 
 in passing—references to the Apologies of the second, third, 
 and fourth centuries ; : : : ; 10 
 
 Deductions respecting (1) the authors, that they were Gentiles 
 of various countries, philosophers, and voluntary sufferers— 
 respecting (2) the Apologies, that they were extorted by per- 
 secution from first to last—respecting (3) the persons ad- 
 dressed, or the enemies of Christianity, that they were the 
 Jewish zealot, the Grecian philosopher, and the Roman ruler 
 —respecting (4) the arguments in question, of what they 
 chiefly consist; whence is obtained a natural classification 
 or method of arranging the work before us. : pg 24 
 
 Concluding remarks on any appearance of tautology in the proofs 
 —on the omission of obsolete arguments—on the strength 
 derived from the combination of Evidences—on the actual 
 
 effect of the Apologies 30 
 
vl CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY . 
 
 The general nature of this argument—it is introductory—inci- 
 dental—limited , : : : : : : 33 
 
 Section 1. Analogies from nature—two cautions with regard to 
 Analogy, viz. Analogy distinguished from illustration; 
 
 Analogy restricted to its particular relations—proofs : 35 
 Section 2. Instinctive suggestions of the soul—character of this 
 
 appeal, mode of application—subdivision of proofs into 43 
 
 (a) Arguments from cause to effect . : ; : 44 
 
 (8) Arguments from effect to cause k ; ; 50 
 
 (y) Sentiments of natural conscience : " : 54 
 
 Section 3. The example of heathen ideas : : : 58 
 
 The present force of the argumenium ad hominem—proofs 
 
 Section 4. Answers to objections—explanation—specimens . 66 
 
 CHAPTER IL. 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 The claim of the Fathers to the books of the Old Testament, 
 valid—the sense in which they appealed to antiquity—the 
 objects of this argument as directed against the Jew—in the 
 case of the Pagan, it met the charges of novelty, and pla- 
 giarism; enhanced the value of the Scriptures; and argued 
 for the divinity of Christ—only used by the Apologists in 
 establishing the antiquity of the Bible . : : : 71 
 
 _ CHAPTER IIL. 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM: PROPHECY. 
 
 Its nature considered—its value under the circumstances, as ad- 
 dressed to the Pagan, to the Jew, or to the Christian himself— 
 the account to which the Apologists turned this argument 
 —notice of the sibyls—the separation of the heathen and 
 Jewish argument—reason for this : . ; : 90 
 
 Section 1. Proofs addressed to the Gentile : 95 
 Section 2. Proofs addressed to the Jew - : 3 : 104 
 
CONTENTS. vil 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The authenticity of miracles not doubted, nor requiring demon- 
 stration—attempts to explain them away as effects of magic 
 —or, to confound them with pretended prodigies—the sub- 
 ject of post-apostolic miracles considered—proofs .. : pi 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE REASONABLENESS OF , 
 DOCTRINE. ad 
 
 The character of this argument, that of a running comparison, 
 conscience being the judge—the usual method of conducting 
 the enquiry—the heathen side first, and chiefly dwelt upon 
 —proofs ; } ; : : : 133 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Me, 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 _ The importance attached to morals in religion—other evidence 
 | worthless without this—a difficulty occasioned by artificial 
 divisions—this argument distinguished from that of the last 
 chapter—proofs : ; : ; : ame ad 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 "THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 _ The value of this argument lies in its setting forth a fulfilment 
 
 of prophecy—a continuous and present miracle—an unpre- 
 cedented event, under any circumstances, particularly under 
 
 the disadvantages of the case—the completion of the whole 
 system of Evidences, thereby affording comfort.to the perse- 
 cuted church, and extending its encouragement even to our 
 
 own day—proofs ; . ; ; : : Sees Y- 
 
 : Conclusion . ; : : % ; : ; 5 226 
 
a “a 
 haagox 
 pds 
 
 ee . 
 Rah a: Sire as 
 
 WY: eR eae 
 ara aT ae af 
 GRBosi'y | 
 
 A€ Sta 
 ei VRE: fy 
 
 a 
 
 Phd 
 
 gs deer re aa satin ~— sfteToAy hy: sts ae i 
 papers oa: unser damyneays a aon nal 
 Macnee ene Sopa ae B: ie, Gad inh") 
 
 J ane eer Sa : 
 a aE. Vey (in wate 
 eo 
 
 fe Ory 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 HE general subject of these essays,—the setting forth the 
 
 claims which Christianity has in the way of evidence upon 
 our faith and affection,—commends itself to every man’s con- 
 science. If religion is important, whatever calls our attention to 
 it must be important also. But ‘the Evidences’ do more than 
 recommend Christianity : they are the groundwork of the sacred 
 building. Every appeal to the believer or unbeliever stands 
 upon their truth; and whether viewed as external or internal, 
 historical or moral, objective or experimental, argumentative or 
 testimonial, direct or auxiliary; they constitute the substance 
 on which all true spirituality of mind rests and operates. In 
 this respect our religion differs from others, and enables us to 
 invite and welcome that rigid examination from which they 
 all instinctively shrink. But without entering upon such a 
 boundless subject, we may take for granted that its nature is 
 understood, and its value appreciated, and proceed at once to 
 the more specific matter in hand; the part of this grand whole 
 selected for our present consideration. 
 
 It consists of a particular view of the Evidences for the 
 truth of Christianity; a view that may fairly be called the 
 original view; taken not by ourselves, but by others; from a 
 point in past ages, and in foreign lands. I may therefore be 
 allowed to say here, once for all, that in transporting our thoughts, 
 as we must needs do, to times, places, and situations, so distant 
 and different from our own, we shall require both patience and 
 - candour; patience in surveying exotic and rather extensive ma- 
 terials, and candour in judging of them, with modern, perhaps 
 preoccupied minds. 
 
 There is much, however, to make this an interesting, and 
 still more, an instructive matter of research. Its interest arises 
 from its connexion with history,—not with civil history so much, 
 though any experimental reference to this increasingly important 
 study (much more the entire bearing) must be welcome in an age 
 of inquiry and eclecticism like the present,—but rather from its 
 connexion with the history of the Christian religion. Our sub- 
 
 H. E. 1 
 
 “t. f 
 
Dy INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ject is ecclesiastical in its very nature; an essential page of 
 Church history. It involves a review of the first four, possibly 
 the most important centuries the world ever saw; and an exhi- 
 bition of the earliest combined intellectual defence of Christianity, 
 in which and by which the primitive converts were enabled to 
 give ‘a reason of the hope that was in them.’ Surely to those 
 of us who indulge the same hope, this period of the Church’s 
 great and predicted! conflict ; these apologists, our own elder 
 brethren and fellow Gentiles, who fought and in some measure 
 bled for us; and these arguments, the weapons they wielded with 
 considerable energy and success, present altogether a most inviting 
 field of thought. 
 
 Nor is there wanting another claim to our regard of quite a 
 personal kind. When the heavenly command was issued to 
 enlarge the borders and strengthen the stakes of the Gospel tent, 
 it pleased God that one of the cords should be fastened in our 
 isle. Our rude and painted forefathers were early made the 
 recipients of the ‘good tidings of great joy. For the preserva- 
 tion of this pleasing tradition we are mainly indebted to the 
 writings of the Apologists. Whilst Tacitus was meditating his 
 terse and cold speculations upon our climate and our pearls®, 
 these men were delighting to tell each other and the whole world 
 of the mercy of God towards a little island set amid the mists 
 and waves of ‘the Western ocean.’ They felt for us as we feel 
 for the natives of a Madagascar or a Tahiti now. Their hearts 
 throbbed with sympathy at each assurance, brought perchance by 
 a returning legion or home-bound vessel, of the progress of our 
 happiness. At length our name became quite familiar to their 
 pen: we seemed to furnish a standing proof of the power and 
 extent of the Redeemer’s kingdom. It was just because we were 
 so remote, so barbarous, and as it were so unlikely, that our 
 country became a sacred land-mark: what ultima Thule had 
 been to the poets of antiquity, such wlttma Britannia was to 
 the Christian Apologists. Here then is a theme of grateful 
 reflection for us, and for Britons at all times: ‘a psalm to bring 
 to remembrance.’ Let others attribute the prosperity of our 
 country to geographical position, to the physical determination 
 
 : I believe all the schools of prophetical interpretation, however they 
 may differ on other points, coincide in finding intimations of the sufferings 
 of the early Church in the Revelation of St John. : 
 
 7 Vid. Tac. Agric. c. 12. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  &§ 
 
 of a race, or to a happy adjustment of laws ; the Christian mind 
 can only count upon these blessings, as they were sheltered 
 under ‘ that righteousness which exalteth a nation,’ first taught 
 us ages ago, and marvellously preserved with us to this hour. 
 
 The usefulness of our task may be presumed from the 
 following suggestions among others. First, such a review 1S 
 calculated to disarm and dissipate prejudice. However much 
 there is of the erroneous, absurd, or obscure in the esoteric 
 systems of the Fathers, and whatever misuse has been made 
 of such imperfections by a patronizing heresy, or a sneering 
 scepticism, (rendering caution doubly necessary,) nothing of 
 the sort obtrudes on us here. From vexed questions, the sad 
 details of civil strife among Christians, and all the disturb- 
 ing associations that cling to internal and long-continued con- 
 troversies, the present inquiry is free. We are invited to a 
 nobler, fairer view of the Fathers unanimously contending in all 
 simplicity and earnestness, and against each external foe, ‘for 
 the faith once delivered to the saints.’ We have to consider 
 them not as preachers or catechists, but as Apologists; not as 
 disputants in a council, but as defendants ina court: and though 
 considerable blemishes undoubtedly attach to many of them 
 under these as well as under any other characters, yet they 
 will be found of such comparatively rare occurrence, and bearing 
 So little upon the main topics and design of the present investi- 
 gation, as scarcely to require a place in our thoughts, 
 
 Moreover, it would seem that a resort of this kind to anti- 
 quity, is peculiarly agreeable to the temper of our Church. 
 Neither exalting the ancient Fathers on the one hand, as authori. 
 ties coequal with the word of God, or as divine authorities at 
 -all,—a position which reason, the sacred Scriptures, and their 
 own works, cannot endure for a moment ;—nor, on the other 
 hand, disparaging and rejecting them altogether as worthless or 
 -worse,—another extreme condemned alike by common Justice 
 and common prudence,—the Church of England takes a more 
 moderate and judicious course: and having established as a 
 fundamental article of religion, ‘ that Holy Scripture containeth 
 all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read 
 therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
 any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or 
 be thought requisite or necessary to salvation;’ she can afford 
 both to permit and encourage the study of the patristic writings 
 | 1—2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and the whole circle of history, for evidence of facts and con- 
 frmation of doctrines; thereby indicating to her friends that 
 they need fear no thorough examination of any sort, but rather 
 boast with Tertullian, that ‘truth dreads nothing but conceal- 
 ment.’ 
 
 Under such a guidance and with all those sentiments which 
 become the investigation of venerable and Christian records, I 
 shall proceed presently to extract and furnish the arguments of 
 the Apologists for the truth of Christianity, not doubting but 
 that the honest, the courageous, the pious disposition they dis- 
 cover will speak for itself, and raise our authors in the estimation 
 of all impartial minds. 
 
 A further result of the discussion before us must be to deprive 
 the modern sceptic of his claim to originality. 1 think it will 
 appear in the sequel that most of our present popular objections 
 to Christianity have been anticipated centuries since. With the 
 exception of a few sophistries and transcendentalisms, which de- 
 stroy themselves, I scarcely know of an infidel position that we 
 do not find taken up and exploded by such writers as Origen, 
 Arnobius, Eusebius. Perhaps the exposure of such a circum- 
 stance, considering what a sharp spur notoriety is, may serve to 
 lower the value of rash opinions, even in the eyes of the inventor 
 himself; or, the bloom of freshness being lost, more certainly in 
 the eyes of others also. 
 
 And this idea leads us on to another somewhat akin to it. 
 Our subject is of value as proving collaterally the intellectual 
 capacity of the early Christians. For not only are adverse and 
 infidel objections quoted or presumed in these documents, but 
 they are also shrewdly and substantially answered : and thus we 
 find modern defenders of the faith as well as modern objectors, 
 have been superseded. Much that Grotius, Pascal, Fenelon, 
 Paley, have produced on the Evidences of Christianity will find 
 its precedent, if not its original, in these Christian Classics. What 
 has been said of Arnobius may be said with more or less truth. 
 of the rest of the Apologists; ‘the reader will recognize many | 
 a familiar thought, and remark how many arguments of modern 
 Apologists have been anticipated here.’ An investigation of 
 this sort, therefore, cannot but do some justice to memories of 
 the past. But it will do something more. This is not a mere 
 compliment to the pious dead; it is material to our own con- 
 fidence in the common cause. The importance of establishing 
 
INTRODUCTION, 5 
 
 the right of early Christian converts to be reckoned intelligent 
 as well as sincere men, is pointed out by Dr Woodham in his 
 pretace to Tertullian’s Apology!. He shews that the learned 
 Grotius* in making miracles decisive evidence for the truth of 
 Christianity, draws his inference, not as Paley does, from the 
 sufferings, but rests it upon the circumstances of the early con- 
 verts; especially upon the fact that such professed philosophers, 
 ‘men of good judgment and no small learning’ as most of the 
 Apologists were, became disciples after due examination®. 
 
 The last point I need notice in order to claim the most 
 serious attention of the reader, is the general applicability 
 of the apologetic arguments to the times in which we live. 
 This, the most important quality, involving as it does any prac- 
 tical utility, will require a little thought. There are many 
 things that as they become old become obsolete, or which when 
 transferred from one country to another are as useless in their 
 new relations, as they were valuable before. The era or the 
 climate whose peculiarity gave them birth being changed, their 
 use is gone. Among these transitory existences, the evidences of 
 the Christian Religion are certainly not to be classed. Like the 
 cause they support, they belong to every age and every zone. 
 This universality of application arises from two things. First, 
 from the ethical nature of Religion itself, which being unaffected 
 by temporal changes and admitting neither of discovery nor 
 development, lends a glow of immortality, a perpetual youth 
 to any principles of reasoning that have ever been of consider- 
 able service to its interests. And secondly, from the unal- 
 terable character of the errors such arguments are invented 
 to counteract. Error is as immutable as truth. Its outward 
 couching of language or logic may vary; but its direction and 
 force are the same: its masks may be many, it has but one face: 
 
 “Manabat saxo vena perennis aque.’ 
 
 The Chevalier Ramsay, in his Essays on Pagan Theology? , 
 has taken the trouble to trace an identity between the ancient 
 and modern systems of philosophy. But without quoting his 
 
 * Tertul. Lib. Apol. Ed. Woodham. 
 
 * Grotius, On the Truth of Christianity, Lib. 11. § 4. 
 
 8 That this careful examination was made may be gathered from the 
 scraps of autobiography, as well as from the substance of these apologies. 
 
 * Annexed to this author’s Cyrus. Tenth Edition, p. 341. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 details, we may at once adopt his conclusion: ‘ Modern free- 
 thinkers have only revived the ancient errors, disguising them 
 under new terms. The history of former times is like our own. 
 The human understanding takes almost the same forms in dif- 
 ferent ages, and loses its way in the same labyrinths.’ Especially 
 is this true of the opposition the human heart feels to the system 
 of Divine grace. Herein the world for once maintains an uni- 
 form consistency. It thinks and acts much alike everywhere, 
 and at all times. Indeed on no other hypothesis could we ex- 
 plain the fact already advanced, that most of the old objections to 
 Religion have their representatives still: that, for example, the 
 difficulties noted by Athenagoras concerning the resurrection, 
 and by Origen concerning the evangelistic history, are just what 
 are now going the rounds of our workshops and lecture-rooms 
 with all the credit of a patent invention. But I would ask who 
 needs any other witness to the truth of this proposition than his 
 own daily observation? Surely no one can have reflected upon 
 the state of society (whatever its range) in which he moves, 
 without perceiving that our own country and day furnish living 
 specimens of all those classes of mind with which St Paul, and 
 his successors in the Apologetic work, had to contend; that the 
 Sadducee and the Cabalist, the Epicurean and the Gnostie, have 
 disappeared only in name. How many of our scientific professors 
 are but materialists; of our theologians, but Neoplatonists; of 
 our sentimental poets, but worshippers of nature, and that too in 
 this land of light! Little do they know,’ says Chalmers}, ‘ of 
 our men of general literature, who have not observed the utter 
 listlessness, if not the strong and active contempt, wherewith 
 many of them hear the doctrine of God’s word.’ In fine, if we 
 allow with Baxter, ‘he that maketh not God his chief good and 
 ultimate end, is in heart a pagan and a vile idolater”,’ who is not 
 & party concerned? Would that this were a mere play upon 
 words; but there is too serious a reality in it. It exhibits a 
 parallelism of principles, if not of expression, underlying all 
 periods of time. 
 
 _ Things being so with regard to truth and error, the adap- 
 tation and virtue of our subject follow almost as a matter of 
 course. The only remaining question can be as to the actual capa- 
 city and appliances of the Fathers. This, like any similar question 
 
 1 e" Y . 
 Sermons. ? Saints’ Rest. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 of fact, can be alone solved after a careful consideration of con- 
 temporaneous reputation—of position,—of writings, such as 
 these now under discussion, formerly unanswered and since un- 
 ‘surpassed,—and finally of attendant success. Meanwhile, there 
 is this to be said. We have no @ priort reason to doubt but 
 that the apologists were quite as capable of using their faculties 
 and their materials as any later class of advocates. It is a very 
 easy thing for gentlemen of leisure on the banks of the Thames 
 or the Rhone, and at the distance of fifteen hundred years, to 
 complain of the style and method of controversy adopted by the 
 early Christians. But their criticism must needs fall short of 
 its mark, unless they can shew that the Apologists were more 
 incompetent than ourselves from any necessity of the case. 
 Until this is done the probabilities are against every partial 
 quotation, every perverted view, every malicious inuendo that 
 either ignorance or impiety can suggest. The presumption must 
 remain, that in an intellectual exercise of this kind the Apologists 
 were masters of their subject. 
 
 Nay, possibly, they had an advantage over us, the advantage 
 of practice. They were in the heat of the battle. A multitude 
 from every quarter of the globe, a variety from every class of 
 enemies, surrounded them. There was the subtle and metaphy- 
 sical Eastern, the strong-minded African, the imaginative Greek, 
 the practical Roman, the elder Jew: there was Lucian classing 
 Christianity with every kind of fanaticism and fraud; there was 
 Celsus attacking it through the sides of Judaism with all the 
 shafts profane wit could command; there was Porphyry the 
 pupil of Longinus, with as much sophistry as learning, denying 
 everything save the operations of nature; and Hierocles bent, 
 like some alchymist at his occult art, upon imitating the gold 
 he could not but admire!: there was the superstitious multitude, 
 _ the interested artizan, the responsible governor, the jealous em- 
 peror, each and all to be met in their own way. 
 
 It was likewise a deadly struggle: our Apologists endured 
 this great fight of affliction, not in the shape of a mere paper 
 war, or platform controversy, the end of which is often only 
 to ‘gravel’ an opponent; but for body and soul, religion and 
 
 ’ Besides the life of Apollonius, Hierocles wrote a book to prove the 
 Scriptures guilty of falsehood and contradiction; so punctiliously naming 
 everything, that Lactantius considers him to have been an apostate Christian. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 character. It is plain that everything dear to the man or the 
 Christian hung on the issue. 
 
 And once more, it was protracted. The controversy was of 
 no temporary nature, nor belonged to one generation alone. 
 The clouds returned after the rain; and ‘neither sun nor stars 
 in many days appeared. The whole term of persecution is 
 reckoned not by years but by centuries, during which time, it 
 may be fairly presumed, that every question was raised which 
 is worth an answer. 
 
 Such practice, and such experience as this practice implies, 
 must have necessitated the invention of sharp weapons, and 
 skill in handling them. We cannot but think then, inasmuch 
 as there seems to be no reason why sound Christian evidence 
 effective in a former age, should become worthless by lapse 
 of time; and as neither Christianity on the one side, nor scep- 
 ticism on the other, have much altered their ground of oppo- 
 sition since the first days of conflict; and, lastly, seeing that 
 the Apologists may have been as clever (at the least) as our- 
 selves; I say, we cannot but think that their arguments demand 
 a careful examination at our hands, and bid fair, like the 
 renowned sword of old that had long lain ‘ wrapped in a cloth 
 behind the ephod!,’ to do good service still, as well by their 
 own temper and weight, as by their hallowed and victorious 
 associations. | 
 
 The following remarks of Dr Hundeshagen, of the University 
 of Heidelberg, are based on the same principles, and tend to the 
 same practical conclusion. Bewailing the spread of infidelity in 
 Germany, he observes: ‘The first age of the Christian Church 
 is rightly called the Apologetic, for the Christian religion had 
 then to win its right to existence by its struggles. We of this 
 age are in this respect carried back to the commencement of 
 Christianity, for the forefront of the battle of parties relates to 
 the very existence of the Christian Religion. So that without 
 doubt we are called upon to apply our Christian attainments to 
 that same Apologetic task which engaged the attention of the 
 first centuries2,’ 
 
 Still less hesitancy can be felt as to the appositeness of these 
 arguments to the case of countries yet shrouded in heathen 
 
 * 1 Sam. xxi. 9. 
 
 * Studien und Kritiken for 1848. See Appendi 
 : x to Hul, ‘ 
 1849. Tomkins. PP ulsean Essay fox 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 darkness. Take, for example, our largest dependency, India. 
 Phere we have a land boasting at this hour of as many gods as 
 swarming inhabitants; its idols under every spreading banyan- 
 tree, by the side of every road, by the bank of every river: 
 there a priesthood, crafty alike by nature and education, who 
 when hard pressed by the technical difficulties surrounding the 
 subject of Polytheism, fly to the metaphysical subtleties of their 
 schools: there a confusion of religions, a moral Babel: super- 
 stition strangely shared between the Pundit, the Brahmin, the 
 Parsee; each with dogmas diverse as their races, only united 
 in their determination to resist whatever is holy and true, and 
 all publicly encouraging licentiousness and cruelty. In a word, 
 there we recognize the usual phases of Paganism,—literal idol- 
 atry,—a religion with its convenient senses, vulgar and mystic, 
 —a philosophy as discordant, and vices as inveterate as ever'. 
 For such symptoms, Apologetic practice might certainly be made 
 available with a little address, and the modern missionary fur- 
 nished with hints out of these stores of ancient and Christian 
 learning. It is interesting to find that the gifted Henry Martyn? 
 used with effect some of the natural arguments of the Fathers 
 on Christian theism, in his public addresses at Cawnpore. And 
 thus may others by appeals to conscience, to nature, to universal 
 tradition, catch the attention of hearers (dark in mind ag in fea- 
 ture), and rouse them from their fascinating self-delusions, to some 
 consciousness of the light that shines all unheeded around. On 
 these as on common grounds, and with some appearance of equity, 
 and the assurance of being understood, a hearing at least might 
 be obtained, and a door opened for more important matters, 
 From these suggestions it would appear that our subject is 
 one of considerable practical importance. It is surprising there- 
 _ fore that we have no direct treatise upon it. Yet such is the fact. 
 Fabricius has given little more than a list of authors who have 
 pleaded the cause of Christianity, from Apostolic times to his 
 own, and a series of the Apologetic works of the Fathers is 
 slowly issuing from the press; but I am not aware of any 
 synopsis or review on the proposition that heads this essay. 
 The notices of the Apologists in our Ecclesiastical Histories must 
 necessarily prove unsatisfactory. By the compression of so 
 
 ' Palmer, in his Development and Conscience, says that some of the argu- 
 ments of the Apologists are exactly applicable to the heathen systems of the 
 present day. Observe his note, p: 8. * See Life, p. 827. 8vo. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 wide a theme into a few paragraphs, more injustice than justice 
 is commonly, though unintentionally, done’. Hence little is to 
 be gleaned in that direction. I have, however, to acknowledge 
 my obligations to the bishop of Lincoln’s i//ustrations from the 
 treatises of Justin, Tertullian, and Clemens, than which nothing 
 can be more fair or complete; as also to Dr Woodham’s valuable 
 Introduction to Tertullian’s Apologeticus, already consulted; and 
 to the first chapter of Palmer, On the Doctrine of Development 
 and Conscience; as being the best, indeed the only, notices I 
 have met with on the special point of the Apologetic arguments. 
 
 I now pass on to consider more definitely our sources of in- 
 formation. They consist of the Apologies and Apologetic works 
 of the early Fathers. And, I think, we cannot do better for a 
 thorough understanding of what lies before us, than devote a few 
 minutes in glancing at the general history of these works, and 
 the circumstances under which they were produced. It is 
 scarcely possible to judge of the force and propriety of what an 
 author advances, unless we know something of his s¢twation. 
 
 In doing this, need I observe, that there will be no attempt 
 to do justice to such an interesting topic as the History of the 
 Apologies? My business is simply to extract the dates, the 
 order, the language, the locality, the standing and the principal 
 works of the Apologetic Fathers, together with the special occa- 
 sions that called them forth; in short, just those details which 
 serve to throw light upon thetr arguments,—the immediate sub- 
 jects of our investigation. 
 
 The portion@#of time these writings embrace is about three 
 hundred years, commencing with the second century. 
 
 THE APOLOGIES OF THE SECOND CENTURY?. 
 
 QUADRATUS (Greek), of the apostolic age, and ARIS- 
 TEIDES (Greek, a.p. 126) originally an Athenian philosopher, 
 address apologies to the Emperor Hadrian during a popular tumult 
 raised in Greece, probably on the plea of Trajan’s prohibition of 
 the Heteria, which the Christian assemblies appeared to contra- 
 vene. Of these, nothing but a fragment or notice remains; as 
 is the case also with some other apologies presented to Marcus 
 
 ' Neander’s Church History is almost an exception. 
 " I chiefly follow Spanheim’s Chronological Tables. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 Aurelius by ABERCIUS (a. p. 150), MELITO (a. D. 169), and 
 to M. Antoninus by APOLLINARIUS (a.p. 170), all Eastern 
 bishops, a little later. These latter pleas were drawn forth by 
 severe but partial persecutions in Asia Minor, instituted under 
 cover of informations, rather than by express edicts. 
 
 THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS (Greek) is addressed 
 about this time to an inquiring heathen of rank, The style of 
 this ‘valuable remain of antiquity’ is classical, and the doctrine 
 truly apostolical. Its object is to explain the nature of a religion, 
 which induces its followers to love one another, and to despise at 
 once the blandishments of the world, and the terrors of death : 
 which honours neither the heathen gods, nor the Jewish cere- 
 monies; and which yet is of so recent a date as only just to 
 have made its appearance among men. ‘The writer claims to 
 be a disciple of the apostles, and alludes to persecutions by the 
 Jews and Greeks, 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR (Greek) was a Platonic philosopher, 
 born in Palestine’. He traces his conversion to an aged Chris- 
 tian”, whom he met by the sea-shore, and at whose recommenda- 
 tion he began to study the prophets*, Afterwards, being at 
 Rome during the persecution under Antoninus Pius, he dedicated 
 his First Apology (a.p. 148) to the emperor and the young 
 princes, Verissimus and Lucius. About this time the infamous 
 charges against the Christians were set afloat, (Justin says,) by 
 the Jews. He therefore applies himself to the @efence of Reli- 
 gion on the ground of the reasonableness and morality of its 
 precepts, as contrasted with those of heathen systems; and also 
 on the ground of corroborative prophecy. His Second Ayo- 
 
 * Though he calls himself a Samaritan he appears to mean no more than 
 that he was born in the country of Samaria ; not that he was a semi-Jew. 
 
 * This person is fancifully supposed to be an angel, by Reeves; which 
 Brown likewise thinks not an unreasonable conjecture, ‘if the dialogue with 
 Trypho be true ; because the meeting with such a grave and wise old man 
 looks altogether miraculous.’ Surely the difficulty vanishes when we con- 
 sider the persecutions at that time pending, and the solitude and reserve 
 they rendered necessary. Moreover, this venerable old gentleman, as Justin 
 styles him, affirms that he is in search of some of his family—a strange 
 expression, to say the least of it, in the mouth of an angel. 
 
 * By prophets the Fathers often meant the whole Scripture.—Jortin 
 gives instances of this, 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 logy (a. D. 164) is addressed to the senate, and pleads for the 
 
 superiority of the doctrines of Christ over those of devils; de- 
 manding protection for his brethren on account of the innocency — 
 of their lives. In his Oratio ad Grecos he attacks the flagitious | 
 immoralities ascribed by the heathen to their deities, and com- 
 mitted by themselves in their religious festivals'; founding 
 thereon an exhortation in favour of Christianity. The treatise 
 De Monarchia is an argument for Monotheism, supported by 
 numerous quotations from the ancient classics. His fragment 
 On the Resurrection, (thought by Otto to belong to a lost work 
 against Marcion), is an exhibition of the Christian’s hope con- 
 cerning the tenet in question upon abstract grounds, the only 
 way of establishing what is future. In the Dialogue with Trypho 
 
 the Jew, Justin’s chief aim is to prove from the old Testament that 
 
 Jesus was the Logos and the true Messiah, by his having fulfilled - 
 in person the ancient prophecies therein contained; and to refute 
 the common objections urged by the Jews against the new and 
 rival sect. This disputation is supposed (by Eusebius) to have 
 taken place at Ephesus, in one of the piazzas of the city, and in’ 
 the presence of several other Jews. The Cohortatio ad Grecos 
 sometimes passing under our author’s name (whether genuinely - 
 or not, can be of no consequence here, since its date is unques- 
 tioned), consists of an examination of the doctrinal formule > 
 of heathenism and Christianity, by which the writer plainly 
 shews the absurdities and disagreements of the one and the sim- 
 plicity and harmony of the other; and also of an investigation - 
 into the rival claims of the two systems, to antiquity. It is 
 probable that the fearless stand Justin took in these works had 
 the effect of mitigating the persecutions of his day, though they — 
 seem to have accelerated his own martyrdom, which occurred, 
 according to the Chronicon Paschale, a, p. 165. | 
 
 TATIAN (Greek), a pupil of Justin Martyr, an Assyrian by — 
 birth from beyond the Tigris, and a Cynic or a Sophist by pro- 
 fession, was the next defender of Christianity. He wrote the 
 Oratio adversus Grecos, in which he remonstrates with the 
 Greeks for their repugnance to the opinions of foreigners, and. 
 points out the purer morality; the higher and more elevated — 
 views respecting the universe, God, and the divine administration — 
 generally; and the greater antiquity of the Christian system. 
 
 * Smith’s Dictionary of Biog., &e. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 13 
 
 It is cited by Jerome as ‘a distinguished work.’ Tatian lapsed 
 into heresy ; this circumstance however does not affect us, as the 
 work in question was written before his fall, and contains none 
 of the erroneous sentiments of the Encratites, or the Gnostics, 
 though some of its speculations are sufficiently fanciful and re- 
 mote from the simplicity of Christian truth. Neither the date 
 nor place of his death is known. 
 
 ATHENAGORAS (Greek, a. p. 178) follows. He was born 
 at Athens, and had been a Grecian philosopher, but now under- 
 took the defence of the Christians in an address dedicated to 
 Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, and usually entitled, Le- 
 gatio pro Christianis. This work discusses the respective merits 
 of the heathen and Christian systems, laying the greatest stress 
 on an exposure of the follies and idolatries of Paganism. It also 
 touches by the way, upon prophecy and the antiquity of the Scrip- 
 _ tures. We have likewise a treatise of this Father On the Resur= 
 rection, an excellent piece of reasoning, wherein he shews with 
 no little ingenuity that the presumptive arguments against the 
 doctrine of a Resurrection are inconclusive. Of his personal 
 history we know but little. It is asserted by P. Sidetes that 
 he owed his conversion to a perusal of the holy Scriptures, with 
 a view to ridicule them as Celsus did subsequently. 
 
 THEOPHILUS (Greek, a.p. 180) of Antioch, about. this 
 _ time furnishes us with an apologetic work in three books, ad- 
 dressed to Autolycus, a learned heathen of his acquaintance. 
 He tells us that his design is to give a chronological view of 
 epochs from the creation of the world down to the year in which 
 “he writes, by which he will prove that the divine oracles in our 
 possession are more ancient and more true than the statements 
 of Egyptian, Grecian, and all other historians. The first book 
 is an ‘answer to what the ingenious Pagan had maliciously and 
 _ Strenuously objected against the religion of Christ!. In the 
 second, he proceeds to an examination of the profane histories, 
 in the course of which he confutes the opinions that were main- 
 tained by the Pagans, concerning their gods, and shews the 
 absurd contradictions of their poets and philosophers upon this 
 subject. He then turns to the sacred writings, explains at 
 large the creation of the world and the occurrences of succeed- 
 ing ages, and demonstrates that the history of Moses is the 
 
 1 Cave’s Lives. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 most venerable, and that from which other writers have bor- 
 rowed. In the third book he exposes yet more the notions of 
 the heathen, as inconsistent and contrary to humanity, to rea- 
 son and to morals. He also shews that the doctrines of the 
 Christians are far from those horrid crimes imputed to them; and 
 lastly, he appends to the whole a sort of historical chronology to 
 confirm the truth of the Scriptures. Neander says these books 
 display much erudition and proof of thought. Our author con- 
 fesses to his having been originally a pagan in Lib. m1. ¢. 78. 
 
 HERMIAS (Greek), a contemporary of Tatian, presents us 
 with a satirical piece called Irrisio Gentilium Philosophorum, 
 in which he has brought together a number of the absurd and 
 contradictory opinions of the Greeks on nature, the world, God, 
 the human soul, &c., proving by their discrepancies how useless 
 and insufficient they are. He styles himself a Christian Phi- 
 losopher. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS (Greek, a. p. 190) next ad- 
 dresses the Gentiles in an Evhortatio. It forms the first part 
 of his celebrated work on divine Gnosticism. He himself de- 
 scribes it as a treatisé on morals, which he says, like the keel 
 of a ship, must first be laid for the edification of faith’. It 
 trusts mainly to an exposure of the impurities of polytheism as 
 contrasted with the spiritual nature of Christianity, and demon- 
 _ strates the value of the Gospel by shewing that it effectually 
 purifies the motives and dignifies the character. There is some 
 reference also, in his Stromata or Miscellanies, to the questions 
 of antiquity and plagiarism. It is to be observed that he quotes 
 from the address of Tatian to the Greeks. Clemens was pro- 
 bably an Athenian by birth, and had been a philosopher of the 
 Platonic school. In the Stromata we are informed of his having 
 been indebted for his education to two masters, the one a Ccclo- 
 Syrian, the other an Egyptian. He does not seem to have felt 
 the attractions of the Gospel until the age of manhood; for he 
 classes himself among those who had left the sinful service of 
 Paganism, for that of simple faith in the Redeemer. This fact 
 may account in some measure for the philosophical views he 
 took of profane learning as well of Christianity, and which in- 
 deed so entirely tinctured his mental character. For whilst it 
 
 cannot be questioned that he was pious, it must be allowed at 
 
 * Pedag. cap. . 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 the same time that he was unduly prone to theory, and by no 
 means comprehensive or connected in his development, of Chris- 
 tian doctrine. An Eclectic, sometimes leaning towards the Stoics, 
 he was altogether more attached to philosophy than any of the 
 Fathers, with the exception of Qrigen. Of course these reflec- 
 tions hardly bear upon any of his Apologetic writings. Jerome 
 pronounces his works to be full of learning and eloquence. His 
 conversion is attributed to free inquiry made under the direc- 
 tion of Panteenus, once a heathen philosopher like himself, but 
 now the president of the Catechetical school of Alexandria. 
 
 TERTULLIAN (Latin) was a native of Carthage, the son 
 of a proconsular centurion, and in early life a heathen advocate, 
 or rhetorician. His cession to Montanism, happening as it did in 
 his later years, does not interfere with the few polemical works 
 now under review. In his Apologeticus, addressed to the chief 
 magistrates of his province in consequence of their unjust treat- 
 ment of the Christians (under Severus), he adduces the argu- 
 ment drawn from antiquity, and the evidences of prophecy and 
 miracles ; but places the greatest reliance for his cause upon 
 an exhibition of the folly and immorality of heathen worship, 
 ~ occasionally parrying and even hurling back upon his assailants 
 the reproaches of lewdness and cruelty which they had cast at 
 the Church. In the two books, 4d Nationes, he pursues a like 
 train of thought; indeed there is frequently an identity both 
 in words and substance. His treatises De Resurrectione Carnis, 
 and De Testimonio Anime, contain some fine abstract arguments 
 from nature, in support of Christian doctrines, Of the former, 
 Milner (no usual admirer of this author!) allows in his Church 
 _ History that ‘he scarce remembers a finer observation made by 
 any author in favour both of the natural voice of conscience and 
 of the patriarchal tradition of true religion; for both may fairly 
 be supposed to be concerned.’ The tract styled Adversus 
 Judeos Liber appears to have sprung out of a public debate 
 held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte, at which our 
 author was not able to deliver his opinions freely, on account of 
 the party clamour that prevailed. Upon his return, therefore, from 
 the meeting, he composed this short piece to shew how the Jew 
 might be confuted out of his own Scriptures*, Tertullian is cer- 
 
 * Bishop of Lincoln’s Eccles. Hist. 
 * See Smith’s Biographical Dictionary, Art. Tertullian. 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tainly the most original and forcible of the Latin Fathers. Reeves 
 says of him, that while it is admitted his style is iron, it cannot 
 be denied that he has forged out of it most noble weapons for 
 the defence of our holy religion; and Dr Woodham remarks 
 upon The Apology, that its arguments are astonishingly clear, 
 and, if contemplated quoad homines and quoad causam, can 
 hardly fail to command our assent. 
 
 THE APOLOGIES OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX (Lat. circ. a.p. 230). Zhe Octavius 
 of this author purports to have originated in the following 
 circumstance. Minutius, an advocate of the Roman bar, and 
 two of his legal associates (Octavius Januarius, a true believer, 
 being one, Cecilius Natalis, a pagan, the other) take advan- 
 tage of the holidays to visit Ostia during the heat of the Italian 
 summer. As they stroll along the coast, a statue of Serapis 
 comes into sight. Cezecilius at once salutes it with his hand. This 
 incident leads to a discussion of the entire subject of religion, 
 between Octavius and his heathen friend; Minutius agreeing to 
 act as umpire on the occasion. The result is the conviction of 
 Ceecilius, who charmingly concludes the dialogue by acknow- 
 ledging that there is no need for any judicial decision, since 
 both parties have conquered; ‘Octavius has conquered me, 
 and I have conquered error.’ « After the death of Octavius, the 
 disconsolate Minutius recalls this interesting and memorable 
 conversation, and publishes it im memoriam of his friend. 
 The body of the book consists of a contrast of the degra- 
 dation and inconsistencies of idolatry, with the high tone of 
 Christian morals. The author is careful likewise to shew that 
 even the heathen allowed some of the great truths of religion; 
 and to defend Christians against the usual reproaches cast upon 
 them. Dr Woodham says of this dialogue: ‘it will be seen, on 
 a careful perusal, that it is occupied in clearing away any 
 antecedent objections to the consideration of Christianity ; it 
 shews the existence of a God, and offers proof of his unity ; it 
 demonstrates the folly of the existing religion, and removes the 
 superficial prejudice against the new one; and its effects upon its 
 readers must have been to convince them there was a God, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1% 
 
 to whom their worship was due, that they had not known him 
 yet, and that to say the least there was no a priori evidence 
 that the teaching of the despised Christians would not supply the 
 knowledge.’ Even Gibbon admires some parts of the Octavius. 
 Minutius, or Octavius (it matters not which speaks), was by birth 
 a Gentile, and a lawyer for some time before his conversion to 
 Christianity. He seems to have been well versed in the classics, 
 
 _ and drew largely from Cicero, Seneca, as well as from Tertullian. 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS (Greek) probably an Arabian pastor, is 
 
 _ found about this period writing a Demonstratio adversus Judeos. 
 
 Photius makes him a disciple of Irenzus, the bishop of Lyons, 
 and, like his master, a martyr. 
 
 ORIGEN (Greek) follows in point of time. He says in his 
 
 preface to the eight books against Celsus, (a.p. 244—249), 
 _an Epicurean philosopher, that he writes ‘to vindicate Christians 
 
 from foul aspersions, and because the common people may be in 
 
 | danger of listening to scepticism, and turning apostates from the 
 faith.’ It is difficult to give any general description of this work, 
 Inasmuch as it consists of a string of scarcely connected chapters 
 _ or criticisms, closely following upon the track of Celsus. Origen 
 more than once complains of this disorder, and attributes it to the 
 blindness of his opponent’s malice, confessing that the frequent 
 
 repetitions of which Celsus forces him to be guilty, make him 
 appear almost as impertinent as himself. The first two books are 
 levelled principally against Jewish objections, behind which Celsus 
 at first conceals his own views. In the third both the Mosaic and 
 Christian institutions are defended against Epicurean assaults and 
 ribaldry, (as in the very opening of the book, where the Chris- 
 
 tian and the Jew are charged with contending, according to the 
 
 old proverb, about the shadow of an ass), after which the 
 author proceeds to resolve the confusion Celsus endeavours 
 to throw around the religion and character of Jesus by com- 
 paring him with the Grecian heroes. The fourth enlarges 
 upon the prophecies and antiquity of the Hebrews. The fifth 
 answers a variety of charges brought against practical Christi- 
 anity. In the sixth, the marked difference between the writings 
 of the Christians and Greeks is treated of. In the seventh, their 
 respective claims to the prophetic spirit, and in the eighth, 
 their modes of worship, are contrasted. The value of this work 
 H, E. 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ; ° ° . e ° | 
 could scarcely be told, were it less discursive. Origen’s treatise 
 
 De Principiis likewise contains some material for our purpose, 
 
 though it stands doctrinally charged with Neo-Platonism, and | 
 
 even Arianism. What makes the peculiar tenets, especially the 
 
 freedoms of Origen with the interpretations of Scripture, the — 
 
 more remarkable is, that he is one of the few Apologists who 
 
 received a Christian education. He was brought up at Alex- — 
 
 andria, where his father, Leonides, once a rhetorician, afterwards a 
 
 devout Christian, was beheaded for Christ, in a persecution which — 
 befell the disciples in Egypt under Sept. Severus. Origen was | 
 then a youth, but had already distinguished himself by his piety, — 
 
 learning, and indomitable courage. He is said to have had 
 
 Clement for a master, and to have been elected a catechist at the 
 
 early age of eighteen. He died at Tyre a.p. 253; his health 
 having been impaired by torture during the Decian trials. 
 
 CYPRIAN (Lat.), writes an apologetic letter, or rather a 
 
 formal discourse De Gratia Dei, (a.p. 246), which he addresses to 
 Donatus, a young fellow-disciple. The two friends are supposed _ 
 to be seated under the shade of vines, enjoying the mild airs of — 
 autumn and an agreeable prospect, whilst they converse on | 
 their favourite theme. Our author begins by taking an imagi- — 
 nary view from an eminence, of the ways of the world, which is — 
 found calculated to excite both pity and gratitude in the mind of | 
 a Christian man. He then points out particularly the vices of — 
 cities, and draws a striking parallel between the holy and happy | 
 
 condition of such as have turned from Paganism, and the gross- 
 ness of their former state. 
 
 The tract dd Demetrianum (A.D. 252) is of the same cha- 
 racter. It defends Christians from the charges of the Proconsul | 
 and other persecutors, to whom it offers in return some home | 
 truths. Lactantius quotes from it!. The Vanity of Idols is 
 
 dated the year after the letter to Donatus. The title speaks for 
 
 its contents. This author borrows largely from the Octavius of — 
 Minutius Felix. Among his smaller works are two books, T'esti- _ 
 moniorum adversus Judeos, consisting of Scripture proofs of | 
 the fulfilment of prophecy. They are noticed by Jerome and~ 
 Augustine. Cyprian was an African, of heathen parentage, — 
 brought up to rhetoric, and induced to embrace Christianity by an 
 aged presbyter of Carthage, a.p. 246. He suffered much in the _ 
 
 1 Div. Instit. v. 4, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 Decian persecution, a.p. 250, but was not martyred until the 
 reign of Valerian, a.v. 258. It was a custom with him to call 
 Tertullian his ‘ Master,’ from the veneration he had for his great 
 countryman’s works. 
 
 ARNOBIUS (Lat.), likewise an African, ‘of which there 
 can be no doubt,’ says Cave, ‘for his speech agreeth thereto,’ 
 has left us seven books of disputations. He was not a Father 
 of the Church, but a neophyte or candidate for institution, to 
 forward which, it is said, he wrote this work. Little is known 
 of his personal history, That he had been a heathen and a 
 professor of rhetoric at Sikka, in Africa, is certain, as. also 
 that he continued a heathen until the Diocletian persecution, 
 when the constancy and meekness of the Christians under their 
 severest trials awakened his mind to a more serious and im- 
 partial enquiry after truth. He writes now, he Says, in conse- 
 quence of the calumnious charges brought against the Chris- 
 tians, and the assertion that the gods have afflicted the human 
 family with evil on their account. ‘The latter point he deter- 
 mines principally to answer to the best of his ability. There is 
 a great amount of original and bold reasoning in these books, 
 They contain the usual vindication of Christianity and exposure 
 of Paganism, the first two being devoted to the one, and the re- 
 maining five to the other topic. They appeal directly and 
 strongly to the Christian miracles, noticing their salutary and 
 _ God-like character, their number, their publicity, the circum- 
 Stances attending their performance, and the transmission of the 
 power to others, and finally, their merits as compared with the 
 miraculous virtues ascribed to the gods: the latter are con. 
 -demned on the grounds of their being tentative, and requiring 
 a medium. Arnobius is the only Apologist who does not argue 
 directly from antiquity. Dr Woodham accounts him the keenest 
 of all the Apologists, and in some respects the most apposite to 
 the popular arguments of modern times. It must, however, be 
 confessed that his acquaintance with the Gospel scheme and 
 with the sacred writings, was not very profound, unless we sup- 
 pose him intent only upon setting forth what might immediately 
 tell upon the Pagan theology. He is called by Vossius the 
 Varro of the early Christians, on account both of his extensive 
 and his minute information; for which, in truth, he will be found 
 well worthy the attention of every philologist and theologian, 
 
 eer 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ARCHELAUS (Syr.), in his dispute with the heretic Manes, 
 and METHODIUS (Greek), with a fragment De Resurrectione, 
 written against Origenism, supply something for our consider- 
 ation. The last-named author is said to have been martyred at 
 Chalcis, in Syria, circ. a.p. 303. 
 
 THE APOLOGIES OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 LACTANTIUS (Lat.), a pupil of Arnobius, at Sikka, was 
 born of Gentile parents, and reared in the heathen religion. Of 
 the mode of his becoming a Christian we have no account. His 
 great work consists of seven books entitled Divine Institutes. It 
 is of a didactic and elaborate character; but none the less apo- 
 logetic, professing as it does to demolish paganism, to confute 
 philosophy, and to shew the indissoluble connexion between true 
 wisdom and Christianity. A running comparison is kept up 
 between true wisdom and true religion on the one side, and false 
 wisdom and false religion on the other. Our author argues well 
 for the humanity of the heathen gods and the impiety and vanity 
 of worshipping them. ‘The first two books expose the Pagan 
 rites, and the third, the hollowness of philosophy; the fourth 
 contains the more apologetic portion of the treatise; and the 
 remainder completes the whole into such a system of Christian 
 ethics as the writer could compose”? There is likewise extant 
 an Epitome of the above in one book, drawn up, according to 
 Jerome, by the author himself. He just refers to the Octavius of 
 Minutius Felix, and to the kindred works of Theophilus*, Tertul- 
 lian, and Cyprian. ‘This author,’ says Dr Woodhan, ‘ presents 
 a striking contrast to Arnobius; the latter declining argument, 
 
 acknowledging mystery, and asserting facts; the former substi- — 
 
 tuting argumentation for everything; thus the one declines to 
 consider the question of the existence of evil; the other says it is 
 necessary to the formation of its contrary, good.’ Lactantius in 
 another work, De Jra Dei, directed against the Epicureans, fur- 
 
 nishes some @ priori reasoning for a future state; though a few of — 
 
 his positions are rash and erroneous. Also in his De Opijicio Dei, 
 we find a natural argument in favour of the wisdom and bene- 
 1 Smith’s Biographical Dictionary. 
 ? Woodham’s Preface to Tertullian. 
 * Theoph. ad Autolyc. by the title of De Temporibus. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 ficence of God, deduced from the wonderful contrivances and 
 adaptations of means to an end, discernible in the structure 
 of the human frame. Lactantius has ever been esteemed the 
 flower of the Latin doctors, the Cicero of Christian writers. 
 Jerome styles him, ‘most learned and eloquent. He was in 
 favour at court, for we find him patronized by Diocletian before 
 his conversion, and afterwards teaching the young prince Crispus, 
 son of Constantine, (circ. 4.D. 312,) himself living but frugally the 
 while, as Eusebius tells us. ‘The Institutes’ are dedicated to the 
 father of his royal pupil, and by their deliberative tone mark the 
 epoch at which Christian influence had won its own toleration, at 
 least in head-quarters: the immediate occasion of their appear- 
 ance is said to have been some insulting attacks made upon 
 religion by Porphyry and others. 
 
 EUSEBIUS (Greek, a.p, 315—340), the ecclesiastical his- 
 torian and bishop of Caesarea, presents us with several important 
 works on the Evidences of Christianity. His Preparatio Evan- 
 gelica, in fifteen books, is intended to combat the heathen philo- 
 sophy in the person of Porphyry, and to demonstrate its irra- 
 tional character as opposed to the reasonableness of Christianity. 
 In it he collects various facts and quotations from ancient authors, 
 by which it was supposed the mind would be better prepared 
 for the reception of Christian evidence. The Demonstratio 
 Evangelica consists of twenty books, in which he refers to his 
 former work, and then, in continuation of his apologetic project, 
 undertakes to shew how the prophecies contribute to the de- 
 monstration of the truth of the Gospel. He calls the prophets 
 ‘divine historians in advance of history.’ This treatise appears, 
 from internal evidence, to have been principally meant for the 
 
 _ Jews. I have gathered my materials however, as furnished by 
 _ this Apologist, generally out of his Theophania, or ‘ Manifesta- 
 
 tion of Christ’ (so faithfully translated from the Syriac, by Pro- 
 fessor Lee,) because it is at once the most synoptic, methodical, 
 and direct of all his works. It consists of arguments and evi- 
 dences to prove the reasonableness and the reality of the in- 
 carnation, and dwells with much force and feeling upon the 
 character of Christ, his miraculous powers, and the success of 
 his Church. The same reasoning occurs (sometimes verba- 
 tim) in the Life of Constantine. Eusebius likewise published a 
 rejoinder to the life of Apollonius Tyaneus, put forward by 
 
pay INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Hierocles, (the Pagan governor of Alexandria and adviser of 
 Diocletian, during a fierce persecution in that southern district) 
 as a rival of the Gospels; in this work he contents himself with a 
 simple review of the biography. Dr Cave says of Eusebius, 
 ‘That with incomparable learning he has out of their own 
 writings so baffled the main principles of the Pagan cause, and so 
 strongly asserted the truth of Christianity against the pretences 
 of both Jews and Gentiles, that the Christian world can never 
 be sufficiently indebted to his memory. Of his bias towards 
 Arius rather than Arianism, and of the dishonesty and syco- 
 phancy with which Gibbon charges him in an attack too fierce 
 to be fair or effective, I need say nothing. Traces of these 
 errors doubtless occur, but with regard to all ancient and dis- 
 tinguished characters, we must make due allowance for their day, 
 and judge only upon the whole. As far as contemporaneous 
 testimony is of any avail, it is in his favour: Constantine, a 
 superior and a pagan (according to Niebuhr up to his last illness), 
 used to say of him that he was worthy to be the bishop not of 
 one city only, but almost of the whole world. 
 
 ATHANASIUS (Greek), Archbishop of Alexandria, his 
 native place, next addresses the heathen in an Oratio contra 
 Gentes, ‘in order that no one should suspect belief in Christ to 
 be irrational, as the Greeks unjustly thought.’ He shews that 
 the gods are nothing, or only men; and after enquiring what 
 sort of witness nature bears with regard to the Deity, he con- 
 firms his deductions by pointing out the harmony existing be- 
 tween the God of nature and the God of the Bible. Cave Says, 
 that he disputes rationally and wittily in his two books against 
 the Gentiles. Of the former, our author himself premises, 
 ‘having succinctly though sufficiently treated of the idolatry and 
 superstition of the Gentiles, and of its origin in the world, and 
 said something of the divinity of the Word of God, and his 
 
 universal power and providence, as He by whom God the Father ; 
 
 creates, governs and disposes all things, he would, according to 
 his method, proceed to treat of the Incarnation of the Word 
 against the calumnies of the Jews and the derision of the Gen- 
 tiles.’ The parents of Athanasius were heathens, but he was 
 
 providentially brought under the notice and care of Alexander i 
 the primate of Egypt. Erasmus admires his didactic powers ; 
 
 and the clearness and manliness of his style. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 MATERNUS (Lat. a. p. 350) succeeds. He was a convert 
 from Paganism, and being very desirous of turning others to 
 the faith he had embraced, wrote a treatise De Errore Profa- 
 narum Religionum, dedicating it to the Emperors Constantine 
 and Constans. The object of the essay is not so much to enlarge 
 upon the evidences of the true faith, as to demonstrate the 
 falsehood of the various forms of Pagan belief. All error is 
 traced, step by step, to our falling away from the service of 
 the true God, and then personifying the powers of Nature, and 
 raising men to the rank of divinities. Having thus shewn the 
 absurdity and evil effects of image-worship, he is rather urgent 
 upon the authorities to extirpate idolatry at once by the use of 
 the sternest measures; a plain intimation of the position and 
 influence Christianity had by this time attained. Maternus is 
 said to have been of senatorial dignity. 
 
 EPHRAIM (Syrian), a Deacon of Edessa, is found disputing 
 with the Sceptics and Jews. To the former he represents and 
 opposes the finite capacity of human thought; to the latter the 
 accomplishment of prophecy. The style of his rhythms, which 
 were extremely popular in their time, is flowery and antithetical, 
 constantly reminding the reader of their Oriental source, and 
 thereby accounting in a measure for many hyperbolical expres- 
 sions. They are said to have been written to counteract the 
 effect of some poems of the heretic Harmonius denying the Re- 
 surrection of the body. : 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN (Greek, a. p. 863), Archbishop 
 of Constantinople, offers two Invectives against Julian the apos- 
 tate, with whom both he and Basil had been fellow-students in 
 _ early life. They were published just after the death of the 
 Prince, to describe his pernicious principles and projects; they 
 are however rather slight for our purpose. The father of 
 Gregory was a Pagan and a fire-worshipper, but his mother 
 Nonna a pattern of Christian piety. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM (Greek, a.p. 380—407), has some fine 
 comments in his Homilies upon the Evidences of Christianity, 
 drawn principally from its success, as likewise in his Sermons, 
 adversus Judcos, in which he takes pains to illustrate the pro- 
 phetical argument. Chrysostom, so called for his eloquence, was 
 born at Antioch. His father, an officer of the Romano-Asiatic 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 provinces, dying early, the education of the youth devolved upon 
 his mother Anthusa, who was a Christian,—another of those 
 noble and excellent females to whom the world and the Church 
 are alike indebted. The exiles which this famous preacher was 
 subjected to, indicate both the remaining strength of Paganism 
 in his day, and the zeal he exerted against it. 
 
 AUGUSTINE (Lat.), the bishop of Hippo, closes our list 
 of Apologists with his celebrated treatise De Civitate Det, 
 (A. D. 426), and a work entitled De Doctrina Christiana. The 
 latter is directed against the Manicheans: the former against 
 the heathen, to meet the absurd reproach that the gods had sent 
 the Goths upon Rome in consequence of the number of Christian 
 worshippers within its walls’. The first five books confute such 
 of the heathen as think the gods ought to be worshipped for the 
 benefits they confer upon men in this life; the next five consider 
 the subject in regard to a future life. The remaining twelve 
 consist of alternate parallel sketches of the rise, progress, and 
 end of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms. Neander calls the 
 City of God an excellent apologetical work. Our author was 
 an African by birth, and had formerly taught rhetoric at his 
 native place as well as at Carthage; he subsequently went to 
 Milan, where he was converted under the preaching of Ambrose, 
 and the instructions of Simplicius, a presbyter. 
 
 Besides the above authors, I have only occasionally quoted 
 an apologetic idea as it occurs in a work of the times. 
 
 Such are the sources of information at hand, and from this 
 rapid glance at them we may derive a few pertinent inferences, 
 as the most essential to our object. 
 
 First, with regard to the authors, it is observable that while 
 all the Apostles and some of: the apostolical Fathers were born 
 Jews, this was not the case with the apologetic writers. They 
 were one and all Gentile converts, taken as we should say 
 indifferently out of every nation. It is found likewise (as I 
 had previously assumed) that most of them were learned men, 
 and had been philosophers, rhetoricians, or the like, in their 
 original condition; and also that they suffered, some of them, 
 imprisonment and death, all of them, persecution for the sake 
 of Christ; which, according to Cyprian, is ‘the touchstone of 
 sincerity,’ a proof ea abundanti of the truth of Christianity. 
 
 * Sce also Retract. Lib. u. ¢. 47. 
 
 pa Sty NS peti Semis i 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 Secondly, with regard to the apologies, it will be seen that 
 they are plainly traceable to persecution. They were ever 
 rather extorted than voluntary. Is it not indeed a most striking 
 fact in the history of the Gospel, displaying both the short- 
 sightedness of its enemies, and the over-ruling power of God, 
 that the very means employed to stay its progress, so often 
 worked out its advancement? This unexpected result of human 
 machinations had already taken place in apostolic times. To the 
 dispersion of the Apostles, at the death of Stephen, Syria and 
 the East owed their evangelization; and it was in consequence of 
 an attempt upon the life of St Paul, that Rome and the western 
 Gentiles enjoyed his presence and his teaching. In like manner 
 our Apologists were forced to take up the pen in defence of 
 their churches, their characters, their lives. It has been said that 
 the literature of early Christianity is attributable to ‘the in- 
 crease of scientific culture!;’ but, whilst the conversions of the 
 learned and refined doubtlessly affected its style, they can hardly 
 be thought to have caused its appearance. It is rather to the 
 malice of men that we are indebted for the apologies. They 
 were the jirst-fruits of general persecution: the wrath of man 
 praising God. Nor is this reflection the less true during those 
 lulls in the storm occasioned by policy or indifference. The 
 popular intention was manifestly the same throughout, and 
 merely exchanged an avowed and legal opposition for one more 
 secret and less responsible. Some of the apologetic treatises 
 appeared at such comparatively quiet intervals; but I can see 
 little essential difference between them and the rest, save that 
 they are more methodical and complete, and without that ex- 
 citement or vehemence which naturally appertain to an extem- 
 pore production. There is still apparent the consciousness of 
 a host of enemies and the anticipation of danger. The arm of 
 violence was occasionally weary or restrained, but it was only 
 to make way for the ceaseless energy of the tongue. And this 
 holds true even down to the end of the period to which our 
 review is restricted. Augustine wrote his City of God to repel 
 a verbal slander®. I have not therefore deemed it advisable to 
 Separate these writings, as is sometimes done. They were all 
 occasioned by persecution in some form; the ethical and hor- 
 
 ’ Neander. 
 
 * Ambrose, his instructor, had just (circ. a.p. 884) answered a like charge 
 of Symmachus, 
 
26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tatory parts are only expansions of the defence; even the retort 
 is but another mode of repulsion. 
 
 Thirdly, with respect to the persons addressed, or in other 
 words, the chief enemies of the Gospel during the times in question, 
 we gather that they consisted of three classes, the Jewish zealot, 
 the Grecian philosopher, the Roman ruler. These formed the 
 mainsprings of resistance: these moved the masses; at once 
 the cause and medium of popular excitement. Hence it is we 
 find the apologies only addressed to these the upper or privi- 
 leged ranks (as it were) of society, and never to the people. 
 The Apologists preached to the people; they had to write to the 
 elevated and recondite. 
 
 The first enemy of Christianity was the Jew. ‘Mine own 
 familiar friend,’ said the Saviour in prophecy, ‘in whom I trusted, 
 which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me?’ 
 With that fatal prescience, of which Caiaphas* had given an 
 example, the Jews foresaw in the ascendancy of the hated sect 
 the degradation of their own. ‘They had therefore opposed the 
 Gospel with their wonted determination, and the deeper they 
 imbrued their hands in guilt, the more insatiable and delirious 
 became their hatred: indeed, had their power equalled their 
 will, Christianity would soon have been swept from the face of 
 the earth. But their ability to injure was checked by the Roman 
 government, and about this time they had suffered the loss of 
 their temple and nationality. Nevertheless out of the midst of 
 their miseries they contended with what energy they could; and 
 though their sun had set in ominous clouds, though forbidden by 
 a penal law to set foot in their own land, though Atlia Capitolina 
 owned an uncircumcised bishop, yet no hour seemed too late or 
 too dismal, and no situation too forlorn, for a people destined 
 to prove by their own fate, that the kingdom promised to their 
 fathers was ‘not of this world.’ Perceiving the decline of their 
 civil power, they only endeavoured the more to preserve their 
 religious influence. Every occasion was seized for urging the 
 powerful popular opposition which an extended dispersion and 
 commerce, and a general education and acquaintance with the 
 new system, enabled them to wage. Not to mention the inti- 
 mations in the Acts of the Apostles, and the strong Jewish ele- 
 ment against which the apostolical Fathers evidently had to 
 
 strive, we find the author of the epistle to Diognetus® distinctly 
 
 ? Psalm xli. 9. * John xi. 51. 
 ° In allusion probably to the cruelties of Barchochebas. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 26 
 
 asserting that ‘the Jews make war upon us;’ Justin Martyr, 
 that ‘the Jews regard us with hatred, slaying and persecuting 
 us;’ Tertullian, that ‘the Jews are our enemies through envy,’ 
 and so on: add to this, that they were not content with open 
 hostility, but condescended to whisper the vilest slanders against 
 the early Church, as those of child-murder, incest, and treason. 
 
 Upon the whole, it appears from a perusal of the primitive 
 Fathers that Judaism was the first felt enemy of Christianity. 
 At the same time it is equally clear that as the Jewish power 
 became crippled, and as Christianity began her migration, and 
 drew the site of the controversy westward, extricating herself 
 from all fear of identity with and influence from Judaism, by 
 placing her defence in the hands of Gentile Apologists, this first 
 and most implacable foe began to disappear. But it was only 
 to bequeath his place and his spirit to others. 
 
 In extending from Palestine to Rome, Christianity must 
 needs pass through Greece, there to stand the test of intellectual 
 criticism, and the sallies of lively wit, as it had already stood the 
 test of inveterate bigotry ; the Greek philosopher was the next 
 foe to the Gospel. The introduction of the subject at Athens 
 by St Paul furnished quite a specimen of what was to take 
 place on a wider scale. The gay attack of the Epicureans and 
 Stoics upon Christ’s ambassador was the type of others upon 
 Christ’s followers; the speech upon Mars’ hill was an epitome of 
 many an apology in after times. To these fashionable and 
 worldly minds, ‘the cross’ was both offensive and foolish. It 
 was offensive, because of the contrast it formed to their licentious- 
 ness: it was foolish, because it did not square with their notions 
 of wisdom. By the indulgence of an unrivalled imagination and 
 _ taste, the Greeks had contrived to throw a halo of glory about 
 _ idolatry, and to conceal beneath a veil of sentiment the absurdity 
 _ and grossness of hero-worship. Excessive art had petrified their 
 moral life. Their sculptors had hewn the sacred but amorphous 
 blocks of earlier ages, and transformed what were originally 
 perhaps, mere memorials, into elegant and all-but breathing 
 statues; their poets had collected and embodied the false notions 
 of Deity from every land, upon their own sublime Olympus; 
 their musicians had professed to soften the powers of hell, and to 
 bring back ‘Eurydice’ almost to life; whilst their sages had taken 
 care to provide a reserve of plausible theories for the satisfaction 
 of the more shrewd and reflective. Is it any marvel that arts so 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 enchanting, learning so eloquent, religion so accommodating, 
 should be scandalized at the cross of Christ, and at his ‘ form 
 of a servant?’ Mental pride and sensual gratification were the 
 moving principles in the one case, humility and holiness in the 
 other: ‘ The darkness comprehended not the light.’ 
 
 Moreover, at the date of our Apologies, Grecian philosophy 
 had spread itself over the world, and leavened all the moral 
 systems of the West. The Roman schools were but reflections 
 of the Grecian schools'. It was this large, combined and in- 
 tellectual body that now began to turn its attention to the new 
 sect just emerging into notice, claiming the only wisdom worth 
 knowing, and challenging the rights of any rival to the proud 
 title of ‘the schools of glory.’ Learning, sarcasm, prescrip- 
 tion, were kindled into one flame. ‘The philosophers of every 
 party demanded to be either satisfied or silenced by erudition 
 and reasoning powers at least equal to their own. In this emer- 
 gency the Apologists arose, and as at first, in a former antago- 
 nism, St Paul, the most effectual opponent of the Jews, came 
 forth from their own bosom; so now, and doubtless with a like 
 design of Providence, the first regular defenders of Christianity 
 were summoned out of the ranks of the philosophers themselves. 
 Hitherto it had been of the utmost importance that the power of 
 God should be strongly contrasted with the weakness and plain- 
 
 ness of its instruments ; now perhaps it was as necessary to shew 
 
 that religion could influence the greatest as well as commonest 
 minds. Thus its universal adaptation might be proved; thus the 
 most influential men of the day might become interested on its 
 side; thus after being tested by reason and learning, the most 
 exalted would be left without excuse. ‘'o these ends the Apo- 
 logists addressed the Greeks in elaborate and spirited discourses, 
 accompanied by the most touching expostulations. 
 
 The last great enemy to Christianity we have to follow out, 
 is the Roman ruler. It will be remembered in a former quo- 
 tation from the Epistle to Diognetus, reaching almost to the 
 apostolic period, that whilst the Jews and Greeks are recog- 
 nized as hostile, the Romans are not named at all. The truth 
 
 is that at first the Western government, by its destruction of © 
 
 the Jews, by the universal freedom of intercourse it established 
 throughout the civilized world, and by the general equality of its 
 laws, had so far unwittingly favoured the spread of the Gospel. 
 
 * See Tennemann’s Manual of the History of Philosophy, p. 161. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 99 
 
 For a long time the young Church appeared to be rather pro- 
 tected than persecuted by the authorities of this vast empire. 
 Indifferent Gallios and ambitious Cxsars thought a band of 
 enthusiasts beneath their notice; and so actually sheltered the 
 tender plant until it had taken deep root, and silently sent its 
 seeds on the wings of every wind. No doubt the earnest preachers 
 of the Cross suffered sufficiently, as we have already seen, but it 
 was in a more private way. ‘It took some time,’ says Paley, ‘ for 
 the vast machine of the Roman empire to be put in motion.” At 
 length, however, the movement commenced; the rulers of the 
 earth awoke from their lethargy, and as they had the greater 
 power, so they inflicted the severest calamities that had ever be- 
 fallen, perhaps ever will befall, the Christian cause. <The days 
 of tribulation’ had arrived. From the reign of Nero to that of 
 Constantine the Church was tried by a series of persecutions ; 
 the way to heaven was tracked with blood. The grounds of this 
 inconsistent conduct (for the Romans tolerated every other reli- 
 gion) were probably, alarm at a rival kingdom, as in the cases of 
 Claudius', Vespasian, and Domitian; subterfuge, as in that of Nero ; 
 the confounding Christians with rebellious Jews, as of Titus; the 
 misunderstandings founded upon slanderous reports and interested 
 appeals from a sinking priesthood, and their dependants, as of 
 Trajan; malignant and revengeful feelings of apostates ; the 
 natural disposition of men to attribute their misfortunes to those 
 they hate; and the general dislike of the human heart to all that 
 is gentle and pure. However explained, the fact itself illustrates 
 the rapid growth of the Christian religion ; that it could thus have 
 arrayed the whole world against itself; and it is scarcely less a 
 sign of its internal vitality and power that it had already ab- 
 sorbed so much of the intellect of society, as to be able to furnish 
 ~ a succession of authors of sufficient address and courage to defend 
 themselves and their interests before emperors, senates, and the 
 rulers of the whole world. 
 
 Such were the enemies with whom the Apologists undertook 
 to cope, and as their cause was that of Christianity itself, their 
 writings supply us with the materials we are in search of, viz. 
 the early evidences. At the same time it appears from the nature 
 of the case, that we could not expect any formal defence of 
 Christianity. The apologetic portion, which was the original 
 plea for writing, is formally arranged : but the evidential portion, 
 
 * Suet, Claud. XXV, 
 
30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 though the most important, was necessarily dependent. And be 
 it remembered, this was no choice of the Apologists; in no other 
 way could they have got a chance of a hearing, or a hope of 
 doing good. Still everything is included, we may be sure, that 
 they wished to say. It remains for us, therefore, to select some 
 
 system, by way of method, on which to display these scattered 
 
 thoughts and arguments; and I think such a system offers itself, 
 as a fourth and last deduction from the foregoing sketch.  ~ 
 An inspection of the brief notices therein contained of the 
 substance of the Apologies, will shew that the Fathers chiefly 
 dwelt upon certain arguments and modes of proof, which may be 
 gathered together under seven heads, as those derived from the 
 antecedent probability, the antiquity, the prophetical and mira- 
 culous elements, the doctrines, the morals, and the success of the 
 Gospel. And this seems to be the most satisfactory classification 
 that can be adopted. It is true a summary of each Apology 
 could alone prevent the dislocation, in a few instances, of succes- 
 sive arguments well drawn out, and of considerable cumulative 
 
 force; but such an arrangement would require volumes. Again, — 
 
 there are classifications founded upon certain divisions of argu- 
 ments, as such; or, on some order of time, locality, antagonism, 
 and the like; but they all appear more or less artificial when 
 compared with one suggested by the subject matter of the 
 writings themselves. Upon the whole, therefore, I think, the 
 plan thus suggested will be found natural; adapted to modern 
 expectations, as well as any; comprehensive, covering the whole 
 ground, and so doing thorough justice to the works before us; 
 and yet of sufficient compactness and regularity for the limits 
 and unity of an essay. 
 
 Taking with us then the above hints respecting the sources 
 of information, and the situation of our authors, we shall be pre- 
 pared, I hope, to form a better estimate of the arguments about 
 to be considered, albeit they were used long since, in foreign 
 lands and on occasions to us directly unknown. We shall cer- 
 
 tainly comprehend them better, even if we do not appreciate 
 them more. Where I have thought any point needs special — 
 
 explanation, I have attempted it in a short opening attached to 
 each chapter on the nature and use of the various contents. 
 
 I have only further to say that some repetition must be 
 excused in a work of this kind, where the popularity and sup- 
 posed value of an argument can scarcely be illustrated without 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 it, I trust, however, that what little of this kind occurs, will be 
 found placed in such various points of light, as not to weary the 
 reader. It has been my endeavour, likewise, to avoid isolated 
 _ passages which have but a slight authority; and those which 
 while they might have some weight with Christian minds as 
 tending to prove our point, were not used for that purpose by 
 the Fathers; also a few of what may be termed apocryphal 
 arguments that have become more worthless than ever, in con- 
 sequence of later advances in science. And lastly, in attempting 
 to point out the real or relative value of any of the following evi- 
 dences whatsoever, it should be borne in mind that the Fathers 
 never depended upon any one separately or alone. This need- 
 less experiment was left for modern times, and is perhaps the 
 result of that excessive systematizing and overstraining the 
 Spontaneous suggestions of mind, which was introduced or 
 encouraged by the schoolmen. Origen says, ‘The faith of 
 Christians does not depend upon a single argument, but upon 
 the concurrence and conjunction of several :’ and, again, Chry- 
 sostom: ‘If upon the subject of religion we desire to be fully 
 persuaded of the truth, we must consider carefully the whole 
 train of things which, like a chain, is composed of different links, 
 bound the one to the other,’ 
 
 I cannot better close this introductory chapter respecting 
 our arguments in general, than by stating the effect they ‘pro- 
 duced in their own day and generation. It certainly adds some 
 importance to an attempt, to know that its object was attained. 
 On this point Dr Woodham remarks: ‘ After all, perhaps we 
 have scarcely given due credit, or assigned sufficient influence, 
 _ to the Christian Apologists. We know that Christianity spread 
 over the surface of the known world, and that the apologies 
 were written to promote its diffusion; we may not be able to 
 trace their insensible operation, or find recorded instances of 
 their power; but it is at least not improbable that the stedfast 
 “endurance of a martyr, whose blood was the seed of the Church, 
 might have itself resulted from the patient and private study of 
 such writings as these. Even their perpetual repetition argues 
 an experience of some previous success!’ I think we may add 
 to this, that not only was the cause they advocated triumphant 
 generally, but in the very direction in which these Apologies 
 were aimed, viz. the higher classes, always the most difficult to 
 
 * Tertull. pref. ux. Ed. Woodham. 
 
on INTRODUCTION. 
 
 persuade. Surely without derogating from the glory due to 
 God alone, we may attribute to a Nazianzen', as an humble 
 instrument, some share in extorting the confession from the 
 dying Julian: ‘Thou hast conquered, oh, Galilean!’ And 
 again, it is not to be overlooked that as soon as their work was 
 done, as soon as Pagan Rome was overthrown, and Christ’s 
 
 kingdom fairly established throughout the world, the Apologists 
 ceased as a distinct class, and not before. Both these facts fur- 
 nish presumptive evidence of the share their writings had in the 
 Gospel triumph. 
 
 1 Gregory relates that his brother Cesarius also, who though a Christian 
 was retained as court-physician by Julian, freely conversed with the Emperor 
 on the subject of religion, defending his cause with equal learning and skill. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 That which may be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath shewed 
 it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even 
 His eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse.— 
 Romans I. 19, 20. 
 
 NDER this title may be collected such considerations as 
 were adduced by the Apologists for the specific purpose of 
 making Christianity appear plausible. They consist of those 
 abstract ideas which serve to introduce any important subject. 
 That the Fathers had such a class of arguments in their minds, 
 _ however rarely arranged with system, or carried out at much 
 length, it would be strange to doubt. They were emphatically 
 the philosophers of their day: many of them being deemed, but 
 _ for their religion, worthy to fill the highest chairs. ‘ Chrysostom 
 should succeed me,’ said Libanius the heathen rhetorician of 
 Antioch, on his death-bed, ‘if the Christians had not stolen him 
 from us.’ Even as Moses they were skilled in all the learning 
 of their associates, and had almost, as a matter of course, in- 
 herited with their mantle, the received and natural methods of 
 discussion handed down from Aristotle. Their writings confirm 
 _ this reasonable conjecture. Not only do numerous instances of 
 abstract argument occur (as this chapter will exemplify), but its 
 nature is described and reasons are given for its introduction. 
 
 The motives that restrained our authors from a more frequent — 
 use of it, were such as control us now: it is somewhat indirect 
 and indefinite, and not always conclusive even to the mind of 
 _believers. Wherefore we find Justin, ‘begging pardon of the 
 sons of truth for urging an extra-scriptural argument ;’ Clemens 
 Alexandrinus affirming that ‘he who asks a proof of a Providence 
 deserves condemnation ;’ and Origen, ‘doubting whether if left 
 to himself he would interrupt in any way that silence which 
 Jesus maintained at his trial.’ 
 
 Yet as we cannot refuse it altogether in our day, so did not 
 the Apologists in theirs. For its nature is just such that while 
 its presence may not prove much, its absence might prejudice 
 much. It seems that in every imaginable cause that can give 
 
 H. E. 3 
 
34 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 rise to a question at all, the first point for consideration is, ; 
 
 ; 
 
 / 
 
 whether it lies within a certain range of reason, within limits at } 
 least not at war with reason, however far they may lie beyond — 
 
 its jurisdiction. Unless this be the case, the whole subject is 
 thrown up as essentially absurd, and not worth another thought. 
 This preliminary examination, I need hardly say, is not always 
 expressed ; it may be understood. Indeed it can only be because 
 the idea is so often mental, and almost instinctive to us in the 
 
 common affairs of life, that it is overlooked, and when applied — 
 to religion, even unwelcome. But in important matters there | 
 
 should be no room for misunderstanding. Every witness must — 
 
 be summoned, every plea put in, and the whole truth, as well as 
 
 nothing but the truth, be told. 
 
 Further, with regard to the nature of this method of rea- 
 
 soning, it is not only introductory, but incidental. It appeals 
 to any testimony that may be supposed independent of the im- 
 mediate question, or not constructed with the direct view of 
 favouring it. Its value therefore depends upon a contingency, 
 
 upon the coincidence without design which it exhibits. Other 
 
 evidences from argument and testimony we know were intended — 
 
 to convince: this had no such original purpose; and thus, slight | 
 
 as it is in itself and worthless alone, it acquires some weight — 
 
 from the circumstance of its being a disinterested witness. In this 
 
 way we find that not only is a subject introduced, but an air 
 
 of plausibility and therefore of importance is given to it. 
 In the present case a question is raised between man and his 
 
 Maker. God has issued a Revelation: man will not receive it. He — 
 
 denies perhaps the possibility of such a thing; to say nothing of © 
 
 doubts quite as significant, on the Providence and Being of God 
 himself. The Christian Apologist might well despair. ‘The law — 
 and the testimony,’ which are to him and to his people an end 
 
 of all controversy, will not be listened to. A series of satisfactory 
 
 evidences cannot be entertained for want of a place of entrance. 
 It is equally plain that some ground of discussion common to- 
 the sceptic and ourselves must be looked for (if the discussion — 
 
 is to be carried on at all) outside of the ecclesiastical pale. In 
 this way alone, humanly speaking, can the unbelieving mind be 
 apprehended: and hence it is that the Word of God so often 
 directs and sanctions our appeal to Nature and conscience, God’s 
 first witnesses to man, (testimonies that cannot be impugned by 
 
 5 
 bo 
 
 , 
 
 Pe 
 
 na 
 
 4 
 
 an opponent, since he himself forms a part of them), to the end 
 
 evga 2 ped be» 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 35 
 
 that we may indicate, if no more, how a God, a Providence, a 
 Revelation, are at least not abstractedly improbable. ‘It hath 
 always been allowed,’ says Butler, ‘to argue from what is ac- 
 _knowledged to what is disputed.’ 
 
 | Thus we see that the mode of reasoning before us includes 
 appeals to whatever is palpable in this life of ours, considered 
 apart from religion. 
 
 | And this leads us on to observe its proper province and 
 application, a point by no means to be neglected. For whilst 
 It is introductory and so useful, and incidental and therefore 
 effective, it is also peculiar and limited to certain subjects. 
 These have ever been such matters as other arguments can 
 hardly lay hold of,—the infinite, the future, the physical ; things 
 ‘simply assumed or asserted in Scripture. And it is quite inte- 
 resting, as it is obvious to mark, how closely the Apologists 
 adhered to this rule of propriety ; and as they spared no labour, 
 so on the other hand they wasted none, but were careful to 
 confine each argument, and this among the rest, to its own class 
 of subjects. 
 
 The above reflections explain why it is we find no modern 
 treatise (of any pretensions) in defence of religion, without some 
 notice of this species of evidence, either by way of introduction 
 or appendage: and I think, therefore, that both the works of 
 the Fathers and this illustration of them, would have wanted 
 completeness without some notice of it also. 
 
 The Apologists dwell especially upon four points which we 
 proceed to consider in order, under the heads of Analogies from 
 Nature; Instinctive Suggestions of the soul; The example of 
 Heathen Ideas; and answers to Objections. 
 
 Section I. 
 ANALOGIES FROM NATURE. 
 
 EFORE producing the proofs under this section, it is need- 
 ful to premise two cautions with respect to Analogy. First, 
 to distinguish Analogy illustrative from Analogy probative. 
 The variety of senses in which the term before us is used, (Mill 
 says “no word in the language more loosely',’) and the difference 
 
 1 Syst. of Log. Vol. 11. 
 ge 
 
36 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 of opinion as to some of the identical examples I have to produce’, 
 seem to require an explanation of the grounds on which their 
 authority may be supposed to rest. 
 
 Speaking logically, ‘ Analogy is the similarity of ratios or 
 relations?” There must be two ratios and consequently four 
 
 terms or objects of comparison. When these terms are all dif — 
 ferent, the analogy is only illustrative ; indeed, strictly speaking, 
 
 it is then a metaphor’, proving nothing. If used in argument 
 
 at all, it for the most part asswmes the proposition which it is 
 brought to bear upon. Its use is therefore merely to aid the 
 apprehension; it cannot prove, though it often suggests, the 
 proof. 
 
 But there is another species of analogy. It is no¢ necessary | 
 
 that each of the four terms should be different. If there was 
 such a necessity, one of the chief uses of analogy as an engine 
 of argument and discovery of truth, (as remarked by Quintilian 
 long ago,) would be destroyed. All that is required is that there 
 
 should be two distinct ratios: of what terms those ratios consist — 
 
 is a matter of choice. Frequently the relation in which one 
 thing stands to another being known enables us to discover, with 
 
 greater or less certainty, the relation which the same thing bears — 
 
 to something else which is unknown. Thus the moral govern-— 
 
 ment of mankind by the Deity in this world, furnishes, as Butler 
 has most ably shewn‘, a means of conjecturing his religious go- 
 
 vernment, both in this world and in the next, independently of a : 
 Divine Revelation. St Paul even calls a man ‘a fool’ (appwy)? 
 for not perceiving the forcible witness which the processes of 
 
 nature bear to the possibility and probability of a resurrection. 
 
 It is on the strength of this probative value of Analogy that 
 
 ' The Bishop of Lincoln, for instance, asserts in his Ecclesiastical History 
 
 of the second and third centuries: ‘Tertullian does not seem aware that 
 
 some of the instances he had alleged for rendering the resurrection of the 
 
 body credible are nothing to the purpose; such as the changes of day and 
 night, of summer and winter, &c.:’ whilst we have Pearson, on the contrary, — 
 borrowing these same instances among others, and from the same source, ~ 
 under ‘a consideration of the things without us, and the natural course of 
 variation in the creature which render the resurrection yet more highly 
 
 probable.’ 
 
 2 Whately and Ferguson, after Aristotle. So Penny Cyclopedia, Article 
 
 ‘ Analogy.’ 
 3s ‘ Metaphors are cases of analogy. —Mill. 
 4 Butler’s Analogy. 5 } Corinth. xv. 36. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 37 
 
 the Apologists adduced it. They seem fully to recognize the 
 distinction I have been pointing out. Illustrations constantly 
 occur in their works: as when they endeavour, for the sake of 
 a sceptical or carnal auditory, to clear up some of the mystery 
 that enshrouds the generation of the Son of God, by allusions to 
 the torch that borrows without reducing light; or to the solar 
 rays descending on the earth; or to the indwelling mind, and 
 faculty of speech in man. But such ideas were introduced as 
 mere metaphors, or similitudes: they are not intended to esta- 
 blish, but solely to illustrate the truth. This the frequent and 
 free acknowledgment of their weakness and shortcoming suffi- 
 ciently shews; while it is equally obvious that sound analogical 
 argument was always considered of weight and value towards 
 conviction, 
 
 The other caution to be observed with regard to Analogy is, 
 that it should not be pressed beyond its point. ‘Perversions of 
 this kind,’ says Archbishop Whately, ‘are by no means rare,’ 
 The similitude is extended beyond its proper limits; and it is 
 supposed that because the two objects are like each other in 
 one respect, they are like in all, As the former mistake may 
 be said to underrate the argumentative value of Analogy, so 
 this consists in overrating it, or expecting from it all the results 
 of a case of induction or deduction. Compared with these it 
 is confessed that our analogies only offer a probability, a fair 
 inference. 
 
 From the whole of the above remarks it will be gathered 
 that Analogy is chiefly useful in the absence of other proof, or 
 previous to it; and that it is at all times sufficient to answer 
 objections?. 
 
 The cases referred to by the Apologists relate, for the most 
 part, to the unity and power of God,—to the possibility of 
 miracles taking place,—to difficulties in the word of God,—and 
 _ to the resurrection of the body. 
 
 CLEMENS ROMANUS? ealls the attention of his brethren 
 
 1 Also see remainder of the Bishop of Lincoln’s criticism, quoted above, 
 _ “If any inference is to be drawn from such physical changes it would rather 
 be of an alternate dissolution and restoration of the same Rogie 
 
 ? Mill’s System of Logic. 
 
 * I beg to observe that I shall quote the Fathers in the chronological 
 order of the Introduction. Likewise, that I generally use the divisions into 
 chapters, or sections of Caillau’s ed. Coll. select. SS. Eccles. Patr. Parisiis, 1829. 
 
38 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 to ‘ the resurrection* which is continually taking place: day and 
 night declare it to us. The night lies down, the day arises ; 
 again, the day departs, and the night comes on. Behold the 
 fruits of the earth also; the sower casts forth the seed which 
 falls upon the ground dry and naked and is in time dissolved ; 
 and from this dissolution the mighty power of the Lord raises 
 it, so that out of one seed many arise and bring forth abun- 
 dantly.’ 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR? defends the same doctrine by shewing, 
 that it is no more incredible than the first conception and birth 
 of a person would appear to one who had never heard of such 
 a thing. ‘We pretend not to say,’ he concludes, ‘how worthy an 
 estimate of divine power they form who maintain that everything 
 returns to its original state, and that beyond this even God can 
 do nothing: but we plainly see that by the same reasoning they 
 
 would not have conceived it possible for beings like themselves, — 
 
 or for the whole world to have existed or had their origin.’ 
 
 Again®, he alludes to the generation of mankind, particularly 
 to ‘the protoplast Adam who was made out of the earth, as a 
 plain instance of God’s omnipotence.’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS‘® holds that those who doubt the resurrec- 
 tion ought not to do so unless they can shew that God is either 
 unable or unwilling to raise up the dead dissolved body, reani- 
 mate the dispersed particles, and restore to life the same men. 
 The want of power® he then contends cannot be supposed of 
 God, since the generation of men is a matter quite as wonderful 
 
 as that of resuscitating their dead bodies. In fact the power of — 
 primarily producing something out of nothing, evinces God’s — 
 sufficiency for the renewal and resurrection of all bodies. Again, — 
 
 it requires as great power to order and diversify with various 
 
 forms rude and shapeless matter, or to unite different elements — 
 
 into one composition, the human frame, as to reunite the scattered 
 parts of it, through whatever process they may have passed. 
 
 He further adduces‘ some of the affections of sleep, as being — 
 
 very analogous to a corporeal resurrection. ‘Sleep,’ he says, 
 ‘has been called the brother of death, inasmuch as many of the 
 
 same things are common to the dead and to the sleeping. Both 
 
 * Ep. ad Cor. c. 24. b. Apol. 1. ¢. 25. 
 * De Res.'c. 1. “ De Resurr. Mort. c. 2. 
 € Tbe: 8. F'db. ea; 
 
 atest 
 
 é 
 
 a es 
 
 Caan 
 
 FE TS et 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 39 
 
 are in a state of insensibility. If then we call human life a con- 
 tinuous life, though it is full of breaks and pauses, occasioned by 
 _ sleep, neither should we scruple to admit a life after a dissolution, 
 _ though it may seem interrupted by the separation of soul and 
 body. Nothing in a seed appears to the eye of its future 
 _ beauty or magnificence, nor do those qualities exhibit themselves 
 in an infant which future years develope. Thus reason by just 
 deductions and illustrated by similar experiments, establishes the 
 truth of the Resurrection.’ 
 
 THEOPHILUS*® asks his heathen friend ‘Why do you not 
 believe in the raising the dead? Are we not obliged to exer- 
 cise faith in all the concerns of life? The husbandman trusts to 
 the ground; the sailor to his bark; the sick man to his medicine; 
 the scholar to his tutor; why then should we hesitate to trust 
 God from whom we have received so many and such excellent 
 pledges? He it was who created you and breathed into you 
 the breath of life. Yet, strange to say, you will not believe 
 that he can recall you to life, though you readily believe that 
 manufactured images are gods, and that they work wonders,’ 
 
 He recognizes” other pledges of the Resurrection in the de- 
 cline and return of the seasons, in the alternations of day and 
 night, in the growth of seeds and fruits, noticing by the way, as 
 an element of the analogy, that these changes all subserve the 
 benefit of man. He then adds, ‘ let us, moreover, raise our eyes 
 above terrestrial things and look at the continual renewal of the 
 moon, as it waxes and wanes. Consider likewise the resurrec- 
 tion of yourself, perchance, sometime from a bed of sickness, 
 brought about in a way you understand not. Your flesh, and 
 strength, and beauty were lost for a time; but through the 
 mercy and healing power of God, you have recovered them 
 again. As you were ignorant how your body decayed, so you 
 are ignorant how it was restored. Or if you say it was owing 
 to medicine and food, be it so; that also was the work of God 
 _ who so arranged it!,’ | 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX®* demands ‘Who can impugn this 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. 1. c. 8. Pe lb. Ge Le 
 
 * The Stromata of Clemens Alex. contain many appeals to analogy. One, 
 curious rather than satisfactory, having reference to our own country, occurs 
 in the Sixth Book, Art. 1. © Octav. c. 33. 
 
40 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 truth; that man who was at first made by God, can be made by 
 Him again ?’ | 
 
 TERTULLIAN® in like manner wonders ‘ why after the 
 mystery of our birth, we might not once more be brought into 
 existence by the will of the great Creator, who made us at first 
 out of nothing. It would be no new thing at least; and as we — 
 cannot explain how we were at first made, we cannot expect to 
 understand how we shall again be made. Whence we see that 
 the Resurrection can be readily conceived of. But if any man © 
 still doubts respecting the power of God, let him look around and 
 behold! Nature stamped with examples of the resurrection, is a 
 testimony to us. The light dies daily and shines again; the 
 stars fade away and reappear; the fruits of the earth are con- 
 sumed and reproduced; seeds rise not again with increase unless 
 they are corrupted and die; all things are preserved by dissolu- 
 tion, renewed by perishing. And shall man, the lord of all this 
 universe of creatures which die and rise again, himself die only to 
 perish for ever ?’ 
 
 A like train of thought is observed in this author’s more 
 direct work on the Resurrection”. 
 
 ORIGEN’, calling attention to the writings of the prophets, 
 thus prepares his hearers’ minds for any mysteries they may 
 meet with. ‘If some passages should appear to the unlearned 
 to be above the reach of the human understanding, let it not be 
 a matter of surprise; for in the works of Providence which fill 
 the whole world, there are some things so abstruse and occult 
 that they might seem to afford a handle for doubting whether 
 God really superintends the affairs of men.’ Wherefore he 
 argues, the divinity of the Scriptures should not be doubted 
 merely because of the difficulties contained in them. 
 
 CYPRIAN’, following the footsteps of Minutius Felix (c. 18), 
 points out some analogies in nature implying the unity of God. 
 He remarks that every association must have a superior head, 
 and then proceeds to illustrate this principle by the histories of 
 kingdoms and communities of men. It is even found to be in 
 accordance with the nature of animals. As human societies have 
 
 * Apol. c. 43. > De Res. Carn. c. 12. 
 ¢ De Princip. Lib. tv. sect. 6. * De Idol. Van. ¢. 5. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 41 
 
 their king, so bees and sheep and oxen have their common 
 leader. ‘How reasonable then for us to suppose that the uni- 
 verse should have one Governor, who, by his Almighty Word of 
 wisdom and power, orders, disposes, and executes whatever he 
 wills.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUS‘, in reply to a reproach cast upon the Christian 
 system, in consequence of its not explaining the existence of evil 
 in the world, tells the heathen that their complaints would avail 
 more if they themselves had first cleared up some difficulties 
 nearer home; as, for example, whence and what we are, whether 
 the world was made and arranged for us, &c. This subject is 
 reverted to in the second book of the Disputations (c. 24, 25); 
 where, after shewing how completely the human mind is baffled 
 in its attempt to explore the depths of nature and the ways of 
 God, our author urges upon his readers the necessity of humility 
 and submission in all matters connected with religion. 
 
 Again, to expose the vaunted wisdom of the Greeks, he asks, 
 ‘If there is any one among them who can explain what Socrates 
 was unable to apprehend in his Phaedo, namely, the origin and 
 quality of mind; that mind which is called immortal, and by 
 some esteemed a God. Why should it-be dull in sickness, weak 
 in infancy, wild in delirium, wanting in old age?’ ‘And,’ con- 
 tinues he”, addressing the heathen, ‘since you are accustomed to 
 sneer at our exercise of faith, I beg to know if there is any 
 affair or business of life that does not demand faith? You trade, 
 you marry, you sow, you physic, you fight, in faith; and is not 
 the very identical use of the faculty you ridicule us for exercised 
 by you, whenever you pray to your gods, and as often as you 
 rely upon your philosophers and their writings ?” 
 
 With equal address he blunts the point of an objection 
 against the lateness of the incarnation, intimating® that nothing 
 is early or late with God; that Mercury, their own heavenly 
 messenger, had not appeared until a certain time; and that the 
 _ seasons of the year did not return always to a month. 
 
 METHODIUS® alludes to the power and wisdom of God 
 displayed in his care of the embryo in the womb, as clearing 
 the way for crediting the divine ability and even desire to 
 introduce our bodies into another state of being. 
 
 ® Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 4. Ploy Cob: ETO ee So: “ De Resur. 
 
42 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 LACTANTIUS® points out the vanity of that philosophy, 
 which supposes God cannot be angry, and therefore will neither 
 judge nor punish the wicked; whilst not only demons but also 
 the very heavens and the earth are trembling at his nod, as the 
 Milesian oracle confesses. 
 
 In defence of the unity of God, he remarks” that though 
 there is much diversity of opinion on this important point, it 
 ought not so to be; since reason herself teaches us the truth. 
 ‘There is one mind,’ he contends, ‘ governing our body and its 
 many members, one commander in every army, one sovereign in 
 every empire, one moderator in every republic; and so in the 
 management of this world there can be but one Lord, who is 
 the founder of his own kingdom and claims the whole, and no- 
 thing less than the whole, for himself.’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS,, after surveying the wonders of creation, and 
 drawing therefrom an illustration of skilful design and infinite 
 power, hints at an analogy between them and the miracles of 
 Christ: ‘Who,’ he asks, ‘can be the efficient cause of all this, 
 but he the justly-entitled Word of God, that worker of miracles ?” 
 
 The unity! of the Creator is seen“ reflected in ‘ the one sun 
 that warms and enlightens us all, and in the uniformity or har- 
 mony to be traced amidst the variety of character in man, and 
 of form and appearance in nature. One and the same effec- 
 tuating art is found everywhere employed upon the one universe 
 of manifold composition, the workmanship of the one Word, the 
 maker of the world.’ 
 
 Speaking of the Resurrection®, this author observes, ‘ If 
 grains of wheat are not wholly subject to corruption, shall man 
 “be? Is he not superior to seeds ?’ | 
 
 And again‘, he argues that as God is beneficent and just, he 
 will care for our bodies and souls as well as for the life of trees, 
 and so on, 
 
 EPHRAIM defends the divinity of the Saviour, and insists 
 that as we cannot comprehend the nature of our own souls, it is 
 in vain for us to expect to understand the generation, human or 
 divine, of the Son of God. 
 
 4 De Ira Dei, c. 23. ° Epitom.c. 2. © Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 6—21. 
 1 See also Dem. Evan. Lib. rv. c. 5, on this argument. 
 
 4 Theoph. Lib. 1. ¢. 88, 34. © Ib. Lab. a. ¢: 77 f De Resur. | 
 
 8 Serm. adv. Scrutat. 1—7. 
 
‘THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 43 
 
 He then produces* the unaccountable phenomena connected 
 with memory and dreams as mysteries equally difficult of ex- 
 planation with any in the Christian system. Indeed” he con- 
 siders it harder to understand nature than Scripture; and to 
 analyze man’s word or faculty of speech, than God’s Word, the 
 Saviour himself, 
 
 AUGUSTINE*® having spoken of the Mosaic miracles, warns 
 us against those persons who deny that the invisible God works 
 visible miracles. He asks, ‘Is not the world a miracle, yet 
 visible and of his making? nay, all the niracles done in this 
 world are less than the world itself, the heavens, the earth, and 
 all therein; yet God made them all, and after a manner we 
 cannot conceive. Man himself is a still greater miracle; there- 
 fore God who made the heavens and the earth scorns not still to 
 work miracles in heaven and earth, to draw men’s souls by such 
 means to the worship of his invisible essence.’ 
 
 In refutation of an objection raised against the Resurrection 
 of the body and the torments of hell, he declares“ the omnipotence 
 of God to be a sufficient ground for believing in anything he has 
 promised: wherefore he cannot see why God may not cause the 
 bodies of the dead to rise again!, and the damned to suffer and 
 yet not consume, seeing he has filled heaven, earth, air, and 
 water, with innumerable marvels; the world itself being a 
 greater marvel than any it contains. 
 
 Section II. 
 INSTINCTIVE SUGGESTIONS OF THE SOUL. 
 
 HE next witness independent of Revelation, and invoked by 
 the Apologists, is the soul of man himself. We are sup- 
 posed possessed of certain intellectual and moral instincts, such 
 
 as notions of sequence; a consciousness of Deity, as well as of a 
 
 principle of evil; a sense of justice, accountability, &c. It is 
 now generally conceded that the theory of original impressions, 
 as held by the ancients, is not far from the truth. Reason and 
 
 @ Serm. 57. b Serm. 65. 
 © De Civit. Dei, Lib. x. c. 12. @ 7b. Lib. xxr. c. 7. 
 1 See De Catechizandis Rudibus to the same purpose. 
 
44 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 experience tell us that there are in the nature of man faculties 
 whose existence cannot be accounted for by any known action 
 of matter. With as little satisfaction can they be derived from 
 education or tradition; for, as Tertullian observes on this very 
 question, ‘such explanations still leave the matter short, and it 
 may be asked, Whence were they derived by the man who first 
 used them? The idea must have been conceived in the soul, 
 before it was delivered to others by the tongue or the pen.’ 
 The truth seems to be, as a modern writer remarks!, that our 
 understanding assents to any proposition only as it agrees with 
 the suggestions of reason, —those laws originally written on our 
 hearts. ‘We do not say that the mind can know (in the 
 common acceptation of the word) before it observes external 
 things, but that its capacity and tendency furnish evidence of 
 something having been in the mind before it was directed to facts, 
 just as we have had eyes before we used them properly. Thus 
 the mind does not simply reflect the images of things with- 
 out, but impresses a character of its own upon them.’ On some 
 such predication the force of our present argument depends. The 
 soul is viewed as a part of nature, God’s work, stamped with 
 his own image of what is true; and which, if it could be found 
 disengaged (though only to a degree) of its unhappily-acquired 
 prejudice for error, might remember and reveal something of the 
 will of its Maker. With this hope it is seized upon as at 
 unawares,—in the crowd,—on the first waking moment,—under 
 the chastening hand of affliction,—or in a primeval condition to be 
 conceived of rather than found, and is there and then solemnly 
 cited as a witness. The specimens of this kind of reasoning to 
 be met with in the Apologists, form themselves into three distinct 
 subdivisions. 
 
 (a) Arguments from cause to effect. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR*. ‘If any one thinks that God cares 
 not for the human race, such a man must either profess that God 
 exists not at all; or affirm that if he exists, he delights in evil; 
 or else that he remains insensible as a stone; and that vice and 
 
 1 Small Books on Great Subjects. Pickering, London. 
 
 2 For the sense in which the @ priori and a posteriori arguments are here 
 
 used, I refer to Whately’s Rhetoric, Part 1. c. ii. § 2. 
 * Apol. 1. c. 36. 
 
 | 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 45 
 
 virtue are indifferent things in the judgment of men; all which 
 _ suppositions are full of impiety and injustice.’ 
 
 He further* pleads against the stoical doctrine of fatality, that 
 there would be on such a principle nothing laudable in doing 
 right. To be virtuous we must be free agents. 
 
 TATIAN®. ‘It is from a contemplation of the incompre- 
 hensible, self-producing God, that we believe in the resurrection 
 of the body, whereby all things shall be perfect and complete. 
 Not as the Stoics suppose, according to certain cycles or orbits, 
 within which we are ever being born and then perishing again, 
 and all to no purpose; but once only for the last judgment; 
 when neither by Minos nor Rhadamanthus shall we be judged, but 
 by the Creator himself. I knew not myself before I was born; 
 I know not what will become of my body when I die; fire, the 
 waves, wild beasts, may devour it, but I shall still rest in the 
 treasury of a rich Lord, where the worthy and the worthless, 
 yea, even the atheist, lie concealed. God, who aloné observes my 
 dust, alone can recall it when he will into its pristine state.’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS* addressing the heathen emperors, argues 
 thus: ‘That there is one God and Maker of all things, you may 
 conceive in this way, and thereby have one good reason of our 
 faith. Ifthere were at first two or more Gods, they must have 
 existed either together in one and the same place, or each sepa- 
 rately by himself. They could not exist in the same place, 
 being of the same nature both equal and commensurate to each 
 other; for, if they could, then must two commensurates of the 
 same kind exist in one and the same place, which cannot be. 
 And, on the other hand, if these Gods existed separately, since 
 one God is over all his works, and governs all by his providence, 
 (as nature indicates), where can the other be? Not in the world, 
 for it is the place of another; nor above it, for our God is also 
 above the world, and comprehends within himself all his works.’ 
 Wherefore our Christian philosopher concludes that ‘another 
 God has no place, that is, does not exist at all.’ 
 
 Replymg to a technical difficulty in the way of the resur- 
 rection of the body“, raised on the supposition of shipwrecked 
 mariners becoming a prey to fish, or of slaves in the amphi- 
 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 9. > Orat. ad Grac. c. 6. 
 ° Legat. pro Christianis, c. 8. ? De Res. Mort. c. 4, 5. 
 
46 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 theatre being devoured by wild animals, or even of men having 
 been incorporated with the flesh of their fellow-men, (as at the 
 tragic supper of Thyestes), Athenagoras observes, that the pro- 
 pounders of such objections forget the wisdom and the resources 
 of God, who could never be perplexed in distinguishing and 
 separating any parts of different natures. This leads to the 
 question how far the matter of different bodies can and does 
 coalesce and yet retain its own qualities. It is not found to 
 follow, as a matter of course, that all food taken into the 
 stomach nourishes or becomes a portion of the organization; 
 and, even if it were so, it is contended that such a circum- 
 stance need not affect in any essential way the subject of the 
 resurrection. Food* does not change, but only dilates and 
 augments the limbs; the identity of person remains the same; 
 nay, further, its effects are but temporary, or if they continue 
 through life, being of no further use to bodies raised in glory 
 and incorruption, they will doubtless be dispensed with and 
 dropped hereafter. ‘Our adversaries,’ he affirms, ‘ cannot prove 
 that one human body becomes an integral part of another.’ 
 He then proceeds with his argument to demonstrate that as 
 the resurrection of the body is a work possible to God, so it 
 is equally an object of his will. ‘For? if God is unwilling, it 
 must be because the thing is unjust or unbecoming his majesty. 
 But it is evident that nothing can suffer injury by the revival of 
 dead bodies; neither inanimate things, nor brutes, nor our bodies 
 themselves: and it cannot be unbecoming God’s majesty to 
 restore to life and symmetry what he once made, much less 
 to crown it with immortality.’ 
 
 Having thus shewn that God can both will and do, he passes 
 on to confirm the truth of the resurrection positively, by the 
 following reasons. First, from the end and design of the crea- 
 tion of the first man and all his descendants. He argues that 
 God must have had an end in view when he created us; and 
 that end was perpetual life (the basis of all blessings), and the 
 contemplation of his wisdom and power. Secondly, from the 
 nature of man, as an accountable and religious creature. He 
 shews that God gave this life, not to the soul or body separately, 
 but to both together. Their intimate connexion in this world; 
 and the ways they affect one another, the body humbling 
 the soul, and the soul restraining the body, illustrate his, What- 
 
 * De Res. Mort. c. 9. » 1b. ¢. 10. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 47 
 
 ever therefore is morally true of the one is true of the other 
 also. The soul is accountable, so is the body. Thirdly, from 
 the justice of God, which must be manifested in the distri- 
 bution of rewards and punishments. Having proved man to be 
 
 a responsible creature, he now contends that as God is just, the 
 
 righteous sentence will be laid on the true actor, which is the 
 united soul and body. ‘For the soul alone cannot be punished 
 for the sins committed in conjunction with the body, just as the 
 body alone would not be a subject fit for law and justice. A due 
 recompense of good or evil is clearly not received in this life, 
 where the wicked often flourish, while saints suffer. Without a 
 resurrection and a judgment the practice of virtue (so universally 
 recognized) must be stupidity ; and it would especially be impos- 
 sible to punish accumulated guilt, as where a robber or a tyrant 
 commits a succession of murders; a single life being no equiva- 
 lent penalty for so many crimes.’ From such considerations it 
 is argued that justice cannot exert itself with full force in this 
 life, and therefore demands a future judgment, to which end a 
 resurrection of the body will be necessary. ‘In no other way 
 can a just examination of the actions of men take place, and it 
 were impious to suppose that God will not judge justly. Vices 
 and virtues are properties of men as mental and corporeal, and 
 cannot be conceived inherent in the soul separately, since God’s 
 law could not be obeyed by the soul without the body at all.’ 
 An identity of body will also be required. ‘But a soul cannot 
 have the same body except it be raised; and when this comes to 
 pass, man will have the end suitable to which his nature was 
 originally framed. For we may presume that the chief end of a 
 virtuous life and a rational nature is to be through all eternity 
 employed about spiritual objects, and in the contemplation of God.’ 
 
 THEOPHILUS’, follows the steps of Athenagoras in argu- 
 ing that moral accountability implies a judgment, and a judg- 
 ment a resurrection of the flesh, ‘ without which the soul cannot 
 
 be justly tried.” He supposes that the soul could only suffer 
 eternal punishments by the intervention of corpuscular matter. 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX? enquires, with respect to the great 
 conflagration of the world, ‘what man of any sense can doubt 
 that all things which had a beginning may have an end; that 
 
 * Ad Aut. > Octav. c, 33, 
 
48 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 the heavens with all their garniture, as they began, so they may 
 cease to be; for certainly there is nothing so wonderful in this, 
 that he who made, should be able to destroy what he has made?” 
 
 ORIGEN*. ‘What can be more reasonable than the plan 
 our Saviour took to teach men who as a mass, partly through 
 the pressure of earthly cares and occupations, and partly through 
 a natural inclination to a vicious life, cannot apply themselves to 
 the study of philosophy ? The love of God therefore in sending 
 His Son into the world, plainly appears in accommodating things 
 to the circumstances of human life, that so the Gospel might be 
 of more general advantage; and this is none of the least 
 powerful arguments to prove that our blessed Redeemer had a 
 divine commission. We hesitate not to say”, that it is likely 
 God would send messengers to correct us. Of this kind were 
 Moses and the Prophets; but in doing good to men, Jesus far 
 excelled all who have ever visited this earth.’ 
 
 He contends®, that the end of the world and the final judg- 
 ment are both of them doctrines in harmony with the conclusions 
 of reason. 
 
 Speaking® of the authority of the sacred writers, he finds it 
 is ‘founded on reason, inasmuch as their doctrines are beneficial 
 to mankind; for surely no one will dare deny that the spring © 
 of all utility, is to believe in the great God and to regard his 
 pleasure in all things, who is to be our judge both of thought 
 and deed! What can be more rational or salutary ? And what 
 persuasive so efficacious to this end as the assurance of God’s 
 constant inspection ?’ 
 
 With regard to the Resurrection, it is remarked® that ‘the 
 qualities of bodies may be changed, so that what is sown in 
 corruption may be raised in incorruption. Only admit a Pro- 
 vidence over matter, and a power in its Maker to endow it with 
 any quality, and it follows that God can renew our bodies in 
 a more excellent fashion if he will.’ 
 
 Also, ‘ The doctrine of a future punishment,’ is considered‘ 
 ‘as useful as it is true; it has been ever handed down, though 
 obscurely, with the greatest profit to men.’ 
 
 CYPRIAN® holds that Christians are not dependent upon 
 
 ® Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 1. > Jb. Lib. rv, s. 4. © Jb. 8. 9. 
 ° bis, 68. 2 * 1b.8. 57. * Tb. Lib. in. s. 79. & De Idol. Van. c 5- 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 49 
 
 _ temples, like the heathen, because ‘any such place is too narrow 
 to contain God.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUS?, in several consecutive chapters, argues that 
 the soul is not essentially divine; nor, on the other hand, brutish, 
 but of a middle quality, as Plato likewise conceived. The use he 
 makes of this argument or rather elaborate discourse, is to point 
 out the necessity of some revelation for the soul’s guidance to 
 immortality ; and thus by implication, the value of the Christian 
 system, which is just such a Revelation. 
 
 He adds”, ‘Christ taught that the souls of men are not of 
 the essence of God, which is clear, or they would not be suffer- 
 ing and sinning here.’ 
 
 He defends® the lateness of the Incarnation, on the sup- 
 position, that it took place, only when the depravity of men and 
 their inability to help themselves were fully established. 
 
 ARCHELAUS‘S in his dispute with Manes, shews how human 
 responsibility is agreeable to reason, and implies a future judgment. 
 
 LACTANTIUS*® remarks, that ‘God’s mercy, which even 
 the Pagans claim, argues his wrath; for to allow that God can 
 pardon, is to prove that he can punish.’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS? conceives that ‘it is quite proper for us to 
 desire some assistance from the heavenly abodes, some messenger 
 to teach us the way of salvation; for by the soundest argument 
 it can be shewn that nothing is so fit, as for a physician to heal 
 the sick, for a master to condescend to his pupils, for him who 
 is above to be sent below; but not the reverse, there being 
 then no longer the same plea of necessity and use. No reason, 
 therefore, appears why the divine nature, which is so beneficent 
 and providential, should not hold converse with us. Under the 
 condition of natural providence, it benefits our bodies day by 
 day; much more then might it be expected in connexion with 
 a Revelation, for the sake of our immortal souls.’ 
 
 It was impossible, on account of our frailty, for us to ap- 
 proach God; kindly therefore did he send a Mediator to unite 
 us to him®. 
 
 * Adv. Gent. Lib. 11. ¢. 11, et seqq. B Lbs Gs 18: oe TBs C32. 
 ¢ Act. Disp. © De Ira Dei, c, 20. * Adv. Hierocl. c. 6. 
 
 “8 Theoph. Lib 1. c. 5. 
 H. E, £ 
 
50 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 After describing* the degradation of morals into which the 
 heathen had sunk, he shews from a consideration of God’s 
 compassion, that it is likely he would manifest himself in some 
 remedial way to mankind; and then that the Incarnation was an 
 apposite means of communication, as also a wise provision for 
 satiating man’s thirst after something visible. 
 
 AUGUSTINE? conceives that the mystery of redemption is 
 not essentially obscure, but has been revealed in a reasonable, 
 gradual way to the world as it could bear it. 
 
 (6) Arguments from effect to cause. 
 
 ATHENAGORAS®. ‘How can we do otherwise than 
 believe in a God, when we see such convincing proofs of a divine 
 nature in that standing miracle—the world ; in its order and pro- 
 portion, in its beauty and grandeur, in the figure and disposition 
 of all its parts? Could we be blind to the light and deaf to 
 the voice of Nature, we should be deservedly accursed and 
 persecuted.’ 
 
 ‘The disposition® and order of the material world speak the 
 praise of the Almighty architect, God, and not the praise of 
 mere matter. As clay is to the potter, so is all matter subject 
 
 ———S--— 
 
 to his will and operation. It must be confessed that the world | 
 
 is beautiful, and for its size and spherical figure, and the arrange- 
 ment of all its parts, most excellent and wonderful. The ranging 
 of the stars in the Zodiac, and the adjustment of the North Pole 
 are of great service to mankind. But these are no reasons 
 why we should worship this great and glorious system or any 
 part of it; though they are reasons why we should worship 
 their Creator. When any persons petition your majesties, (he 
 writes to the emperors) they turn not aside from you to your 
 palace, from your persons to your buildings. So likewise they 
 
 who dispose of the awards at the public games are not ac- — 
 customed to crown the harp and neglect the musician who — 
 played upon it. How then can we be expected to adore as _ 
 
 Gods, corruptible images made by men like ourselves?’ 
 
 THEOPHILUS®. ‘As the soul of man cannot be seen, | 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. mu. ¢. 85. > De Civit. Dei, Lib. vi. ¢. 82. 
 ° Legat. pro Christianis, c. 4. TT The c. G, 
 © Ad Aut. Lib. 1. ¢, 5. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 51 
 
 but only its effects; so God is only known by his works and 
 _ providence. An earthly king is believed to exist by all his 
 _ subjects though rarely seen by any: he is recognized by his 
 _ power, his laws, his images, And wherefore will you not know 
 God by his works and the effects of his power ?’ 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX® shews how we differ from the beasts 
 that perish mainly ‘in having language and reason to conduct 
 us to the knowledge of God. For what is so clear, whether we 
 look above or around us, as that the divine power inspires, sup- — 
 _ ports, and governs all nature?’ He refers to ‘the constant 
 _ Vicissitudes of day and night, as well adapted for the business 
 and needful repose of man; to the stars which direct the pilot 
 and the husbandman; to that care which interposes and mode- 
 rates the extremes of heat and cold, keeps the ocean within 
 _ bounds, and so charmingly diversifies the surface of the earth 
 with hill and dale, mountains and plains; which has provided 
 every animal with some means of defence ; and, above all, formed 
 man the crowning piece of the whole.’ 
 
 ‘Were we to go into a house,’ he continues®, ‘ the rooms of 
 which were exquisitely proportioned and furnished, we should 
 not doubt that such a house was under the eye of a master, and 
 that he himself was preferable to all the contents. And thus 
 in this palace of a world, when we cast our eyes upon the hea- 
 vens and the earth, and behold the admirable order and economy 
 of things, we have as little reason to question whether there is 
 a Lord of the Universe, or to doubt that he himself is more 
 glorious than the stars, and more to be admired than any of the 
 works of his own hands.’ 
 
 ORIGEN®. ‘If a man with any sort of religion will ac- 
 _ knowledge that the physician who recovers the sick is sent from 
 God, though he cures only bodily infirmities; how much more 
 must we acknowledge our Saviour to have been indeed sent from 
 _the Father, seeing that he has recovered so many thousands 
 from spiritual and more fatal distempers, and has improved the 
 - faculties of their minds and prevailed upon them to trust to the 
 will and care of God.’ 
 Celsus* having reproached the Jews with being simple 
 
 * Octav. c. 17. » Toto. 18; © Cont? Cels. Lib. 1: s. 9.  Tt.& 23. 
 42529 
 
52 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 shepherds, deceived into the doctrine of one God by the arts of | 
 
 Moses, Origen takes the opportunity of asking ironically, con- | 
 cerning the obscure origin of Polytheism. He begs to be in- — 
 
 formed in what the essence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the 
 
 Muses, consisted; and of Themis who brought forth the hours; — 
 
 also the substance of the naked Graces, and of that diversity of 
 
 gods worshipped by the Egyptians. The bare mention of these 
 things sufficing to expose them, he then demands ‘how such ~ 
 empty fictions can deserve to be compared with that one argument, — 
 drawn from the entire harmony of the parts of the spacious — 
 
 universe, in proof of the perfect unity of God. For it is im- — 
 possible in the nature of things that a piece of such divine — 
 
 architecture, all the parts of which are in such admirable agree- 
 ment, and in such manifest and constant subserviency to the ad- 
 vantage of the whole, should be made by many hands’.’ 
 
 ARCHELAUS? argues against ascribing the body of man 
 
 to the creation of the evil spirit, on the ground that the natural — 
 harmony, evident between soul and body, proves them to have — 
 
 had a common author. 
 
 ARNOBIUS?. ‘Scarce any one ever denied the existence 
 
 of God; and if he did, the mute animals, had they the use of — 
 
 speech, the fields, the trees, the stones, would cry out that there 
 is a God—their Creator.’ 
 
 LACTANTIUS*® says, ‘The Creator has given man sense 
 and reason so that he should know him; for the possession of this 
 
 intelligence (which animals want) is alone a witness, within our-_ 
 selves, of his existence. Wherefore I wonder at the folly of the - 
 
 Epicureans, who can see no proof of a Providence constructing 
 
 and ruling the world, but attribute all things to a fortuitous con-— 
 
 course of atoms; even ascribing vice to matter.’ 
 Arguing again® upon Epicurus’ denial of a Providence, he 
 remarks that ‘the voices of all the Philosophers (with this one 
 
 * Palmer, On Development and Conscience, p. 18, says ‘the Fathers em- : 
 
 ployed the argument from the order and harmony of the material universe, 
 not only to establish the existence of a God against Atheists, but also in 
 proof of the unity of God against the Gentiles.’ 
 
 * Act. Disp. » Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. ¢. 9. 
 
 ° De Offic. Dei, c. 2. ¢ E'pitom. c. 1. 
 
 Ee eS Ee ee ae en ee ee ee oe ee 
 
 1 
 f 
 x 
 
 Bs 
 
 vid 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 53 
 
 exception) agree in declaring the world could not have been 
 
 made without an artificer, nor preserved without a ruler. And 
 _ this testimony is confirmed by our own senses. The disposition 
 of the heavens and the earth so wonderfully arranged, so beau- 
 _ tifully adorned, and all for the use of man and other living crea- 
 tures, cannot but prove a present God.’ 
 
 He proposes’, for the sake of infidels, to consider the Incar- 
 nation in the light of probable reason. His first premiss is that 
 whoever professes to teach, ought to do himself what he com- 
 mands; his second, that no one but Christ ever delivered wis- 
 dom by word, and also established it by example; he concludes 
 therefore that Christ is the prince of teachers. And again, he 
 lays down the maxims, that a heavenly messenger would neces- 
 sarily be perfect, and yet have to assume a mortal body; ‘for 
 a teacher of virtue must partake of the same nature with his 
 disciples, that by conquering in his own person, he may shew 
 that sin and error can really be overcome.’ This he applies to 
 the case of the Saviour and thence infers his divine mission. 
 
 EUSEBIUS? argues against the Atheists, that a house can- 
 not be made without contrivance and care, nor a ship without a 
 carpenter, nor a garment without a weaver. ‘ By what estrange- 
 ment of intellect then,’ he asks, ‘is it, that these men do not 
 consider the course of the heavenly bodies, the recurrence of the 
 seasons, the provision of herbs and flowers, and the senses of 
 animal life? How could all this wisdom be the effect of blind 
 chance which acts without object or rule? The Polytheists 
 err on the other extreme, and reduce God down to his works. 
 Surely the worshippers of the elements are no better than those 
 who gave to the palace the praise which is rather due to the 
 architect that built it. They are like children whose admiration 
 is expended upon the lyre and not upon its maker or its master ; 
 
 or like umpires who should neglect the victor in a combat, to 
 -adorn his spear and shield. Who ever thought of gracing the 
 
 body! of a philosopher or his gown with the title of wisdom, 
 much less the common utensils of his house, and not rather the 
 unseen mind within him? ‘Thus let ws wonder at and admire 
 the invisible God, before all his visible universe.’ 
 
 * Div. Instit. Lib. 1v. c. 22, et seqq. > Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 1—4. 
 * Imitated apparently by Theodoret, as also other places of this author. 
 See Grec. Aff. Cur. Ed. Gaisf. p. 183; Prof. Lee’s note in Theophania. 
 
54 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 After repeating’ much of the above, verbatim, he adds, — 
 ‘how could the elements without intelligence, or their common — 
 essence devoid of shape and figure, of life and reason, obtain | 
 
 motion or loveliness? Who is it at the present moment, working 
 ten thousand effects of surpassing wonder, and with an invisible 
 influence, daily and hourly perpetuating the production of them 
 all? No one but the omnipotent Word, the cause of all wonders.’ 
 
 ATHANASIUS®. ‘A workman is known by his works, 
 albeit he is not seen. They relate of Phidias the sculptor that 
 his statues seemed to declare their author, though he might be 
 
 absent, by a certain proportion and harmony of their parts. — 
 
 Just so by the construction of this world, the Mighty Maker and | 
 Designer is revealed, although he is invisible to mortal eyes.’ | 
 
 Romans i. 20, and Acts xiv. 14, are quoted in confirmation. 
 
 An inference is likewise drawn from the union of contra-_ 
 
 rieties, into such harmony and order as we perceive in nature, 
 
 that there must be some superior agency at work. The unity — 
 
 of Deity is also seen reflected in every part as well as in the 
 
 whole of nature. ‘The universe,’ says our author, ‘ publishes — 
 this truth openly. or if there had been many Gods, there — 
 had been likewise many systems which would not have consisted _ 
 together. No ship governed by many pilots can be kept long | 
 in a straight course. One must hold the helm. No harp struck — 
 
 by several hands can send forth perfect harmony. One musician 
 alone is wanted. So when there appears but one order of 
 nature we must suppose there is but one Maker and one 
 Director.’ 
 
 (y) Sentiments of natural Conscience. 
 
 TERTULLIAN® proposes to ‘leave the collation of historical 
 testimonies (a task of great labour, but one by which the perse- 
 cutors of Christianity have been condemned out of their own 
 documents) to others. He prefers not to follow in the beaten 
 track, but to exhibit the testimony of the soul itself, to the 
 divine and eternal matters of religion. To this end the soul of a 
 heathen man is summoned as a conscientious witness, to say 
 
 whence and what it is. It is bidden to speak plainly and faith- © 
 
 fully, though its depositions should go against himself, that the 
 
 * Orat. Const. Vit. » Cont. Gent. c. 35. © Ib. c. 36, 38. 
 2 Tb. c 89. © De Test. Anim. c. 1. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 55 
 
 man may blush at hating and ridiculing doctrines which his own 
 
 - breast cannot but confirm.’ 
 
 Our author commences® by producing the vulgar exclama- 
 tions, ‘Oh God grant! ‘If God will;’ as natural testimonies to 
 the unity of God. He asks how it is that instead of naming any 
 one of the numerous deities, the objects of pagan worship, the 
 soul selects the word ‘ God,’ if it does not thus bear unconscious 
 witness to the truth? In like manner the soul is found evincing 
 its knowledge of the attributes of God, his providence, his power, 
 his goodness, by such expressions as, ‘God is good;’ ‘ God does 
 good, but man is evil;’ and the valediction, ‘God bless thee.’ 
 Tertullian wonders ‘ who taught the souls of the common people 
 these truths also?’ Even some knowledge of the author of evil 
 is discovered” under the execrations which men pronounce against 
 demons. ‘The very name is one of dislike and scorn. Thus 
 we recognise our destroyer as well as our God.’ The acknow- 
 ledgment of a future retribution is next traced° in the terms of 
 spontaneous language, and in our natural dread of death. ‘We 
 say,’ he observes, ‘ of the dead; ‘‘ Poor man;” “he is free from 
 care ;” thus declaring at once the blessing of life and the benefit 
 of death: or when stung by the recollection of some insult, we 
 curse the dead and pray that “the earth may lie heavy upon 
 him ;” or that “ his ashes may be tormented in the shades below;” 
 thus confessing a judgment to come.’ Again, he asks, ‘Why 
 fear death, as we all do, if there be nothing to fear hereafter ? 
 we should have no care for the future if we had no expectation 
 of it.’ He likewise detects a hint of immortality in that ‘innate 
 desire after posthumous fame, than which there is no stronger 
 sentiment in the human breast.’ 
 
 These testimonies are confessed“ to be simple and trite, but 
 yet ‘not unworthy of notice, if we consider the majesty of Nature, 
 whence the authority of the soul is derived. Whatever we must 
 allow to the mistress, we must assign to the disciple: nature is 
 the mistress; the soul is her pupil: whatever has been taught 
 by the one has been learned by the other; and both have re- 
 ceived from God who is the master of the mistress herself. 
 What notion the soul is able to conceive of its first and great 
 teacher we may gather from the soul that is within us. Its 
 forebodings are our prophets, its omens our auguries; and even 
 
 * De Test. Anim. c. 2. me Jie Gace @ ibs ea 4: 8 Th. c: 5s 
 
56 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 though encompassed about by its enemy (a heathen body) it re- 
 members its author, his goodness, and his law, its own end, and - 
 its infernal adversary. Nor is it strange that being given by 
 God, it should teach those self-same truths that God has since 
 
 renewed more clearly to his people.’ ‘These exclamations,’ he adds, 
 
 ‘were in use long before books, or even letters had appeared ; 
 
 always excepting those of the sacred Scriptures, where indeed 
 
 the ideas they express are to be found; but as these precede 
 
 secular writings by a long period, we must needs believe that 
 
 if the soul has taken its declarations from books, it has taken — 
 them from ours and not from those of the heathen; and then 
 
 it matters little whether this consciousness of what is right ema- 
 
 nates from God or from the writings of God.’ 
 
 In conclusion’, he begs the unbeliever to weigh this matter 
 well, and give credit to his own soul. ‘Let him observe,’ he 
 Says, ‘agreement of doctrine even amidst inconsistent conduct; 
 ahd that, too, not in Greece or Rome alone, but in every age 
 and country. These are expressions belonging to all languages 
 and nations. “ God” is everywhere, and “the goodness of God” is 
 everywhere; “the demon” is everywhere, and “the curse upon 
 the demon” is everywhere; death is everywhere, and so is the | 
 * consciousness of death and the witness thereof. Each soul of its — 
 own accord proclaims aloud these truths, which Christians are 
 not permitted even to whisper. Thus every soul may be called 
 both a culprit and a witness; a culprit as to error, a witness _ 
 as to truth. And in the day of judgment it shall stand before 
 the bar of God, having nothing to say to the charge; “ Thou 
 didst preach God and didst not seek him; thou didst detest 
 demons, and yet didst worship them; thou didst appeal to the 
 judgment of God, whilst thou didst not believe in his being ; 
 thou didst anticipate punishment in a world below, but didst take 
 no heed against it: thou didst savour of the name of Christ, and 
 yet didst persecute Christians.” ’ 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX?. <The world is on our side in the 
 acknowledgment of one God. I hear the people when they lift up | 
 their hands to heaven say nothing, but, “ The God;” “The great _ 
 God ;” “The true God;” “If it should please God;” these ex- | 
 pressions of the vulgar are the voice of nature. Even they who 
 
 * De Test. Anim. c. 6. » Octav. c. 18. 
 
~ 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 57 
 
 make Jove supreme, mistake indeed in the name, but agree in 
 the thing, the one notion of an Almighty God.’ 
 
 ORIGEN* ‘It is evident that men in general perceive 
 some difference between good and evil, or they would not punish 
 crimes, as they constantly do. Nor need it surprise us that God 
 should plant in the minds of men those natural principles which 
 the prophets, and especially Jesus, continually urged, so that 
 every one might be without excuse.’ 
 
 Our author attributes? the rapid spread of the Gospel, at 
 least in part, to the harmony its doctrines preserve with the 
 sentiments of natural conscience. ‘ Wherefore,’ he says, ‘the 
 soul, partaker of reason, reflecting upon nature which is akin to 
 herself, now begins universally to reject those whom she hitherto 
 accounted gods, and conceives a sort of natural love for the 
 Creator.’ 
 
 CYPRIAN®*. ‘Our common people in many cases acknow- 
 ledge the unity of God. Their souls often spontaneously re- 
 minding them of their original. Thus you may hear them 
 speaking in the singular number, “ Oh God;” “God sees it ;” 
 “TI commend you to God;” “God will make amends,” &c. So 
 that the great fault of the Gentiles consists in this, that they 
 will not confess what they cannot but know.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUS*. ‘Do not our thoughts seem naturally to 
 rest upon God when we say, ‘“‘O God,” or call him to witness, 
 or raise our faces to heaven? Does not a suspicion of the truth 
 sometimes strike you as to the unity of the great God?’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS,, speaking of the excellent nature of man’s soul, 
 and having observed how Anaxarchus recognized its immortality 
 when he said to his tormentors, ‘Bruise my form; me you can- 
 not bruise;’ and having accounted for our attachment to this 
 life, by the analogy of a child weeping when it leaves the womb 
 
 and first comes into the light; he suggests whether it is not 
 
 ‘reasonable that such a perfectable mind, being released from a 
 corrupt body, should come forth with the dignity and stature 
 of angels.’ 
 
 2 Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. 8. 2. b. To. Lib. 111. 83,40. © De Idol. Van. c 5. 
 * Adv. Gent. Lib. 1 ¢. 2. © Theoph, Lib. 1. ¢. 63. 
 
58 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 He reads? intimations of the soul’s high birth in those capa- 
 cities for lofty thought; those mortifications of bodily members, 
 and restraints of desires; those attempts at obeying the precepts 
 of wisdom, and hopes of deliverance from all that is vile; those 
 advances in the way to heaven, which make the prospect of 
 death and the anticipation of meeting all who have gone before 
 us increasingly delightful. Whence he concludes that from the 
 case of the soul itself, reason with probability indicates that we 
 shall partake of a superior, an angelic immortality. 
 
 AUGUSTINE? shews, in contending for the existence of 
 good and bad angels, that even the Pagans believe in the latter, 
 saying, when they would speak evil of any one, ‘He has a 
 demon.’ 
 
 Secetion III. 
 
 THE EXAMPLE OF HEATHEN IDEAS. 
 
 N making use of the argumentum ad hominem against the 
 Pagan or the Jew, the Fathers not only followed up a na- 
 tural advantage that presented itself to their hand, but also the 
 pattern of an apostle on more than one occasion. This precedent 
 is alleged by Clemens Alex. (Strom. Lib. 1. Art. 3). Defending 
 his appeal to heathen philosophers, he quotes St Paul’s reference 
 (in Titus) to Epimenides of Crete, named as one of the seven 
 wise men of Greece. ‘‘ This is true,” said the Apostle. Thus 
 you see how he allowed something of truth to the prophet! of 
 the Greeks. Nor did he blush, for edification and for dis- 
 coursing to the conversion of others, to use the Greek poems 
 also. Addressing the Corinthians “on the Resurrection,” he brings 
 forward a Greek Iambic: “ Oetpovow Oy eno” omdia Ka- 
 kat’.”’ Also by Origen, who in one of his homilies says: ‘St 
 Paul allows the Greeks to have held true opinions, for in the 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. 1. ¢. 75. > De Civit. Dei, Lib. 1x. c. 19. 
 
 * That Epimenides was more than a poet, see Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. v1. 
 Art. 1, where he is described as offering or recommending sacrifices for the 
 purpose of preventing a Persian invasion of Greece. 
 
 * So also Eusebius and Jerome. It is a question whether Menander or 
 Euripides is quoted here. 1 Cor, xy. 33. 
 
 i 
 a 
 ‘ 
 / 
 , 
 A) 
 F 
 * 
 ‘4 
 Nt 
 Hi 
 i 
 ye 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 59 
 
 Acts it is clear he uses a poetical extract from Aratus Pheno- 
 menes, by which he approves what the Greeks have spoken 
 rightly. 
 
 True it is, such reasoning is adapted for defence rather 
 than conviction, but still it does serve to take off a strange- 
 ness sometimes attaching to a new doctrine, and introduce it 
 with less prejudice, to its enemies. Having appealed to the 
 testimony of nature and of individual conscience, the only other 
 tribunal, at once manifest to all and apart from Revelation, is 
 the common consent of mankind. This forms the ground of the 
 present section, and differs from the last principally in being col- 
 lective. It supposes that in spite of all the apparent discord 
 and instability of human opinions, and in spite of all the errors 
 mixed up with them, there are, (it matters not how they came) 
 and appear always to have been, certain prominent dogmas 
 which resemble those of Christianity sufficiently for the purpose. 
 The adumbration might be faint, but there it was, and none of 
 the Christians making either. It is argued, therefore, that if one 
 set of opinions is admitted, the other cannot be refused: they 
 must be accounted orthodox, if not divine. ‘Give us now,’ Says 
 Justin, ‘ but the same degree of credit you yield to your writers, 
 and we will satisfy you of the Resurrection.’ 
 
 To make out the exact force of this method of reasoning in 
 a country professedly Christian, would not be in place here; but 
 that the ancient opponents of the faith did feel the sharpness 
 of this arrow feathered from their own wing, is manifest in the 
 attempts they made to elude it by charging Christianity with 
 plagiarisms from the classics, as we shall find in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 The examples of heathen ideas brought forward by the 
 Apologists embrace correspondences with certain points of Chris- 
 tian belief; as, the being and attributes of God,—+the fall of 
 man,—the flood,—theories of prophecy, mysteries and medi- 
 ation,—the Sonship of Christ,—his acts,—the common duties 
 of religion,—references to the end of the world, the fact of a 
 future state, &c. I need give but a few out of a multitude of 
 instances under this head. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR* observes, that Socrates, one of the 
 best heathen philosophers, at the suggestion of right reason, 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 5. 
 
60 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT. PROBABILITY. 
 endeavoured to bring the truth to light, and to lead men away 
 from the worship of devils. 
 
 He quotes* Plato, declaring that Rhadamanthus and Minos 
 will punish the wicked who shall come to them. ‘The event’ 
 he adds, ‘of which we Christians speak is the same, but we say 
 it will be accomplished by Christ, and that both our bodies and 
 souls wnited will be punished with the eternal torments, and not 
 for a thousand years only. He shews” how the heathen credit 
 the resurrection unwittingly, ‘ whenever they deal in necromancy 
 and divination, or applaud such stories as the descent of 
 Ulysses.’ 
 
 ‘Whilst the Sibyl® and Hystaspes assert there is to be a 
 destruction of corruptible things by fire, (as the Stoics say to 
 be renewed again) Plato taught‘, that all things were made by 
 God; many of the poets, that there is also a heaven and a hell: 
 and Menander, that men ought not to worship idols. And when 
 we affirm that Christ is the Son of God, and that he died and 
 rose again; in what respect do we differ from you who believe in 
 the sons of Jove: as for example®, Mercury, the messenger from 
 
 God, Perseus born of a virgin, and Hercules who burned him- 
 
 self to death ?’ 
 
 In his address’ to the Roman Senate, the Pagans are re- 
 minded that Noah is their Deucalion; and that they themselves 
 ought to be looking beyond this life, since even Xenophon figured 
 vice and virtue, the former full of joy and honour here, the latter 
 clothed in a mean vesture, to be eternally glorious hereafter®. 
 
 He illustrates" from Homer, the common opinion among the 
 heathen, that all things were possible to the Gods. 
 
 TATIAN*, ‘Admit our doctrines at least as you do the 
 divinations of the Babylonians: listen to us at least as you do 
 to the oracular oaks.’ | 
 
 ATHENAGORAS*, ‘Your own poets and philosophers were 
 never charged with Atheism, though they believe in one God. 
 Kuripides confesses his doubts as to the gods of the vulgar: yea, 
 he owns that God can only be spiritually conceived of, and any 
 knowledge of him arrived at by the contemplation of his ‘works 
 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 8. boTb: 6, & La fs cH A 4 Tb. c. 28. 
 ' © Tb.c. 30. * Apol. 1. ¢. 7. & Ib. c. 11. 
 » De Res. c. 7. ' Orat. ad Gree. ¢. 12. * Legat. c. 4. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 61 
 
 alone. Sophocles was of the same opinion.’ Other confessions* 
 are cited from Philolaus, Aristotle, and the Stoics; and Plato? 
 and Pythagoras adduced to prove that it is not impossible for 
 these bodies after a dissolution, to be formed again on the same 
 principles they were at first made. 
 
 THEOPHILUS®. ‘Many of the poets have foretold, being 
 guided perhaps by some oracle, that those who do wickedly 
 must be punished, thus bearing witness against themselves, and 
 such as are like them.’ He quotes to this effect Auschylus, Pindar, 
 Euripides, Archilochus, Dionysius, Simonides, and Sophocles. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXAN.‘ urges upon the Greeks, that as 
 they have given credit to various fables respecting the power 
 of music, believing that Amphion built the walls of Thebes by 
 the aid of his magical lyre, and that Orpheus tamed wild beasts 
 by the sweetness of his song; thus so long neglecting the fair 
 face of truth, and following after troops of raging Bacchantes 
 with the whole chorus of Gods inhabiting Cithzron and Helicon; 
 so they should now raise their eyes to the sacred mount of God, 
 and the holy choir of prophets, even the heavenly Sion. ‘ There 
 is music, not indeed according to the measure of Terpander, but 
 according to the eternal measure of a new harmony, of the new 
 name of God. It is this name alone that has truly tamed those 
 wild beasts, men; that has truly of these stones raised up 
 children unto Abraham: so that the very dead have revived at 
 the sound of the voice of him who created them at the first.’ 
 
 TERTULLIAN®. ‘Your own philosophers coincide with 
 ours in ascribing the creation of the world to the Logos, that is, 
 to the Word or Reason. Zeno called him Fate, God, the mind 
 
 _ of the universe: Cleanthes ascribes to him the spirit that pervades 
 
 all things.’ Our author further remarks that the heathen ought 
 not to find any difficulty in receiving the Incarnation, since it 
 resembles some of their own fables; nor the Jews either, who are 
 daily looking for a Messiah. ‘ Besides,’ he adds, ‘the Jews and 
 the Greeks both have their systems of mediation, the one through 
 Moses, the other through Orpheus, Muszeus, Melampus, or Tro- 
 phonius; while you, Romans, have submitted to the oppressive 
 
 * Legat. c. 6. BO TGRE OF: © Ad Aut. Lib. u. ¢. 37. 
 * Hort. ad Grec. c. 1. © Apol. & 21. 
 
62 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 superstitions of Pompilius Numa. Surely, then, Christ may be 
 permitted to set forth that divinity which properly belongs to him.’ 
 
 He thinks* that those who believe in the transmigration of 
 souls into other bodies, cannot consistently deny the possibility . 
 of their being recalled into the same bodies at the Resurrection. 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX”. ‘The poets plead for one Intelli- 
 gence, and the philosophers agree with us in the doctrine of one 
 God. So that either the Christians now are philosophers, or the 
 philosophers of old were Christians (thus far).’ 
 
 ‘The Stoics’, the Platonists, the Epicureans, have supposed a 
 fiery conflagration of this world. Thus you see your sages 
 philosophize just as we do. Further“ correspondence is dis- 
 covered in the testimony concerning ‘the burning river, the 
 Stygian lake, and the manifold fence of fire about it, prepared 
 for eternal torments; and the heathen are reminded that the 
 most tremendous oath Jove can take, is to swear by the boiling 
 banks and horrid gulf of darkness. So that none but atheists 
 can doubt whether those are to be punished as unjust and 
 impious, who know not God.’ 
 
 ORIGEN® quotes Heraclytus, saying, ‘They who pay 
 divine honours to inanimate creatures, do just as if they addressed 
 and invoked the walls; an opinion,’ he adds, ‘ yet publicly held 
 both by Greeks and barbarians.’ As to mysteries, he asks’, 
 what system of philosophy is without them? and refers® those 
 of the Greeks who object to the miraculous conception of Jesus, 
 to their own histories. Out of these he reminds them how Plato 
 was said to have been born of Amphictione by a spectre, and 
 also of the fabulous accounts of Danae, Menalippus, Auge, and 
 Antiope'. He then retorts upon Celsus, and asks how the first 
 man was produced ; and against his probable reply, that he was 
 made by the spermatic virtue of the earth, contends that such a 
 birth would be more extraordinary than that of our Saviour. 
 
 After calling upon the heathen” to give credit to the evan- 
 gelistic narratives of the dove and voice at our Lord’s baptism, 
 as they would to their own oracles and miracles, he insists upon 
 the Jew, at any rate, believing them, as they believe similar 
 
 * Apol. c. 48. > Octav. ¢. 19. * 116. €, 30: WTbre os, 
 
 © Cont. Cels. Lib. 1.8. 5. { TbF5 7: S 1b. B37: 
 1 See also Lib. vy. s. 2. ge Ne LY Le 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 63 
 
 incidents in the Old Testament. The same line of argument 
 occurs Lib. u. sect. 53, 57, 75. 
 
 Again*, ‘ because infidels endeavour to expose the doctrine 
 of Christ’s resurrection to profane contempt (on account of its 
 wonderful character), I shall take occasion here to mention what 
 Plato says of Er, the son of Armenius, who at the end of twelve 
 days arose from his tomb, and related several remarkable trans- 
 actions that had passed to his certain knowledge in the world of 
 spirits; I might also mention the story (not a little to my pur- 
 pose) which Heraclytus gives of a woman who returned to life; 
 and many other cases which could be produced from the history 
 of persons who have appeared the day after their decease.’ 
 
 Pythagoras and Plato are adduced” as believing in the ascent 
 of virtuous souls to heaven, or some place beyond the skies, 
 there to enjoy the society of the blessed. The latter author 
 appears® to say, in his T'imeus, that the earth is to be purged 
 by fire and water. He has something too‘ not unlike the Mosaic 
 account of ‘the Fall,’ in the Symposio de Cupidine, under the 
 story of Porus, with the garden of Jove and the allurements of 
 Penia. 
 
 He further® silences Celsus, repudiating the miraculous inci- 
 dents of Sacred Writ, with the incredible reports of Plato’s third 
 eye, with the swan and demon of Socrates, and with the stories 
 related by Pythagoras of himself; adding ‘The Greeks looked 
 for such things in their divine men.’ 
 
 Finally*, he argues, that ‘if Jesus died a miserable death, so 
 did Socrates and Anaxarchus; and as a palliation for Christian 
 pertinacity in refusing to bow the knee to any but Jesus, he 
 instances the case of the Lacedemonian legates, who could not be 
 induced, even by violence, to adore the Persian monarch, plead- 
 ing that ‘the law of Lycurgus was their only Lord.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUSS meets the objectors to the humanity of Christ 
 in their own way, by hinting at a list of minor gods among the 
 heathen who were carried in the womb. Other objections” to 
 the Cross are turned aside by allusions to ‘ Pythagoras slain in 
 the temple of the muses, to Socrates poisoned in prison, and to 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 16. > 7b. Lib. m1. s. 80, 81. 
 2976. Lib. tv; s..20. SOTA S837: © Tb. Lib. v1. s. 8. 
 * Tb. Lib. vu. s. 56; vu. s. 6. 8 Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. ¢. 12. 
 
 Brette ey. 14: 
 
64 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 many others, who though famous for their virtues, have never-— 
 theless died the most painful deaths; as Aquilius, Tribonius, 
 Regulus; or to mention deities (since we are charged with wor- 
 shipping this man) Liberius (torn in pieces by the Titans), Auscu- 
 lapius, Hercules, and Romulus himself.’ : 
 
 On the further difficulty * arising out of the death of Christ, 
 notwithstanding his divine nature, our author asks the Greeks 
 ‘whether when the Sibyl was slain by robbers, Apollo was slain 
 in her?’ 
 
 ‘How,’ he continues”, ‘can you who pretend to admire the 
 precepts of your philosophers and teachers, blame our Jesus for 
 uttering the same things? You ridicule us because we reverence — 
 and worship God, forgetting that Plato in his Theetetus con- 
 fesses that God is the most powerful of names, and also hints 
 at a resurrection in the Politico; while in a treatise, “on the 
 immortality of the soul,” he more than hints at the fires of Gehenna, 
 in those rivers where the lost are rolled along and consumed.’ 
 
 ‘If Christianity° is to be blamed for introducing new cus- 
 toms,’ he suggests whether ‘ our ancestors who first exchanged 
 their skins for woven fabrics, and gave up caves for houses; or 
 yet more to the purpose, they who introduced the worship of 
 Hercules into Italy long after Saturn had been worshipped there 
 are not obnoxious to the same charge ?’ 
 
 LACTANTIUS® says, ‘ Because the prophets have spoken 
 of the wrath of God, this is sufficient testimony for us; but 
 since some will not credit them, we will appeal to witnesses 
 whom our opponents cannot refuse to hear. Many great writers 
 have handed down the opinion that God is angry with the — 
 wicked. Among the Greeks Aristo and Apollodorus, and among — 
 the Latins Varro and Fenestella.’ He likewise adduces the 
 Krythrzan and other oracles to the same effect. Passing® over 
 the witness of the prophets once more’, he proposes to consider 
 the testimony of the poets and philosophers as to the unity of 
 God’. ‘From these witnesses,’ he says, ‘usually invoked 
 against us, we can prove there is but one God. Not that these Pe 
 
 * Adv. Gent. c. 24. » 1b. Lib. n. ©. 8. ° Tb. c, 28. 
 * De ira Dei, c. 22. * Epitom. c. 8. 
 * This is given in full in Div. Instit. Lib. 1. c. 4. 
 
 * A subject previously pursued at length in Justin Martyr's De Monar- 
 chia. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY, 65 
 
 ancients had any knowledge of the truth, but that the truth 
 forced itself upon them, and shone so brightly in their eyes, 
 _ that they had been blind not to see it.’ Of the poets*, Orpheus, 
 Ovid, Virgil; of the philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, Antisthenes, 
 _ Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximenes, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Zeno, 
 _ with the Roman Seneca and Cicero; of the heathen prophets?, 
 - Hermes Trismegistus, and the Sibyls, are brought in affirmation ; 
 some of them® being further called upon to testify to the for- 
 mation of the world and to there being a spirit, the Son of the 
 great God, endowed with Creative Power. 
 
 In conclusion, he quotes Plato on the immortality of the soul, 
 and agrees with him in inferring this grand doctrine from the 
 constant mobility of mind; from the power it has of grasping 
 the past, the present, and the future; from its incorporeity; from 
 _its sense of justice and knowledge of God, by which men are 
 _ raised above the brutes; and lastly, from the circumstance that 
 
 man is the only creature that makes use of the arts and fire, 
 ‘that celestial element.’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS® asks, ‘why if the oracles of the heathen, as 
 Stated by Porphyry, have acknowledged the propriety of wor- 
 shipping one God, Jesus alone should be called a deceiver, be- 
 cause he commends the practice of this virtue to all mankind ? 
 
 ‘Some of the famous philosophers® also taught that the 
 heavens and the earth were made by God, that the soul was 
 immortal, and admonished men of a final judgment at which 
 rewards and punishments are to be distributed.’ 
 
 From like sources he gathers‘ that ‘there have been in 
 every country of the world, oracles and places of prophecy. 
 “The care of the Almighty,” say our enemies, “has accorded 
 them for the use and accommodation of man ;” the only question 
 then between us is, how to distinguish those of the heathen from 
 our own.’ 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZENS, tells the apostate Julian, that 
 whilst he despises Christian history, he admits things equally 
 extraordinary in Classic history. 
 
 * Epitom. c. 4. » Tbe. 5. © Lbs cx 42,70. 
 * Theoph. Lib. v. c. 8, 4. & 10s C1644: 
 * Demonst. Evang. Lib. v. pref. & Orat. IV. adv. Jul. s. 7. 
 
 He EB: 3 
 
66 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 AUGUSTINE*. ‘Will any one deny miracles? He that — 
 does so in order to injure the authority of Scripture, may as 
 well say at once that the gods have no regard to men ; for 
 they had no way of insuring their own worship but by miracles, { 
 in which the Pagan stories shew how far they had the power — 
 to prove themselves more wonderful than useful. But if the : 
 believers in Polytheism give credence to their histories and — 
 magical (or to please them) theurgical books, why should the ~ 
 Scriptures be rejected because of the miracles they recount, — 
 which are as far beyond all others, as He whom our books — 
 teach us to adore, is above all other gods? i 
 
 ‘Even Porphyry,’ it is remarked”, ‘thought that God’s Pro- — 
 vidence would not leave mankind without a way of deliverance — 
 for the soul. He does not say there is no such, but that so 
 great and good a Revelation is not yet made to us or to him.’ 
 
 Section IY. 
 
 ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS:*. 
 
 ONSIDERING the loose style of the fathers, and the want 
 
 of systematic arrangement in their writings, we are not sur- — 
 prised to meet with a quantity of material among them, which ~ 
 is hard to classify, and yet which being interesting in itself, — 
 and distinctly meant (as is evident from its interposition with — 
 direct arguments) for the purpose of clearing away the preju- — 
 dices of the ignorant or sagacious, I have not thought it right — 
 to pass entirely by. Origen and Arnobius are particularly full - 
 
 of this kind of apologetic matter. We have only room for a few | 
 specimens. bg 
 
 THE AUTHOR OF EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS? ex- 
 plains away the objection to the Christian religion raised on the 
 ground of novelty, by the sensible and perhaps correct reason, 
 that God would have it made fully manifest that we could not 
 save ourselves, or by our own ability attain the kingdom of God. — 
 
 * De Civit. Dei, Lib. x. ¢. 18. " 1b. c. 82, q 
 ° Explanation. “ Ep. ad Diog. c. 9. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY, 67 
 
 ‘This being established by the lapse of time, he shewed us a 
 Saviour who obseryed those Jaws for us which we could not 
 observe.’ 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR*. It was urged against the truth of 
 prophecy, that a fatal necessity brought about the event; our 
 - author explains that there is no such thing as fate. The variety 
 in the world, of good and bad, and the unequal conduct of the 
 same individual at different times, cannot be consonant with 
 . such a doctrine; for in that case, fate would be at variance with 
 itself, or else we must give up all distinction between vice and 
 virtue, which it would be impious as well as absurd to suppose. 
 
 TERTULLIAN? points out how many public calamities like 
 those for which Christianity was reproached in his time, had 
 happened to the empire and city of Rome long before the reign 
 of Tiberius. He alludes to the flood mentioned by Plato, to 
 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and to their later 
 representatives, Volsinium and Pompeii. 
 
 In reply° to the insinuation, that God permits his own 
 people to be injured with the wicked, it is shewn that trouble js 
 salutary and needful both as an admonition and punishment; that 
 it does not really injure Christians, because they have no further 
 concern with this world than how they may quickly depart from 
 it: and lastly, that they rejoice in the fulfilment of whatso- 
 ever has been divinely predicted, even though they themselves 
 may be temporarily involved therein. 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX“ Octavius defends Christians against 
 the implication of Cacilius that they were plebeian, saying, ‘ They 
 _ were not a poorer or more despised people than those who haye 
 ever made and delivered rules of wisdom to posterity. It is not 
 the genius of the speaker, but the truth of what he utters, that 
 men should attend to: indeed the plainer the discourse, the more 
 visible is the truth it contains, being divested of all meretricious 
 graces.’ 
 
 ORIGEN® rejoins to Celsus questioning the legality of the 
 Christian love-feasts, that truth is to be preferred to bad laws ; 
 for as the inhabitants of a city might fairly defend themselves 
 
 * Anol. 1. c¢. 54. > Apol. c. 40. © Jb.c. 42. 
 * Octav. c. 16. * Cont. Cels. Lib, 1.s. 1. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 against a prince who unjustly invades their country, so Christians 
 may warrantably violate the laws of Satan, that great usurper, 
 
 to free themselves and others from his worse than Scythian © 
 
 tyranny. 
 
 Being taunted* with the text, ‘the wisdom of this world is 
 foolishness with God,’ as though Christians despised learning, he 
 answers, ‘By the wisdom of the world I understand that vain 
 philosophy, in a comparative sense, which the Scripture ‘does so 
 justly, so frequently, and so severely condemn. When a person 
 becomes a fool in the estimation of this vain and degenerate 
 world, well it is with him: a most-useful thihg is folly of 
 that limited kind. For the world that ought to have known 
 God, has forgotten him; and he, in his infinite wisdom, has there- 
 fore been pleased to save the world by the preaching of a 
 doctrine esteemed foolish.’ 
 
 He argues”, that it is no fault of Christianity that the Jews 
 do not embrace it, from the well-known difficulty there is in 
 resigning bad habits rooted in our nature, or opinions in which 
 we have been brought up. We all feel a reluctance to quit 
 only a familiar scene, much more to give up a national religion. 
 You may talk to an Egyptian till breath fails, without inducing 
 him to relinquish his superstitions. The case of the Jews is yet 
 more inveterate. | 
 
 He suspects® that our Saviour taught the Jews in parables, 
 that the kingdom of God should be taken away from them on 
 account of their wickedness, and given to others, as a less 
 aggravating form of communicating such unwelcome news. 
 
 To soften Celsus’ surprise’ because Christ did not at once 
 avenge himself upon the Jews, Origen remarks that the Greeks 
 find ‘much the same difficulty in the fact of the Deity not — 
 punishing the insults offered him by the fatalists. This was a | 
 
 sly stroke at his Epicurean antagonist. 
 
 Celsus® wonders that Christ did not vanish from the Cross : ] 
 our author explains that such a procedure would have vitiated 
 
 the design of his mission. 
 
 = 4 i e © e e 
 Origen’ again suggests the inconvenience and confusion which — 
 must necessarily follow from every nation having its own gods: — 
 
 ‘What could strangers do?’ 
 
 On Celsus charging Jesus® with robbing Plato of the text, — 
 ® Cont. Cels. Lib.1.8.12. » 1b.8.52. °° Ib. Lib. 1.8.5.» 9 7b.8.35m 
 
 © Jb. 8. 58. f Ib. Lib. v. 8, 88. g 1b. fib. s. 16. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY, 69 
 
 ‘How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom 
 of Heaven,’ he contends, first, that the ‘resemblance between the 
 rival passages is not so considerable; Plato’s running thus, “It 
 is impossible for a very rich man to be a very good man;” and, 
 secondly, that it is exceedingly improbable that the son of a poor 
 carpenter, as Jesus was, knowing neither the Greek nor Hebrew 
 letters, should have studied Plato.’ 
 
 He supposes* the reason for the subversion of P. coism 
 was, that the Hebrews would never have been a settled people 
 again: politically, they could not submit their theocracy to a 
 foreign yoke; or religiously, their ancient dispensations to evan- 
 gelical rules, 
 
 Finally”, he defends the simplicity of the sacred writings, on 
 the score that they are meant for food and not for display ; for 
 all mankind, not for a few accomplished individuals. It is 
 remarked, however, that there is a deep meaning and beauty in 
 them, to be attained by reflection. 
 
 . 
 
 ARNOBIUS,, after having shewn that Christians cannot be 
 accountable for calamities, since they have happened in the 
 earliest ages of the world, inquires® into the nature of physical 
 evil, and questions whether it is not the result of the general 
 benevolence of the Deity. He supports this opinion from Plato. 
 
 To the reproach® of barbarisms detected by the Greeks and 
 Romans, in the Sacred Writings, he replies that the object of 
 the Scriptures was not to amuse, but to edify ; and moreover 
 contends vigorously against any lex scripta, or limitation of 
 arbitrary forms of speech. He asks the hyper-critic by what 
 original propriety paries should be masculine and sella femi- 
 nine? He further produces words with two genders, as celus 
 and celum; hoc pane and hic panis; hic sanguis, hoc san- 
 guen ; which he shews to be absurd in the nature of things. 
 Thus he. thinks the most polite of scholars commit the very 
 solecisms which they complain of, and that too, notwithstanding 
 all their study and all their grammarians. 
 
 The heathen having cavilled’ that Christ’s promises of the 
 future are not demonstrable, Arnobius allows it; but main- 
 tains upon the whole, and taking a fair view of the matter, 
 that it is more rational to believe in Jesus, even though his 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. vu. s. 20. b Tb. 3s. 49. © Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. ¢. 1. 
 a (i aA ST LCase © foe Libatt, ¢. &: 
 
70 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTECEDENT PROBABILITY. 
 
 promises should fail, than in those who can promise nothing at 
 
 all. For if Christianity should prove true, by not believing it 
 we incur the loss of salvation, the greatest of all losses. 
 
 EUSEBIUS® observes, that the synchronism of the esta- 
 blishment of peace throughout the world by means of the 
 Roman arms, with the advent of our blessed Lord, the Prince 
 of Peace, is a great marvel to those who reflect upon it. | 
 
 He accounts” for some obscurity in the Prophets by sup- 
 posing that a veil was purposely cast over certain passages, in 
 order to conceal the predictions concerning the ruin of the Jews, 
 
 lest that people should have destroyed even their own writings, — 
 
 or attempted in some way to have prevented the accomplish- 
 ment of prophecy. ‘History,’ he says, ‘ as it is, gives us inti- 
 mations of such attempts.’ 
 
 AUGUSTINE* argues that of invisible matters, such as the 
 creation of the world, man’s creation, and the like, which no 
 human being could possibly have witnessed, none but God can 
 inform us; and therefore infers that ‘since the prophets profess 
 to furnish us with a divine account, which profession was accom- 
 panied by consistent and holy lives, we are bound to give them 
 credit.’ 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. 11. ¢. 2. > Dem. Evan, Lib. v1. pref. 
 © De Civit. Dei, Lib. x1. ¢. 3, 4. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask Jor the old paths. 
 Jer. VI, 16. 
 
 a. are three points to be observed in estimating the 
 | proofs arranged under this chapter: the claim of the 
 Fathers to the books of the Old Testament; the sense in which 
 they appealed to antiquity; and the use they made of the argu- 
 ment. 
 
 The first need not detain us long. None can now doxbt but 
 that the Fathers laid a fair claim to the books, ard so to the 
 _ authority in question. Various sayings of our blessed Lord and 
 his Apostles, with the entire succession of Christianity to Judaism 
 as a matter of fact, and the further thought that this argument, 
 itself so popular with the Apologists, was never disallowed}, will 
 render any lengthened demonstration unnecessary. The right, 
 even if it be not asserted in some cases, is clearly implied in all. 
 I shall therefore produce an authority or two at once. Origen 
 _ asks*, ‘Why should we think it strange that the Gospel is founded 
 
 upon the law of Moses, when our Saviour, addressing those who , 
 refused to believe in him, said, “If ye believe Moses, believe me 
 also ; for he wrote of me;” and when Mark the Evangelist opens 
 his history, as if intimating to us that the Gospel is based on the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament itself?’ And he elsewhere 
 reminds us that ‘ Celsus® thought he could not more effectually 
 overthrow Christianity, than by his assaults upon the Jewish 
 _ System, on which the doctrine of our Saviour is acknowledged to 
 be built.” Again, Archelaus, bishop of Kaskar, grounds his com- 
 -plaint against the Manichaan heresy upon its attempt to dis- 
 —sociate the two Testaments, by attributing them and the insti- 
 tutions they represent, to different authors. Lactantius® also says, 
 _*The Jews use the Old Testament, we use the New; but still 
 
 . 1 Chrysostom names both Celsus and Porphyry as witnessing tc thc 
 antiquity of our writings—Hom. VI. ep. to Cor. 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. b 7b. Lib. 1..s, 22. 
 * Div. Instit. Lib. xtv. ¢. 20. 
 
72 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 e | 
 the two are not diverse, for the New is the completion of the 
 Old, Christ being the common testator.’ Lastly, Eusebius and 
 Augustine, as others before them, in explaining why they adopt 
 the books of the Jews but refuse their ceremonies, insist that 
 the Prophets belong to Christians because they wrote concerning 
 them; ‘in truth, rather against the Jews and in favour of the 
 Gentiles. Nothing can explain more clearly than these state- 
 ments and reasonings do, the claims which the early Fathers 
 ’ laid to the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 
 Having thus appropriated the material to their use, and. 
 ranged themselves in the line of spiritual Judaism, the next 
 
 step was to prove the antiquity of the common religion. And in | 
 
 doing this the Fathers have exhibited that spirit of fair and 
 fearless discussion, which is of itself a mark of sincerity. They 
 
 have appealed (1) to profane authors, as far back as they extend ; 
 
 and upon their failure, (2) to their own books, the books of 
 Moses. 
 With regard to the former of these tests, I am bound to say 
 
 that the Apologists were not the first to make use of it. Profane — 
 history had already been cited for this purpose. The Jews 
 
 themselves were obliged to check the towering pride of Paganism — 
 by references to its own memorials; and to say to the Gentile — 
 
 (with better reason than Eliphaz to Job) ‘ With us are the grey- 
 
 headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father.” Jose-_ 
 
 phus, about 100 a.p., in his two books against Apion, had demon- | 
 strated, by the direct testimony of general literature, the great — 
 age of the Hebrew race and institutions!. The Fathers duly — 
 
 acknowledge their obligations to the noble Jew, for his hint 
 
 and for his researches. Perhaps, however, the commencement — 
 of such a discussion at all, is still more justly due to Christianity — 
 
 : 
 . 
 
 j 
 
 itself, and to that catholicism and freedom of inquiry it intro- | 
 
 duced among men. Yet, be that as it may, the Christian Apo- — 
 
 logists have the credit of continuing and considerably enlarging 
 
 this species of evidence, until as one converted philosopher after — 
 another brought in the spoils of foreign lore from the east 
 
 and from the west, and thus increased its substance, whilst the 
 experience and sifting of three or four centuries had fully tried 
 its value, it stood forth an irrefragable argument against all 
 superstitions. 
 
 This appeal to antiquity is made on the strength of a natural 
 
 ' Flavii Jos. contra Apionem et Manethonem, libro duo.’ | 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY, 73 
 
 sentiment. Other things being equal, antiquity will ever insure 
 veneration. Tt is the ground of all prescriptive right, and its _ 
 influence is taken for granted in the commonest affairs of life. | 
 But without entering upon general questions, we can perceive 
 a peculiar propriety in appealing to the past on matters of a 
 sacred nature. ‘ With respect to religious topies that have long 
 occupied the attention of mankind, the novelty of an opinion is 
 prima facie a presumption against its truth! The facts with 
 which important opinions are ushered in, must be expected to 
 stand the test of constant as well as severe criticism, Truth 
 is the daughter of Time; and the more serious the truth, the 
 more needful and honourable will be the trial. 
 
 With such a view the Apologists seem to have been im- 
 pressed. All of them, with the exception of Arnobius, make 
 use of this argument. That they undertook at all, long and ela- 
 borate collations of events and dates, is enough to shew the 
 importance they attached to their production, an importance 
 that can only be based upon the principle above stated. But 
 Tertullian distinctly gives this as his ground of argument, in 
 the Apologeticus: ‘Our records,’ he says, ‘have the greatest 
 claim to attention by the authority of their high antiquity. For 
 even among yourselves (the heathen), it is as it were a part of 
 your religion, to pay regard to any observance according to its 
 age.’ The first idea then of the Apologists under this head, 
 was to shew the superior antiquity of their own records by an 
 appeal to profane history. 
 
 This was well as far as it went, but it only constituted a 
 negative proof, and left Christianity short of its divinity. As 
 soon therefore as heathen literature ceases to furnish any evi- 
 dence, we find them appealing to their own literature. They turn 
 from comparative to positive antiquity. And so far is this 
 proceeding from being unfair or injurious to their cause, it was 
 clearly the only course they could adopt; indeed the very 
 necessity for it affords a strong affirmation in their favour; 
 it proves, if it proves nothing else, the superior antiquity 
 of the Mosaic traditions. But to proceed; by the aid of this 
 ~ new witness our authors were led beyond the bounds of a 
 mere opposition or superiority to Paganism. The argument 
 began to assume an absolute value, to exhibit a more refined and 
 divine quality. It could now be carried on across the Flood 
 
 1 Bishop of Lincoln’s Just. Martyr. 
 
74 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 and up to the very gates of Paradise. What could be ade- 
 quate to describe such sublime, yet rational details, but the eye 
 of God and the pen of inspiration ? 
 
 The principle of this appeal appears to be equally natural 
 with the other. It is that as God is of one mind and all his works 
 are perfect, and that since the circumstances that first called 
 forth his pity towards our fallen race, have ever continued the 
 same in their agency and effects, we should expect from first 
 to last, but one Revelation of the divine Will, but one plan for 
 our Redemption. Modification, adaptation, revival, development 
 (in form), might be called for, but still the system, the substance 
 would be the same. A promise given the moment it was needed, 
 and completed the moment it was fit. Under some impression of 
 this sort, the Fathers recognized their unity with the Mosaic 
 and patriarchal dispensations, and hence raised to a yet higher 
 estimate the documents by which so venerable a unity was 
 warranted. But besides expecting that a Divine Revelation 
 would be one and continuous!, we might also expect it from 
 the nature of the case, to exhibit a clear pathway up to God 
 himself, and so prove the perfection of its golden chain. Thus 
 with a divine source and an uninterrupted continuity, not merely 
 the superior antiquity and value of the Sacred Writings would 
 be attested, but even their inspiration might be inferred. This 
 was the legitimate end of the argument from antiquity. 
 
 How far the different Fathers came up to it, will be seen 
 in the sequel. Some were content with the lower and more 
 definite ground. Their main desire was to settle the question 
 of antiquity in favour of the Old Testament, and for this pur- 
 pose they were content to follow up the Sacred Chronology out 
 of the reach of profane hands. So long as Homer yielded the 
 palm of years to David, and Cadmus to Moses, this was enough: 
 Abraham and Job were yet in reserve. 
 
 Others saw and went further. Theophilus says; ‘It is 
 necessary, in a perfect history of the world, that mention be 
 made of all things from the beginning. Even of those things 
 that happened beyond the Flood, such as the origin of the 
 earth and of mankind. ‘These subjects the prophets of the 
 
 1 It is curious to notice how men of all religions and times have respected 
 the idea of historic continuity. Greece was content to receive her theology 
 from Egypt or the Kast ; Italy from Greece ; whilst, since Christianity became 
 established, there has been no heresy and no antichrist that has not endea- 
 voured to tack itself on to her chariot-wheels. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 15 
 Egyptians and Chaldeans ought to have explained, if indeed 
 they spake under the influence of a pure and divine spirit 
 and announced that which was true.’ Even Arnobius suggests 
 that, ‘if the antiquity of authors be required, ours is that of 
 God himself.” Thus, that marvellous opening of our Sacred 
 Books: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the 
 earth ;’? and that unique genealogy, traced with mercantile ex- 
 actness, from ‘ Adam, who was the son of God,’ to Jesus himself 
 which they contain and certify, were shewn to be auxiliary 
 evidences for the truth of Christianity. And whilst the records 
 of heathen Mythology were soon lost amidst the clouds of 
 Olympus, or the darkness of Egyptian tombs, the true religion 
 was found uniting itself (as the works of Nature do by a different 
 law) to the creation of all things; and without a doubt, a fable, 
 or a lapse, deducing its pedigree from a Divine original. 
 
 The whole material of this chapter forms an argument of some 
 weight with a candid and reflective mind. It implies in fact a 
 superhuman knowledge of the past, and points out an element 
 in the Bible which is not of this world. It likewise illustrates 
 that love of order so apparent in all that is divine ; and the 
 practical character of Christianity, which is ready to abide by 
 the lowest tests of truth. 
 
 I have in the third place to mention the account to which 
 the Apologists turned this argument. The claim they main- 
 tained to the Old Testament, gave them a powerful handle 
 against the Jew; and the appeal to profane authors acted with 
 
 bg equal force against the Pagan. Of the Jewish discussion nothing 
 
 need be said; it explains itself. But with regard to Heathenism, 
 we must observe that this argument was an, answer to a double 
 charge. Having appropriated and proved this antiquity, the 
 
 Apologists could now repel the charge of novelty. It was? 
 constantly urged to the disparagement of the Gospel that it was) <7. 
 but of yesterday. In one sense this was true, and therefore we 4 
 
 find Arnobius replying, ‘ So much the better; its facts can be 
 the more easily tested;’ or Eusebius, saying, ‘So much the 
 ereater marvel since it has already subdued the world.’ But in 
 another sense and as the heathen employed it, the objection had 
 a force which I conceive the Apologists could only meet as they 
 did meet it, by counteraction. Besides, by acknowledging the 
 principle of this sacred prescription, they gained and took for 
 the service of God, all the credit which had been misapplied to 
 idolatry. The natural sentiment of men and the heathen’s own 
 
 Pd 
 rs 
 
 ws 
 
76 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 principles, went over to the side of truth; and, may we not hope, 
 carried some thoughtful minds along with them ? 
 
 Again, reference was made, in the last chapter, to a charge 
 of plagiarism, brought by the heathen against the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures. They asserted that the coincidence of opinion between 
 the Christian and heathen writers was no cause of wonder, no 
 ground for an argumentum ad hominem, because doubtless our 
 prophets had borrowed from their poets and philosophers. The 
 Apologists returned this charge upon their opponents, and by a 
 fearless appeal to historical data, undertook to shew that all the 
 probability lay the other way, inasmuch as our sacred witnesses 
 extend ages further back than any other records, monuments, 
 or even reasonable traditions. And thus as before, the natural 
 veneration that time and fame had given to the sages of Greece, 
 was seen transferring itself to the cause of Christianity. 
 
 The hypotheses of the fathers for explaining these corre- 
 spondences, were, (1) that the ancient poets had borrowed directly 
 from the Scriptures, purposely obscuring their citations through 
 jealousy or fear ; or (2) that they were indebted to the assistance 
 and suggestion of Satan through the mouth of oracles. It was 
 thought that our spiritual enemy might have foreseen the advent 
 of Christ, and endeavoured to anticipate his doctrines and con- 
 fuse his actions, The first supposition, though probable, is not 
 proved. The other yet more crude, is only one of the character- 
 istic and fanciful speculations of the day'. But these theories, 
 whether right or wrong, form no part of the argument before us: 
 they are quite gratuitous explanations. Passing them by there- 
 fore, we find enough of the sensible and certain, to shew that the 
 object of the Apologists was accomplished; the false charges 
 were rebutted. And in doing this a far more substantial 
 advantage followed. The religion defended, was necessarily 
 and materially enhanced. As it quietly rose above the ruins of 
 all human systems, the question naturally suggested itself, 
 whence this superiority ? The indirect argument that had won 
 for it a hearing and an unrivalled character, gave place to the 
 more direct argument in support of its claims to divinity: ab- 
 stract antiquity supplied it with one of the attributes of a Reve- 
 lation from Heaven. And all this had been effected at the 
 expense, and very much by the concessions of enemies. Truly 
 
 1 A singular conjecture of this kind is hazarded by one of our authors, 
 that the two thieves were crucified with Christ, at the instigation of the 
 Devil, who hoped thereby to confound the identity of the sacred person. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. Ui 
 
 might it be said, to borrow a fine figure of Origen on a kindred 
 topic, ‘the Israelites had spoiled the Egyptians, and taken their 
 ornaments for the decoration of the tabernacle.’ 
 
 Another use of the plea of antiquity to be gathered from 
 these writings has been almost anticipated. One of the distin- 
 guishing traits of the early theology, is the honour it paid to 
 Christ as ‘the Word’ from everlasting. The results of this 
 argument were therefore in the highest degree welcome to the 
 Apologetic cause. They afforded the heathen an illustration of 
 that marvellous nature which, while it appeared on earth as ‘a 
 man of sorrows, could be traced absolutely to a period before the 
 world was, and to an elevation only compatible with the majesty 
 of Godhead. They were in truth an exegesis of the text, ‘In 
 the beginning was the Word, and and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God!.’ 
 
 I cannot dismiss the entire subject without observing that 
 whilst the Apologists could not with any propriety, have over- 
 looked the advantages of this argument to Christianity, I do not 
 see that they abused it, They never depended upon it solely, 
 or supposed it to be more than what Warburton says it can but 
 be, ‘a thing relative.” Their maxim was not that a doctrine was 
 true because it was old, (rather would they have said it was 
 old because true,) but that it was authoritative. The age and 
 preservation of the Scriptures, (and so of religion,) afforded a 
 presumption in favour of their heavenly inspiration ; an absolute 
 title to respect and authority. And as the Apologists did not 
 exaggerate, so they did not misapply this argument. With one 
 exception only, I believe, they restricted its use to the single 
 ‘subject just named—the antiquity of the Bible. The exception 
 is that of Tertullian (after a germ of Irenzeus possibly) in his 
 controversy with the heretics, a discussion and a principle quite 
 apart from our present one, but which Mosheim? has, I think 
 unfairly, made to tell against the whole patristic body. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR* ‘We desire also to make it fully 
 apparent to you that those things only which we affirm and have 
 
 learned from Christ and the prophets are the truth, and more 
 
 > 
 
 ~ ancient than anything recorded by other writers. 
 Defending the freedom of the will, he remarks”, ‘ When Plato 
 * John i. 1. ® Eccles. Hist. Cent. u. Part u. ¢. 3. 
 « Apol. 1. ¢. dl. > Ib. o 57. 
 
78 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 said, “ the fault lies with him who chooses, but God is blameless,” 
 
 he took it from Moses, who was more ancient than all the writers 
 
 of the Greeks. And so everything the poets and philosophers 
 
 have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or of punish- 
 
 ments after death, or of the contemplation of heavenly things, 
 
 _ they conceive and explain as they first derived them from the 
 prophets.’ 
 
 ‘It is not therefore* that we hold the same opinions as 
 others, but that all others speak in imitation of us.’ 
 
 Having surmised” that evil spirits might suggest the mis- 
 interpretation of prophecies concerning the prince Messiah (whence 
 Bacchus was said to have been born of Jupiter, Perseus of a 
 virgin, Hercules a ruler, and A‘sculapius a healer of the sick), 
 our author endeavours to trace many of the heathen ceremonies 
 to a like source; such as the offering of libations, the sprinkling 
 with water, the loosing the shoes in the vestibule of a temple, 
 and some of the mysteries of Mithra. ‘ Whatever® the philoso- 
 phers and legislators of antiquity said or thought that was at all 
 worthy; they had elaborated out of the Word of God. But 
 because they knew not everything concerning the Word, that is, 
 Christ, they have often said and done things inconsistent with 
 themselves.’ In this way he concludes that Christ is superior to 
 them all, and his doctrine more sublime than all human doctrines. 
 
 Endeavouring“ to persuade the Greeks to forego the teach- 
 ing of their own sages, he adduces as one argument, the greater 
 antiquity of Moses and the prophets. This point he engages to 
 prove, ‘not out of our own divine histories (to which as yet you 
 may not assent on account of your errors), but even from profane 
 historians themselves. Thus some professing to be of the time 
 of Ogyges and Inachus, mention Moses as the leader and chief of 
 the Jewish nation. So also Polemon in his first book of Grecian 
 history. Again, Apion, in his work against the Jews, as like- 
 wise in the fourth book of his histories, relates that whilst Inachus 
 reigned in Argos, the Hebrews revolted from Amasis, king of 
 Egypt, under their leader Moses. Ptolemeus also, writing of 
 the affairs of the Egyptians, assents to this. Add to these testi- 
 monies the writers on Athenian history, Hellanicus and Philo- 
 chorus, Castor and Thallus, and Alexander Polyhistor, together 
 with the best Jewish writers, Philo and J osephus, all of whom 
 commemorate Moses, the oldest and most venerable Jewish leader. 
 
 ® Apol. 1. 78. DO NC.ag. ° Apol. 11. ¢. 10. * Ewhort. ad Grec, c. 9. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY, 79 
 
 The very title of Josephus’ famous work, The Antiquities, is 
 something for our proposition. Then there is Diodorus, the most 
 celebrated of your own historical writers, who in his first book 
 distinctly says that he has heard from the Egyptian priests that 
 Moses was the first and most ancient of legislators, Such* is 
 the witness, oh Greeks, that you yourselves bear to our anti- 
 quity. But it is needful to go a little more into detail, and 
 inquire in what ages your philosophers lived, that you may per- 
 ceive their recent date and the greater antiquity of our Moses.’ 
 He proceeds thus: ‘Socrates was the master of Plato, Plato of 
 Aristotle; now these men flourished in the times of Philip and 
 and Alexander of Macedon, contemporaries of the great Athenian 
 orators, as the orations of Demosthenes against Philip prove. 
 Wherefore it is plain, how much older Moses must be than any of 
 them. Moreover, there were no records kept by the Greeks 
 before the Olympiads, nor are there any ancient monuments of 
 their deeds before that time. The only history of those early 
 periods now extant, is that of our Moses, written in the Hebrew 
 character before Greek letters were invented. Your gramma- 
 rians themselves allow this when they say, that Cadmus first 
 brought the alphabet from Phcenicia, and taught it the Greeks: 
 which alone proves the lateness of your literature; for all your 
 poets, however ancient, your legislators, historians, philosophers, 
 and orators, have composed and spoken in the Greek character.’ 
 An account” of the Septuagint translation follows, to explain the 
 appearance of the Old Testament in Greek, after which he 
 “presses his conclusion upon the heathen: ‘It seems‘, therefore, 
 that beholding the judgment (rendered) not only by believers, 
 but also by those without us, you ought not to adhere so heed- 
 lessly to the errors of your ancestors, or suppose that to be 
 necessarily true which they have handed down. Consider the 
 danger of a mistake in such a momentous concern, and carefully 
 examine whatever has been spoken by your so-called teachers. 
 In such a research you will find that they were compelled by 
 diyine providence to say much, however unwillingly, that makes 
 in our favour. Especially is this the case with those who tra- 
 
 yelled into Egypt, and there profited by the religious teaching 
 
 that Moses and our ancestors left behind them.’ He gathers 
 from the history of Diodorus, &c. that Orpheus, Homer, Solon, 
 Pythagoras and Plato, with many others, in this way visited 
 
 4 Evhort. ad Gree. ¢.12. bd. Tbs'02 18: ¢ Jb. c. 14. 
 
80 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Egypt, where they met with the Pentateuch®; for it would seem, — 
 
 ‘thenceforth? they changed their incorrect opinions concerning 
 the Deity, and began to speak of one and the only God ;’ darkly ° 
 it is true, but then perhaps ‘ Plato was deterred from expressing 
 his full belief by the fate of his master Socrates.’ He gives“ as 
 
 his reason for mentioning these things, the hope of drawing off 
 
 the Greeks from their confidence in ‘those who did not write 
 what was original, but what they took from Moses and the pro- — 
 
 phets!, concealing their theft under various figures.’ 
 
 ‘It is now time’, therefore,’ he adds, ‘that you being per- 
 suaded by extraneous accounts, of the far greater antiquity of 
 Moses and the rest of the prophets above all those whom you 
 account wise, should depart from the fatal errors of your prede- 
 cessors, and learn what is true from ours.’ 
 
 TATIAN’. ‘It is right I should satisfy you that our philo- 
 sophy is older than any of the Grecian systems; and let us 
 begin by comparing Moses and Homer, each being the oldest 
 on his side. We shall find by this means that not only can 
 we date further back than any of your schools, but than the 
 invention of the Greek letters themselves. For the purpose 
 of proving this, I will not bring forward our own witnesses, 
 but yours: the Greeks themselves shall testify. Indeed I 
 know that any other witnesses would be useless, because you 
 would not admit their testimony; but then it will be a greater 
 victory for us if we can convince you by arguments not to 
 
 be impugned, and thus fight you with your own weapons. He — 
 
 commences by allowing that the notices concerning Homer are 
 both many and ancient. Theagines Rhegius, who lived in the 
 reign of Cambyses; Stesimbrotus, Herodotus, Thasius, Antima- 
 chus, Collophonius, Dionysius, and others, both Peripatetics and 
 grammarians, all name him, but ‘all agree in placing him after 
 the Trojan war.’ Yet even granting® ‘that Homer was con- 
 temporaneous with Agamemnon at the siege of Troy, or, if 
 you will, lived before the invention of letters, it is still evident 
 
 that our Moses is the more remote, preceding as well the build- 
 
 ing of Troy, as the very origin of the Greek and Trojan races.’ 
 To verify this statement, he proposes to make use of the Chal- 
 
 * For coincident passages see Ewhort. ad Gree. c, 22, 25—27, 831—33. 
 iD. Ge 2D. " 9G, e. 19. “10,20. ¢ Ib.¢. 34: 
 © Ib. o 365. " Orat. ad Gree. c. 21. & Ib. c. 36. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 81 
 
 dean, Pheenician, and Egyptian writers. Berosus of Babylon, is 
 found mentioning Nebuchodonozor’s expedition against the Phe- 
 nicians and Jews, which exactly tallies with the account of the cir- 
 cumstance given by our prophets, many ages after Moses. Now 
 this furnishes a date seventy years before the foundation of the 
 Persian empire. From the Phenician authors*, Theodotus, Hyp- 
 sicrates, and Mochus, he gathers that the foil wile events oc- 
 curred under their kings: ‘the transference of Europa, the ad- 
 vent of Menelaus into Egypt, and the acts of Chiramus, who gave 
 his own daughter in marriage to Solomon, and supplied him eee 
 every kind a wood for the construction of the temple, as is con- 
 firmed by Menander of Pergamos. Now the age of Chiramus 
 _ was near that of Troy; but Solomon was his contemporary ; 
 _ wherefore the above-named events were of much later date than 
 Moses.’ 
 
 Ptolemy” the priest furnishes our author with Egyptian 
 testimony, to the effect that ‘the Jews went out of Egypt under 
 the direction of Moses, in the reign of Amosis, coeval with 
 Inachus. This Apion confirms. But the time that elapsed from 
 Inachus to the destruction of Troy was twenty generations, as 
 is seen by examining the list of the Argive kings (which is 
 | given) down to Agameiniion; in the eighteenth year of whose 
 reign Troy was taken.’ 
 
 A parallel list° of the Attic sovereigns follows, beginning 
 with Ogyges (of the same age with Phoroneus, son of Inachus, 
 under whom the first deluge is said to have happened), and 
 including Actzeus, who gave Attica its name, Prometheus, Epi- 
 metheus, Atlas, and Cecrops (during this reign occur the burn- 
 ing of Phaethon, and Deucalion’s flood) and others whose wras 
 _ include the facts or fictions of Grecian History ; such as the land- 
 ing of Danaus on the Peloponnesus; the fable of Proserpine; 
 _ the building of the Eleusinian temple; the narrations concerning 
 Triptolemus, Cadmus and Minos; the Thracian and Athenian 
 wars; &c., down to the time of Agamemnon again; thus esta- 
 _blishing the general fact, that Moses was older than the most 
 venerable and ancient of the Grecian heroes. 
 | The date of Cadmus’ entrance into Beotia is next ascertained 
 _ to have been many generations later than Inachus; and lastly %, 
 our author is at pains to shew that Moses is likewise older than 
 
 * Orat. ad Gree. c. 37. BPO N Cr BB. = LO6 es OF. 
 
 4 Tb. c. 41, 
 H. EB. 6 
 
82 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 any sages before the time of Homer; as Linus (called the pre- 
 ceptor of Hercules, whose son Triptolemus was engaged in the 
 Trojan war), Philammon, Thamyrides, Amphion, Muszus, Or- 
 pheus, Demodocus, the Sibyl, Epimenides the Cretan who went to 
 Sparta, and so on, the catalogue of worthies being completed by 
 the addition of the legislators and sages from Minos downwards. 
 
 ‘And now, he concludes*, ‘I Tatian, a Christian, have 
 composed these things; born in Syria, initiated into your mys- 
 teries, I have turned to those J herein recommend; for as soon . 
 as 1 knew God and his works, I felt a desire to exhibit to others 
 the result of my own examination, which offers beyond all denial 
 a sound reason for thus worshipping God (as Christians do).’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS”. ‘It is necessary in this Apology to” 
 shew that the very names of the heathen gods are modern, and — 
 that their statues were but of yesterday. I need scarcely re- | 
 mark that some of your writers, such as Orpheus, Homer, and © 
 Hesiod, were almost contemporaneous with your gods. Herodotus — 
 testifies to this when he says, Hesiod and Homer, I am of opinion, — 
 were not above five hundred years more ancient than myself. — 
 They first formed a Theogony for the Greeks, gave names to — 
 the several divinities, distributed their honors and occupations, — 
 and described their sex, form and other characteristics. Pictures | 
 and images were not invented for many years after this, The 
 invention of drawing is due to Saurias of Samos, who traced a 
 horse from a shadow in the sun: of painting, to Crato making | 
 a coloured picture of a man on a board: and of wax-images to 
 Core, whose father relieved in wax an outline of her lover, which — 
 she had sketched upon the wall of her chamber, the original — 
 being still preserved in Corinth. Dedalus and Theodorus the | 
 Milesian, long afterwards began to sculpture, and indeed of so — 
 recent a date are the statues of the gods, that we can name the | 
 very persons who carved them; for example, Endyus a scholar 
 of Dedalus made the famous statue of Diana of the Ephesians, 
 and that of Minerva or Athena. The Pythian Apollo is the 
 work of Theodorus and Telecles. The skill of Angelion and — 
 Smilis, made the Juno of Samos: Praxiteles, the figure of Venus | 
 the lady, in Cnidus: Phidias, that of A’sculapius in Epidaurus; 
 in fine, there is not any celebrated statue the author of which 
 is not known. Now if these are the gods, how came they to be | 
 
 *Orat. ad Gree. ¢, 42. > Legat. .c. 17. 4 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 83 
 
 made by men’s hands? How is it they did not exist from ever- 
 lasting ? How came they to be younger than their authors ?’ 
 
 THEOPHILUS?. ‘The future punishment of the wicked 
 was predicted long ago, by the prophets from whom your poets 
 and philosophers, posterior in point of ane have borrowed in 
 order to give authority to their opinions,’ 
 
 Our author subsequently shews”, that ‘both Jupiter and his 
 father Saturn were born later not only than matter, but even 
 than the formation of the world, and a multitude of men.’ 
 
 Referring® to the generations from Adam, he says: ‘ They are 
 clearly pointed out in the sacred Scriptures, as the Holy Ghost 
 inspired Moses and the other prophets, so that our writings are 
 proved to be more ancient than any others. Many have fancied 
 that Apollo was the inventor of music, or that Orpheus derived it 
 from the singing of birds, but our books trace this art beyond 
 the Deluge. We have also‘ a rational account of the first build- 
 ing of cities and the rise of monarchies with names and sketches 
 of the races that sprang from the three sons of Noah.’ A tabular 
 view follows, of the Assyrian kings; such as were coeyal with 
 Melchisedec, Abimelech, &c., being pointed out. 
 
  Thus® he finds that all the narratives of human transactions 
 are but recent when compared with that of the Sacred Writings, 
 and urges his friend on the strength of such a discovery not to 
 trust those who were so much later in date, and who have intro- 
 duced a host of false gods, born many years after cities were built, 
 and nations established. 
 
 Having remarked‘ that the enemies of Christianity reproach 
 it for its novelty, he calls attention to the actual dates of the 
 systems under discussion. He shews how uncertain all the 
 early heathen Theogonies and philosophies are: that some ac- 
 count the world unproduced, thus plunging into infinity, whilst 
 _ others who allow its creation have antedated it by myriads of 
 | years. The reckoning of Plato, for instance, is criticised, as found 
 _ In his book de Civitate, concerning the ages that have elapsed 
 _ from the flood to the time of Dedalus. With these he confronts 
 _ the well-substantiated dates of Moses®, whom our author (with 
 _ Josephus) supposes to have lived near a thousand years after 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. 1. c. 14. BLO: Lathe ia G Oz Co hs ThE 
 S10. G, ol: © Tb. c. 32. * Tb. Lib. ur. c. 16. 
 & Ib. c. 20, 
 
 62 
 
84 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Noah; of the building of the temple’, five hundred and sixty 
 years from the Exodus, whilst Hiram was king of Tyre, (as fur- 
 nished by Menander); and lastly, of the foundation of Carthage, 
 which he sets at a hundred and forty-three years and eight 
 months subsequent to the building of Solomon’s temple. 
 
 In like manner” the times of the legislators are investi- 
 gated. Solon is found to synchronize with Cyrus and the pro- 
 phet Zacharias; and with reference to Lycurgus, Draco, and 
 Minos, Josephus’ authority is produced to shew that our books are 
 much more ancient than any of the laws of these men. ‘ Yea our 
 divine law,’ it is added, ‘ was prior to the reign of Jupiter in Crete, 
 or to the Trojan war; and our books even recount events that 
 happened before the flood, relating to the creation of the world 
 and the formation of the first man.’ 
 
 Upon the whole, from a comparison® of the histories of the — 
 
 Persian, Roman, and other dynasties, Theophilus calculates the 
 lapse of seven hundred and forty-four years, from the reign of 
 Cyrus to the death of the emperor Aurelius Verus; or five thou- 
 sand six hundred and ninety-eight years from the beginning of 
 the world to his own time. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS%, after an exordium, de- — 
 
 monstrates that the Christian discipline is older than any of the 
 schools. He commences with an account of the rise of the 
 Grecian Philosophy for the purpose of exposing ‘its recent date 
 when compared with the Hebrew writings, from which in truth 
 it seems to have been borrowed.’ He extends the same remarks 
 to the arts and sciences of which the barbarians, as the Greeks 
 designate them, were the inventors. ‘In this respect,’ he says, 
 ‘the philosophers may be called thieves and robbers, because 
 
 before the coming of Christ, they stole and appropriated to them- | 
 
 selves, portions of truth from the Hebrew prophets (without 
 
 clearly understanding them), which they adulterated or dis- _ 
 
 figured with ignorant diligence.’ 
 
 He then passes on to a long chronological detail, tracing the — 
 succession of poets, sages and sibyls down to the death of — 
 Commodus, by which he manifestly ‘proves, that Moses and — 
 the prophets lived long anterior to the period of the rise of — 
 
 philosophy. 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. ni. ¢. 22. > Tb. ec. 23. =| 
 * Lb. c, 26—28. * Strom. Lib. 1. Art. 2, 3. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 85 
 
 This emboldens him to try and shew further, that the Greeks 
 derived even their strategical skill from the Jews; and that 
 Miltiades in his night march against the Persians, imitated the 
 tactics of Moses in conducting the children of Israel out of 
 Egypt. By a like fanciful and unsatisfactory process of thought, 
 
 he traces the first idolatrous columns of the ancients to their 
 
 hearing of the fiery and cloudy pillar, the guide of God’s people 
 in the desert. 
 
 In the opening of the second book*, we find Clemens re- 
 turning to his favourite topic, the plagiarisms of the Greeks. He 
 asserts that their philosophers have stolen from the Sacred 
 Scriptures, all they have delivered respecting the divine nature, 
 the existence of matter, the first principle, the Providence of 
 God, the immortality of the soul, &c. These things he supposes 
 them to have learned by a sort of circumlocution; and hence 
 deduces that the literature of the Greeks can only be studied 
 profitably in connexion with the Hebrew Scriptures, the source 
 from which it flowed. He conceives that the heathen may have 
 been allowed to cull their philosophy in this way, to prepare 
 them for the preaching of the Gospel. 
 
 TERTULLIAN? observes that as he has shewn the anti- 
 quity of the Holy Scriptures above all profane literature (this is 
 done much as usual, in cap. xix.), it will readily be conceded that 
 they constitute the treasure, whence all real wisdom has been ex- 
 tracted. And he thinks it no wonder that the ingenuity of the 
 philosophers has thus perverted the Old Testament, since men 
 sprung from them (the heretics), have perverted the New, and 
 cut many oblique and intricate paths from the one only way. 
 
 He concludes that since there is no doubt about the superior 
 antiquity of our books and of the heathen plagiarisms from them, 
 they ought to be believed much more than their imitations. 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX¢ conjectures that Thales drew his notion 
 
 of water being the principle of all things, out of the Genesis of 
 
 Moses; and®, speaking of the resemblance which the heathen 
 
 be opinions generally, bear to Christian truths, he asserts, ‘the phi- 
 : losophers have taken their sketches from the divine discoveries 
 
 of our prophets, disguising the theft. So did Pythagoras and 
 
 4 Strom. Lib. u. > Apol. c. 4. © Octav. c. 19. 
 fT... 30s 
 
86 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 Plato, especially concerning the immortality and metempsychosis 
 of the soul. Or*, ‘else these doctrines must have been gleaned 
 from the confessions of demons,’ 
 
 ORIGEN® refers Celsus, who has omitted to reckon the 
 
 Jews among the ancient nations of the earth, to the Egyptian 
 annals, where the Jews are represented as a peculiar people; 
 adding, ‘I might also adduce the Assyrian records, which repre- 
 sent their nation as engaged in long and bloody wars with the 
 Hebrews ;’ upon which he asks, ‘why the Jewish writers who 
 furnish accounts to the same purpose, should not be equally 
 credited? How much more® then does Numenius the Pytha- 
 
 gorean deserve to be preferred before Celsus! This learned 
 
 author, in his work De Bono, speaking of those nations that hold 
 God to be incorporeal, has named the Jews among them, and 
 likewise gives some passages from the prophetical writings, 
 giving them however an allegorical sense. It is reported also 
 on the authority of Hermippus, that Pythagoras borrowed his 
 philosophy from the Jews, and taught it to the Greeks; and 
 there is still extant Hecateus’ history of the Jews, wherein he 
 so highly commends the wisdom of that people, as to make 
 Herennius Philo doubt whether he was not a convert.’ Origen? 
 thinks it ‘needless to produce Egyptian, Phoenician, or Grecian 
 testimonies, since any one may read them by consulting Jo- 
 sephus’ works, where is a long catalogue of authors, who confirm 
 the truth of this matter by their concurrent testimonies,’ The 
 perusal of ‘Tatian’s learned discourse against the Pagans’ is re- 
 commended on the same grounds, as containing an abundance of 
 references to the ancients who have written respecting the Jews 
 in general, and Moses in particular, 
 
 The Epicurean Philosopher® having further charged the 
 Israelites with borrowing the rite of circumcision from the Egyp- 
 tians, our author points out that Moses attributes its origin to 
 Abraham, whose great antiquity as well as identity he proves, 
 by citing the formularies of Egyptian magicians, in reference to 
 the God of Abraham. 
 
 He thinks‘ it strange that a man of so much reading as 
 
 Celsus professes to be, should omit to notice Moses among his | 
 
 worthies, though many of the Grecian writers themselves place 
 
 * Octav. c. 84, » Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. 5.14. © Tbs ab: 
 “Jb. 8. 16. © Tbe 822. Tb. Labavese i. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 87 
 
 him about the time of Inachus (the father of Phoroneus), whom 
 the Egyptian and Phoenician authors declare to be the most 
 ancient chief recorded in their histories. 
 
 Respecting the tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues*, 
 Celsus throws out an insinuation, that the Scripture account is 
 but a version of the story of the Aloide. Origen replies, that 
 no mention is made of the sons of Aloeus prior to the time of 
 - Homer, but that owr account of these things was written by 
 Moses, who not only preceded Homer, but also the invention of 
 the Greek letters. 
 
 Phaethon’s fable is disposed of in the same way, and its writers 
 are shewn to have been as much posterior to Homer, as Homer 
 was to Moses. It is likewise observed” that the Hebrew gene- 
 -alogy was never disputed for many ages. 
 
 Again®, to Celsus’ bold assertion, that the Christian doctrines 
 concerning the evil Spirit, are extracted from Heraclitus and 
 Pherecydes, and that others relating to heaven, are but expan- 
 sions of Homer’s ‘isles of the blessed,’ and ‘the Elysian fields,’ 
 or of Plato’s ‘pure earth under a pure sky,’ Origen as boldly 
 opposes the historical fact, that Moses had declared these truths 
 long before either of the above-named authors were born. 
 
 Upon the whole, he conceives® that if an opinion is beneficial, 
 and the intention of the projector good, it can matter little 
 whether it arose among the Jews or the Greeks, only it must 
 be remembered that the former have the fairest claim to ori- 
 ginality because their writings are the oldest. 
 
 LACTANTIUS®. ‘I must say a few words about the pro- 
 phets whose testimony is now about to be used, which I have 
 refrained from doing in my former books. ~Before all things, 
 he who would understand the voices of the prophets, must dili- 
 gently inquire not only into the animus that prompted them, but 
 also into their times. This is requisite in order to an appre- 
 ciation of the fulfilment of their predictions; nor is there any 
 difficulty in collating these dates. It is well known under what 
 kings they prophesied; and many persons have written works 
 on the sacred chronology, commencing with Moses who preceded 
 the Trojan war at least seven hundred years.’ Our author 
 then gives a sketch of the judges and kings of Israel, confirming 
 
 2 Cont. Cels. Lib. tv. s. 21. Bi hs Si coe ¢ Tb. Lib. vir. s. 28. 
 4 Tb. 8. 59. © Div. Instit. Lib. rv. ¢. 5. 
 
88 THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 
 
 his statements by reference to Jewish, Greek, and Roman au- 
 thorities ; pointing out in passing, the wras of the several pro- 
 phets down to Zacharias, whom he calls the last, and places in 
 
 the second year and eighth month of the reign of Darius; and 
 
 concludes by stating, that the ‘fact of the prophets being proved 
 more ancient than the Greek writers, should serve to convince 
 those of their error, who endeavour to disparage the sacred 
 Scriptures, as if they were but lately penned.’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS? institutes a comparison between the Hebrews 
 and the notable men of Greece and Rome, and invokes history 
 to attest the superior antiquity of the schools of the prophets, 
 over those of the Academy, the Lyceum, or the Portico. He 
 argues that the ancient Hebrews, of whatever rank or sex, 
 walked in the light of divine wisdom during many centuries in 
 which the rest of the world lay in the deepest barbarism: that 
 the science of the Greeks is wholly borrowed from extraneous 
 sources; that its earliest teachers were foreigners by birth, and 
 that their successors with ingenious subtilty perfected the stolen 
 knowledge; in brief, that Plato was an Attic imitator of Moses. 
 In comparing the discipline and institutions of these great rival 
 leaders, he points out such a resemblance between them, as he 
 thinks could not have been the result of accident, but of a deep 
 and well adjusted imitation’, He further” shews that Pythagoras 
 borrowed from Moses. 
 
 AUGUSTINE*® traces some of Plato’s ideas to his reading 
 the prophetic books during his sojourn in Egypt, or to the light 
 of his own conscience. He refers to remarks on this subject, 
 made by Justin, Clemens, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Lactantius ; 
 and then“ takes up the progress of the earthly state, through 
 the respective epochs of Assyrian and Egyptian history, cor- 
 responding to the times of Abraham, Moses, &. He next® pro- 
 poses to prove that the prophets were more -ancient than the 
 Gentile philosophers. «In our prophets’ time,’ he says, (he has 
 just run through their works) ‘there were no philosophers 
 
 stirring as yet. The first being Pythagoras the Samian, who 
 
 * Prep. Evang. 
 ' Vid. Street's Leaves of Eusebius. 
 
 iY Const. Vit. c. 17. ° De Civit. Dei, Lib. vit. ¢ 11. 
 * Ib. Lib. xvin. c, 2—5. © Ib. c. 87. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM ANTIQUITY. 89 
 
 flourished at the end of the captivity, so that all others must 
 needs be later than that event. Socrates, the chief of the mo- 
 ralists, lived after Esdras, as chronicles record; and immediately 
 after him came Plato and his scholars; and if the seven sages of 
 Greece and the physical philosophers who succeeded Thales, viz. 
 Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and others who pro- 
 fessed philosophy before Pythagoras, are added, we shall still 
 find that not one of these was anterior to the prophets. For 
 Thales, the oldest of them all, was only coeval with Romulus, 
 who flourished long after the stream of prophecy had been flow- 
 ing from the fountains of Israel. The theological poets there- 
 fore alone remain to be considered, as Orpheus, Linus, Muszeus, 
 and others (if any) who can be called prior to the canonical 
 prophets. But not even they were as ancient as our divine 
 Moses, who taught them concerning the one true God, and 
 whose books appear at the head of our Scripture. Wherefore 
 though the learning of Greece warms the world to this day, yet 
 it cannot be boasted that it is as excellent as ours. We allow 
 indeed not that the Greeks, but that some other nations, may 
 have had peculiar doctrines, before the time of Moses, or it 
 would not have been said, for example, that he was learned in 
 all the wisdom of the Egyptians, but at the same time I would 
 have it remembered that even the wisdom of these men was 
 posterior in point of time to our prophet Abraham. For we 
 find that Isis, the reputed goddess of Egypt, taught her people 
 letters. But this Isis was the daughter of Inachus, king of 
 Argos, who reigned in the time of Abraham’s grandchildren.’ 
 
CHAPTER OL 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 Who spake by the Prophets. 
 NIcENE CREED. 
 
 HILST it would be quite out of place here, to furnish ab- 
 
 stract discussions on the various methods of reasoning 
 
 adopted by the Fathers, it certainly seems proper to define and 
 occasionally explain terms, or to harmonize an ancient with a 
 modern sense. Such explanations however should be brief. 
 
 The object of prophecy is to exhibit a superhuman know- 
 ledge of the future. We have been considering in the last 
 chapter how far Christianity answers to an ordeal as regards 
 the past: we have now to apply a yet stronger test of divinity. 
 It has to look forward as well as backward. 
 
 An essential relation to the future is the great characteristic 
 of prophecy; that which distinguishes it from other knowledge 
 and other miracles. And this definition seems necessarily to 
 include the idea of an extra-human source: for what can any 
 but God, know of the future? ‘Of all knowledge this is that 
 which man has the greatest desire and the least ability to attain 
 to’’ “We may surmise and judge with some confidence, but all 
 is alike speculative ; especially in regard to remote regions of 
 time, whose distinctness seems to decrease incalculably with 
 the distance. ‘Such then being the contingency, and our igno- 
 rance of what concurs to produce any event, we may be sure 
 that certain and infallible predictions are of heaven and not 
 of earth; and therefore by what means we are assured of a 
 prophecy, by the same are we assured of its divinity 2,’ 
 
 Of the value of such an argument in any age of the Church 
 there can be no doubt; but it derived additional virtue from cer- 
 tain circumstances of the parties we are concerned with. I cannot 
 illustrate this better, than by referring to a question often mooted 
 as to the comparative worth of the prophetical argument. In 
 
 + Horne’s J ntroduction. * Pearson On the Creed. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 91 
 
 no case can comparisons be so odious as in sacred things; and 
 yet they have been made. The different evidences of religion 
 have been arrayed one against the other, in different ages, and 
 in consequence of the partial views of men. Here, prophecies 
 have been preferred, owing to a misinterpretation! of the text, 
 ‘We also have a more sure word of prophecy ;’ there, miracles 
 especially of late, have been estimated out of all due proportion, 
 so that the judgment of the Apostles as well as of the Apologists, 
 not to say the truth of the Gospel itself, has been called in 
 question, because of the less exaggerated importance that was 
 anciently attached to them’. 
 
 But without troubling ourselves with the propriety or merits 
 of such a discussion at all, we hasten to make use of an expla- 
 nation to which it gives rise. The Fathers in offering a reason 
 for not availing themselves of the evidence of miracles so much 
 as they might and would have done, inform us of two opinions 
 of their day. First, the universal belief in magic or demo- 
 niacal agency, by which the force of miracles was weakened, and 
 a doubt cast upon their origin. This will be noticed more at 
 large in the next chapter. At present we need only observe, 
 that in refutation of this notion, Justin Martyr, Ireneus, and 
 Lactantius appeal to the prophecies of the Old Testament, shew- 
 ing how improbable it was that those deeds should be performed 
 by magic, which had been foretold ages before, by God himself?, 
 Secondly, the belief quite as universal among the heathen, that 
 the prophetic spirit was a sure sign of divinity. This is the 
 opinion to which I would now call attention, as preparing the 
 way for the testimony of the prophets. 
 
 The reverence which the Gentile world have ever attached 
 to prophecy, is abundantly manifested in their literature and 
 practices. Justin Martyr, addressing the Emperor Adrian and 
 his sons, hesitates not to say, ‘I suppose your majesties will 
 concede that those who prophesy, are inspired by nothing else 
 than the divine word.’ And Origen tells Celsus, that ‘even 
 the Greeks confess it is a God who speaks by the mouth of the 
 Pythian priestess.’ The fact also of ten oracular sites in Greece 
 
 1 An Exposition, says Sherlock, which all commentators reject as contra- 
 dictory to the general sense of mankind on this point, and inconsistent with 
 other places of Scripture. 
 
 * Paley’s Evidences, Part u1. ¢. 5. 
 
 3 Palmer, On Development and Conse. c. 1. 
 
92 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 alone, each claiming the inspiration of a god, and proving their 
 popularity by enormous revenues, speaks for itself. The heathen 
 
 therefore could hardly refuse to listen to the Hebrew oracles, | 
 
 and, if they were shewn to be verified, even to recognise their 
 divine source. 
 
 The case was yet stronger when this evidence was turned 
 towards the Jew; and I need hardly remark, that it constituted 
 the point of the controversy with him in the first centuries, as 
 it continues to do in our own. Here the child of Abraham was 
 at home; himself, deeply involved and interested. He with the 
 Pagan, acknowledged the Divine source of all prescience, but more 
 than that, he firmly believed in the authenticity, and bowed to 
 the authority, of the particular afflatus in question. The whole 
 ground was common to the Christian and himself; the only 
 dispute was as to accomplishment and other matters of fact. 
 
 Another value of prophecy occasionally noted by the Apolo- 
 gists, is that of its being present and growing evidence. So 
 Justin Martyr!: ‘In prophecy there is this advantage to us over 
 miracles, that while we have to depend on testimony for any 
 knowledge of the latter, the fulfilments of the former are taking 
 place daily under our own eyes.’ Eusebius has the same idea?. 
 
 The purposes to which the Fathers turned the witness of — 
 
 prophecy were, to establish the doctrine of our Saviour’s divi- 
 nity, and all that is dependent upon it, against either Jew or 
 Gentile, and at the same time to disprove the blasphemous pre- 
 tensions of other claimants. Justin says, ‘ We are not like those 
 who compose fables concerning the supposititious sons of Jupiter, 
 
 asserting what they cannot prove; for how should we believe of | 
 
 Him that was crucified, that he was the first-born of the unbe- 
 gotten God, and will himself one day be the judge of all the 
 human race, unless we found testimonies of these things, delivered 
 before he became incarnate, and saw also that they so came to 
 pass?” Next, to argue from what is a matter of fulfilled to what 
 is a matter of unfulfilled prediction; such as the general resur- 
 rection, final judgment, &c. Thus Theophilus*: ‘ Once I believed 
 not in the resurrection of the body, but now I believe, after hav- 
 ing more attentively considered these things in connexion with 
 the accomplishment of prophecy.’ Lastly, to confirm and con- 
 sole themselves in the truth. 
 
 There is one subject under this argument demanding a par- — 
 
 * Apol, 1. ¢. 87. * Theoph. Bk. tv. s. 1. * Ad Autol. Lib. 1. ¢. 14. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 93 
 
 ticular notice here. Some of the Apologists (Lactantius es- 
 pecially) appeal not only to the oracles of the Old and New 
 Testament, but also occasionally to the sibyls and other legendary 
 authorities. Neander considers it a sound and healthy feeling 
 that induced this assumption of a prophetic spirit in Paganism as 
 well as in Judaism, and this appeal to it, after the manner of St 
 - Paul at Athens, when he appealed to the sentiments of the poets 
 concerning the unknown God. He laments, however, that, 
 owing to the want of critical skill among the early Christian 
 writers, they should have been imposed upon by spurious and 
 interpolated matter, which presented itself in the search after 
 ancient testimonies; such as ‘the writings passing under the 
 name of that mythic person of antiquity, the Grecian Hermes, 
 or the Egyptian Thoth; also under the name of the Persian 
 Hystaspes, and of the sibyls.’ These general statements need 
 a little qualification. That some of the Fathers were actually 
 deceived by the theory of demons possessing the power and 
 abetting the practice of oracular deception, no careful reader of 
 their works can doubt; but that as a body they were so deceived, 
 or attributed to Paganism any reality of prophetical power, can 
 never be shewn. In fact, Neander himself subsequently says, 
 ‘it is far more probable to suppose that they revolted a priore 
 at the very hypothesis of anything like prophetical power having 
 existed among the heathen!:’ wherefore we have Theophilus tel- 
 ling Autolychus that ‘the prophets of the Egyptians and Chal- 
 deans furnish us with no evidences of truth.’ 
 
 Nor, on the other hand, is there any sort of proof, that 
 disbelieving this profane delusion, the Apologists yet employed 
 it for the purpose of intentional deceit. They took what they 
 found at its reputed valuation. Finding that such ideas in- 
 fluenced the minds of their heathen auditory, they used them as 
 an argumentum ad hominem: but while they did this, they did 
 not attempt to conceal their own convictions. Hear Origen, for 
 example; after quoting a response of the oracle to Laius, he 
 says, ‘By the way, I shall here take it for granted that the 
 oracle was true, since I think I may make the supposition with- 
 out the least prejudice to the subject in hand’.’ 
 
 One reason for this partial concession may be surmised, viz., 
 that our Apologists feared to disturb the accepted rules for the 
 
 1 Neander’s Church History. 
 2 Origen, Con. Cels. Lib. 1. c. 20. 
 
94 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 admission of evidence, lest in denying the authenticity of pagan 
 authorities, they should excite an equivalent prejudice against 
 their own. 
 
 But after all, the apologetic allusions of this kind are but 
 rare, and these rather appendages than anything else. With 
 this explanation, and considering that the materials referred to, 
 are of still less interest now, I am sure I shail be pardoned for 
 omitting them in the substance of my proofs. 
 
 The only subdivision it has been thought advisable to make in 
 this chapter, is that between the portions of evidence from pro- 
 phecy, which are addressed to the Gentile and Jew, at least as 
 nearly as it could be done. The purpose of this is, to exhibit the 
 different methods of pressing the argument upon the attention of 
 these respective parties ; and so to account for some matter which 
 otherwise might appear elementary or superfluous. Thus we find 
 the Gentile alone presented with a glance at the Old Testament 
 history ; because with him, it was the part of an Apologist’s 
 business to shew the probable authenticity, &c. of the prophetical 
 books; or with an account of the Septuagint translation, to prove 
 that the prophecies were delivered before the events they pre- 
 dicted, a premiss the Jew would readily allow; or with a refer- 
 ence to any profane authority a Pagan might value: whilst 
 towards the Jew, there is too often manifested a kind of bitter 
 spirit, that cannot be justified at all, but which would appear 
 yet more inappropriate than it is, if supposed to be indulged 
 in towards the heathen. This separation will serve likewise to 
 shew that the preponderance of matter, and so of weight, 
 attached to the evidence of prophecy over that of miracles, is 
 not so great (with regard to the Pagan controversy at least) 
 as has been supposed. 
 
 The extracts I have to offer, will be found to embrace ; first, 
 predictions concerning the Messiah, the time of his advent, the 
 place and manner of his birth, his miracles, life, death, resur- 
 rection, &c.; and secondly, those uttered by himself with regard 
 to the destruction of Jerusalem, the final spread of the Gospel, &c. 
 
 I beg to suggest whether our authors, when they occasion- 
 ally omit to point out the accomplishment of a prophecy, do not 
 take it for granted, as being sufficiently notorious. 
 
“THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 95 
 
 SecrTion I. 
 
 ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY ADDRESSED TO THE 
 GENTILE. 
 
 USTIN MARTYR*. ‘Our teacher, the Son and Apostle of 
 
 God the Father, even Jesus Christ, from whom also we have 
 obtained the name of Christians, has forewarned us of these 
 ~ persecutions. Wherefore we cleave stedfastly to all things which 
 were taught of him, since whatsoever he before declared should 
 happen, hath indeed been fulfilled. For this is the work of God 
 only, to declare events before they happen, and manifestly to 
 bring them to pass even as they were predicted.’ 
 
 ‘There were? among the Jews certain men, prophets of God, 
 by whom the prophetic Spirit proclaimed future events before 
 they came to pass. And the kings who were over the Jews in 
 those days, possessed and preserved with great care the predic- 
 tions of these men, as they were first delivered in books com- 
 posed by the prophets themselves, in the Hebrew tongue. These 
 were translated by order of Ptolemy into Greek, and this being 
 done, the books have remained with the Egyptians to this day, 
 and are also to be met with in the hands of the Jews in every 
 place. Now‘ in these books of the prophets we find it predicted, 
 that Jesus our Christ should come, should be born of a Virgin, 
 and be made man; that he should heal every disease, and all 
 manner of sickness, and raise the dead; that he should be en- 
 viously treated and not be known; that he should be crucified 
 and die, and rise again and ascend into heaven; that he should 
 be the Son of God, and so be called; that some should be sent 
 by him to preach these things to every nation of mankind, and 
 that men of the Gentiles should especially believe on him. Some 
 of these prophecies respecting him were delivered five thousand 
 years before his appearance, some three thousand, some two, 
 and some one, and some eight hundred years; for in the course 
 of successive generations different prophets succeeded one an- 
 other. Our author then enters into details, quoting and ap- 
 plying particular predictions. He shews how that of J acob, 
 ‘A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from between 
 his feet, until he shall come for whom it is reserved,’ was completed 
 ‘by the Romans having possession of Juda ever since Christ came, 
 
 * Apol.1. ¢. 14. > 1b. c. 38. ¢- 1b: 6: 39. 4 Tb. c. 40. 
 
96 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 who has also become actually the expectation of the Gentiles, 
 some out of all nations looking to him.’ He quotes* and points 
 out the fulfilment of the predictions, of the star by Balaam; 
 of the virgin-mother by Isaiah; of the place of nativity by 
 Micah®; and of the circumstances attending the crucifixion, by 
 David‘, contained in the texts, ‘They pierced my hands and 
 my feet, and cast lots for my vesture.’? ‘That these things were 
 accomplished,’ says he, ‘you may learn from the records of 
 what took place under Pontius Pilate.’ Other predictions® 
 then follow from Isaiah and the Psalms, chiefly relating to the 
 unbelief and malice of the Jews, to the progress of the Gospel, 
 and to the general amelioration of the state of mankind. In 
 confirmation of the last point, he adds, ‘ Wherefore we who 
 formerly killed one another, now refuse not only to fight our 
 enemies, but are ready to meet death with cheerfulness, con- 
 fessing Christ rather than lie and deceive those who perse- 
 cute us.’ 
 
 He recognises‘ in the agreement of Herod, Pilate and the 
 chief priests, at the trial of Jesus, the application of the verse, 
 ‘The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered 
 together against the Lord, and against his anointed.’ ‘ That 
 Jerusalem® is laid waste,’ he reminds the heathen, ‘ according 
 to prediction, ye have good proof, for ye yourselves have for- 
 bidden any Jew to dwell therein, denouncing the punishment of 
 death, against those who shall disobey.’ 
 
 The rejection” of the Jew and the calling of the Gentile, are 
 seen to be completed in the evil entreating of Jesus by the 
 former, and in the joyful trust placed in Him by the latter, to- 
 gether with their renunciation of idols. The resulti is, he 
 thinks, that ‘what has now been so fully seen, is sufficient to 
 cause a reasonable belief and persuasion in those that love the 
 truth, and are not vain-glorious nor governed by their passions; 
 whereas they who teach the mythology of the poets, offer no 
 proof to their disciples.’ The same idea, to shew the rational 
 grounds of Christian faith, and the want of evidence in Paganism, 
 occurs elsewhere *. , 
 
 THEOPHILUS’. ‘When therefore those things that were 
 predicted happen, they demonstrate the truth to me, and I am 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 42. > Tb. c. 48. Sel Dead o Tbrcao. 
 
 e 1b. c. 47. f 1b. ¢. 51. ® 1b. c. 62. h 7b. c. 63. 
 i 7b, e.'70. K co. 68. " Ad Autol, Lib. 1. ¢. 14. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 97 
 
 no longer incredulous but believe, complying with God. Believe 
 thou also, lest thou hast to believe when stung with eternal 
 torments.’ 
 
 Our author* contrasts the uncertain and fallacious inspira- 
 tion of the heathen poets, with the manner and effects of that 
 which filled the prophets of God. He observes first, that the 
 
 latter were holy and just men, and as it were, worthier of such 
 
 an honorable distinction; in the next place, the wars, the famines, 
 the pestilences they predicted, did not occur once or twice only, 
 but at various times among the Hebrews. Thirdly, they always 
 spoke in harmony with one another ; and in the last place, ‘ their 
 revelations related to all times; some to things done before they 
 
 | lived, or during their life, and some to what has happened in 
 our own times, or will happen hereafter.’ 
 
 Commenting” on the Biblical account of the Fall, he asks, 
 ‘is it not right to consider those sorrows which women suffer in 
 
 parturition, and their subsequent joy, together with the condem- 
 
 nation and degradation of the serpent, as evident fulfilments of 
 God’s threatenings, so that by this argument the truth of what 
 we said is confirmed ?’ 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUSS, in describing the true 
 
 Gnostic, says incidentally, ‘one of the evidences for the divinity 
 
 of our Saviour is the prophecy that preceded his appearance :’ 
 
 and, speaking of the prophets, he alludes to those among the 
 heathen who pretended to the spirit of prophecy, remarking 
 
 that the latter foretold future events either from observation and 
 
 probable conjecture, as physicians and fortune-tellers judge by 
 
 the countenance, or from the instruction of demons when under 
 
 the influence of some inhalation or drug; but that the former 
 
 foretold events by the power and influence of the Spirit of God. 
 
 TERTULLIAN® shews how the accomplishment of prophecy 
 
 in the Holy Scriptures, proves them to be of divine authority ; 
 ‘and thus,’ says he, ‘their majesty and authority can be esta- 
 
 blished, as well as their antiquity. The grounds of this proof 
 
 _ are obvious in the history of all periods; whatever is now done, 
 _was foretold; earthquakes, floods, wars, famines, pestilences, 
 
 changes in the social order of men, monsters, prodigies, all have 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. mu. c. 9. Eelb. Cx 2a. 
 ° Strom. Lib, mu. 4 Apol. c. 20. 
 H. E. 7 
 
98 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 been predicted by God. While we suffer calamities, we read 
 of them, and when we recognize the objects of prophecy, the 
 Scripture that predicts them is proved. The daily fulfilment of 
 prophecy is surely a full proof of Revelation, and hence we have 
 a well-grounded belief of things yet to come to pass. There 
 are* the Jews, dispersed and vagabond, wandering like exiles 
 from their native soil throughout the whole world, without either 
 man or God for their King, and not permitted even as strangers 
 
 to set foot upon their own land. Now all the sacred Scriptures _ ) 
 
 with one voice foretold that such would be their condition, and 
 that in the last days, God would gather together a more faithful 
 people for himself’ 
 
 ORIGEN”. ‘We hesitate not to say that it implies a 
 knowledge more than human, to have taught as Christ did, with 
 the utmost confidence, that his doctrine would be opposed, but 
 
 never overcome, speaking thus to his disciples, ‘Ye shall be — 
 brought before kings and councils for my name’s sake, for a — 
 
 testimony to them and to the Gentiles:’ and again, ‘in my 
 name, shall you cast out devils.’ Now if such things as these 
 had been accidentally pronounced, they might have taken place 
 without exacting much wonder; but when we find that they 
 
 were uttered with authority and distinctness, and then came to — 
 
 pass with the greatest exactness, it is clear that God alone 
 caused the whole of this doctrine of salvation to be delivered.’ 
 
 Our author then proceeds to quote the prophecy of Jacob — 
 (Gen. xlix.), and insists, upon the authority of history, that since — 
 the time of Christ, there has been no king of the Jews, but that 
 all their affairs have lain in disorder; whilst thedestruction of their _ 
 temple, their priesthood, and their sacrifices, has served to exem- _ 
 plify another prediction. (Hosea iii. 4.) It is further observed, 
 that the Jews to this day, anticipate a Messiah in consequence _ 
 of the promise through Jacob; and it is considered marvellous _ 
 that they should not perceive its due accomplishment already, — 
 together with those relating to their own punishment and disper- fl 
 sion, and the calling of the Gentiles; the last being clearly 
 
 established, in the multitudes of people, who believe in God 
 through Christ. 
 
 It appears® that in the third book of Ais work, Celsus had 
 
 * Apol.c. 21. > De Princip. Lib. 1. s. 2. © 1b.'s. 3. 
 * Cont. Cels, Lib. x1. s. 1, 2. 
 
 ac | 
 Me | 
 ae 
 
 ey, | 
 aH 
 | 
 as | 
 
 ae 
 7 | 
 * | 
 - | 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 99 
 
 thrown aside his Jewish disguise, and assumed the more natural 
 character of an epicurean sophist. Origen, following the track 
 of his adversary, commences the third book with a particular 
 reference to heathen objections. In reply to a profane jest, he 
 endeavours to prove that the religion he professes is something 
 more than a shadow. For this purpose he takes up the prophets 
 one by one, and points out how they indicate the exact place 
 and time of our Saviour’s birth, the signs and wonders he per- 
 formed, and notify his death and rising again, and the universal 
 extension of his Gospel. He asks why the prophets should 
 have thought these cogitations of theirs worthy of record, and 
 how they happened to have been preserved with such care, 
 especially by a people who frequently discriminated true and 
 false prophets; adding*, that it is not only by the prophets that 
 the incarnation is to be proved, but also by the Gospels and 
 Epistles which have been carefully handed down to us. 
 
 Again”, ‘the testimony of the great God and his holy mes- 
 sengers, as well before as after the advent of Jesus, ought to 
 satisfy men; for that he was announced, the Jews themselves are 
 witnesses, who were awaiting the Messiah just at the time he 
 came, and indeed were divided into two parties in consequence. 
 The Christians° only go a little further than the Jews, and be- 
 lieve that he who was to come, is come.’ 
 
 He remarks", in demonstrating the genuineness of the pro- 
 phets, that ‘passages out of them’ are to be found in the works 
 of Numenius the Pythagorean, (together with a notice of Moses in 
 connexion with Jannes and Jambres,) as also in other books; see, 
 for example® ‘the dispute of Papiscus and Jason},’ in which the 
 Christian has clearly shewn, from the Jewish Scriptures, that the 
 prophecies appertain to Jesus, though his adversary strenuously 
 contradicts him and well sustains his own cause. 
 
 Finally *, ‘It is an essential mark of Divinity to foretell 
 future events, so that the reason of the prediction should exceed 
 _ human ability, and the event decide whether its author really 
 has the Spirit (of God). But* Jesus is the only person, whose 
 appearance and influence throughout the world, as the Son of 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. m1. s. 15. » Ib. 3. 28. © Ib. Lib. rv.'s. 2: 
 * Tb; 9.51. © Tb. 8.52. 
 * This work is also quoted by Jerome (Lardner, 11, p- 310). It is ascribed 
 to Aristo of Pella in Hadrian’s reign. 
 * Ib. Lib. vi. s. 10. 6 Tb. s, 11, 
 1—2 
 
100 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 God, have been matters of prediction. Simon Magus, though © 
 once called the great, has no followers now! Dositheanus, who 
 claimed to be the Son of God, has scarce thirty of his sect left; — 
 and the like may be said of Judas Galileus and Theudas (Acts — 
 v. 35—37)! We have not therefore to choose between sons of | 
 God, as Celsus insinuates.’ | 
 
 LACTANTIUS? proves that the passion and death of Christ — 
 were foretold by the prophets, quoting Isaiah 1. 5, 6, on the 
 sufferings and silence of our Lord; Psalms xxxv. and Lxix. on | 
 the cruelty of the Jews, particularly in offering the vinegar; and — 
 Moses, in Deut. xxvili. 65, and Numb. xxiii. 19; with Zech. xu. © 
 10, and Amos viii. 9, 10, on the Jewish troubles, &c. ‘Nor,’ | 
 says he, ‘were these things spoken in vain, for in no long time © 
 after (the death of Jesus), the Emperor Vespasian made war — 
 upon the Jews, and having devastated their land, and subdued | 
 Jerusalem by famine, he completely overturned it, and led some | 
 of its inhabitants away captive, while he interdicted the rest from © 
 ever setting foot again on their native soil. These things were © 
 done by God, on account of that cross of Christ, as Solomon had — 
 testified in his dedication of the temple.’ (2 Chron. vii. 21, 22). | 
 
 He then? proceeds to illustrate the fulfilment of Psalm xvi. _ 
 9,10, and of Hosea vi. 2, and xiii. 14, from the evangelistic — 
 account of the resurrection of Christ. Illustrative of the ascension, | 
 Daniel vii. 18, and Psalm ex. 1 are quoted; and of the disin- | 
 heriting the Jews, &c. Jer. xii. 8; Malachi i. 11; Isaiah xlii. 6, 7, _ 
 and Ixvi. 18. 
 
 The inference is°; ‘When all these things were predicted — 
 by the unanimous voice of the prophets, it can no longer be | 
 doubted, but that all hope and life and salvation are to be found — 
 alone in the religion of our God.’ 
 
 Our author® explains the opening of the Scriptures to the | 
 disciples on their way to Emmaus, as meaning the revelation of | 
 those prophecies which had not before been perceived, announcing — 
 the passion itself; and which he thinks, as part of a Testament, | 
 could not be known until the death of the testator. 
 
 ‘ EUSEBIUS® asks ‘ Who of those that taught in ancient times 
 ecame known, established and declared by the announcement of — 
 
 : pit. c. 46. » Ib. c. 49. 9 Tb Seay S. 
 Div. Instit. Lib. rv. c. 80, © Theoph. Lib, m1. ¢. 25. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 101 
 
 prophets many ages ago? Who declared in writing, the place, 
 the time, and manner of his birth; the power, the words, the 
 deeds of his life? Observe likewise* the execution of vengeance 
 upon the Jews,—their temple and their sacred institutions being 
 destroyed in consequence of their wickedness. This Christ had 
 foretold, as also the establishment of his own Church. On the 
 one hand”, hear him saying, “ your house is left unto you deso- 
 late,” “nor shall stone remain upon stone in this place, that shall 
 not be thrown down ;” and on the other, “upon this rock will I 
 build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it.” Notice® particularly, his foretelling the disciples that he 
 would make those who had been fishermen, teachers of all nations; 
 and that they should come before kings and governors, and be 
 punished, and undergo grievous torments. Let any one® there- 
 fore, who will take up the true faith, together with the proof of 
 the revelation of our Saviour’s divinity, judge from the fact that 
 he openly foretold the spreading of his doctrine throughout the 
 world, as also that he himself would accomplish it; and then 
 on such a foundation as this, let him place faith in the other 
 promises (of Christ).’ 
 
 In the parables® of the husbandman and of the marriage 
 feast, are recognized the announcements of the rejection of the 
 Jews; Matt. xxii. 37, and Luke xiii. 34, being cited on the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. ‘ And just as the prediction was,’ our 
 author adds, ‘so are the results. The whole temple and the beau- 
 tiful buildings within its precincts, remain desolate from that time 
 to this, whilst its inhabitants wander about in lands not their own, 
 without a prince and without a nationality.’ He points’ out how 
 various minutiz connected with the siege of Jerusalem, hinted at 
 in Luke xix. 41, &c., xxii. 20, &c., were literally fulfilled. 
 This is done on the authority of Josephus, himself a Jew, who 
 mentions ‘ the distresses and straits, the famine and flight of the 
 people, in his sixth book ; and we ourselves know how truly they 
 _ are scattered still, and their city, newly called Elia, supplied with 
 
 inhabitants from foreign places.’ 
 
 It is next® shewn, that according to prediction, the Gentiles 
 were to be first moved by Jewish teaching, which is found 
 realized in the fact, that beginning with James, there were 
 fifteen Jewish bishops of Jerusalem, who had been the means of 
 
 ® Theoph. Lib. 111. ¢. 26. baw Una Ria © LO. Co 2s 1G. C.. 41. 
 ®* Lib. iv. c. 83— 15, TD C201 Oe 8 Ib.c 24. 
 
102 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 establishing a Church of many thousands of Gentiles, as well as 
 of their own countrymen, at the time of the desolation in the 
 reign of Hadrian: Peter also, it is remarked in this connexion, 
 was a Jew. 
 
 Our author then* dwells with astonishment upon the words 
 ‘For my sake,’ Matth. x. 18. His comment runs, ‘It was not 
 enough that Christ should know and forewarn of persecution, 
 but he would also name the very cause; and in truth it was so, 
 for not on account of any evil practice, nor for any other reason, 
 but as he had previously testified, every afiliction should befal 
 them “for his sake.” The Christians suffered only for con- 
 fessing the name of Christ. Never did any teacher previously 
 determine such specialities as these’. And all these proofs of 
 the divine manifestation of our Saviour, are also demonstrative 
 that both his doctrine and deeds were divine!’ 
 
 The Emperor Constantine is introduced°® saying, that ‘the 
 coming of Christ was predicted by the prophets, to be the over- 
 throw of idols and of idolatrous cities. Assyria and Egypt were 
 full of such places; in which even human sacrifices were offered 
 up to images of brass and clay. Wherefore these nations have 
 received a recompense worthy so foul a worship. Memphis and 
 Babylon, it was declared, should be wasted, and I myself have 
 been an eye-witness of their ruin.’ 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN?4 states, that out of hatred to 
 the Christians, Julian had permitted the Jews to attempt the 
 rebuilding of the temple; but that they were prevented from 
 
 carrying it on, by miraculous interference. This was all in ful- 
 filment of prophecy. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM® observes that the establishment of the _ 
 
 Gospel, was not a matter of chance but of clear prophecy ; and 
 in order that the predictions might not be suspected, we receive 
 them through the Jews themselves who crucified Christ, so that 
 
 it is from the testimony of our enemies taken from the books 
 
 they themselves preserve, that we draw this truth. 
 * Theoph. Lib. uz. ¢. 26. » [650.89 
 
 ’ Several prophecies on the Advent, apostolic labours, fall of J erusalem, | 
 c. 1. Ed. Spencer, and in Dem. Ev. “1 
 
 &c. will be seen in Origen’s Philocalia, 
 Vide Prof. Lee’s note. 
 ° Constant. Orat. c. 16. 
 
 * Orat. adv. Jul. ¢. 3, 4. 
 * On the Divinity of Christ. 
 
- 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 103 
 
 AUGUSTINE®, in his progress of the heavenly state, comes 
 down to the eras of the prophets. He first alludes to the tem- 
 poral promises to the J ors literally fulfilled in the land of 
 Canaan, and then passes on” to the times of Samuel and Eli, 
 noticing the various predictions with their accomplishments, which 
 distinguished each period. Advancing yet further, he takes 
 the predictions relating to the Messiah; shews® that the pro- 
 mises to David, were not fulfilled in Solomon, but in Jesus; 
 and points out® the prophecies in Psalms xxxix., xlix., lL, li, the 
 tropes and figures®in Psalm xli. concerning Christ and his Church, 
 with references‘ to his priesthood in Psalm ex., and to his passion 
 in Psalm xxii, Our Lord’s resurrection is found® plainly set forth 
 in Psalms iii, xvi., xli., Ixviii.; and the obstinate infidelity of 
 the Jews, in Psalm Ixix. Having descended to” the prophets at 
 the period of the decline of the Assyrian empire, he traces the 
 predictions of the Gospel, in Hosea and Amos; of Christ and 
 his people’, in Isaiah liii. 1—12, and liv. 1—5; others con- 
 cerning the world’s salvation by Christ*, as furnished by Micah 
 iv. 1—3, by Jonah u. 1, by Joel 11. 28, 29, by Obadiah, Nahum, 
 Habakkuk; and what Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Daniel, Hzekiel, 
 Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi have foretold of Christ, of the 
 calling of the Gentiles, and of the permanency of the Church. 
 He says’, that whilst the Jews refuse to credit owr Scriptures, 
 their own are being fulfilled on themselves. ‘The leaves of the 
 sibyls! may be doubtful, but here we have books preserved by 
 our very enemies the Jews, and that too, it would seem, 
 against their own wills; and dispersed as far as the Church of God 
 extends, even to the remote corners of the earth, just as the 
 Psalm (lix. 10, 11) which they themselves read, foretells.’—And 
 in this appears one reason for the dispersion of the ancient 
 people of God, that they might be a witness coextensive with the 
 Gospel, concerning their own prophets, who prophesy of Christ. 
 
 In the 20th book of the City of God, Augustine makes use 
 of the prophets, whose veracity he has thus established, to prove 
 a day of judgment and a future state. 
 
 @ De Civit. Dei, Lib. xvu. ¢. 1. Plt @oas ¢ Tb. c. 12 
 4 Tb..c. 16. ©ulh. cal7: £ TD: Geko: & Jb. c. 19. 
 h Jb. Lib. xvii. ¢c. 28. i Ib. c. 29. Kk 1b. c. 30—35. } Ib. c. 46. 
 
 ! Augustine had referred in the twenty-third chapter of this book, to the 
 oracle of Sibylla Erythrea, concerning Christ, citing Lactantius’ previous 
 allusion to the same. 
 
104 THE ARGUMENT FROM’ PROPHECY. 
 
 Section II. 
 ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY ADDRESSED TO THE JEW. 
 
 USTIN MARTYR® commences his dialogue with Trypho, 
 by premising, ‘that from those things which Jesus foretold 
 were to happen to them that should believe and confess him to 
 be the Christ, we are sure that he did know what would come 
 to pass after his departure out of the world; for instance the 
 sufferings of Christians,’ &c. It is then” remarked that Psalm xe. 
 cannot be interpreted of Hezekiah, nor Psalm lxxii. of Solomon: 
 it is also proved, that Christ was called the Lord of Hosts, and 
 ought to be worshipped, according to David. Our author next® | 
 shews how the types of the law prefigured Christ alone; how John 
 was his forerunner“, in fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah 
 xxxix. and xl.; how he was born® of the tribe of Judah, after 
 the promise of Jacob (Gen. xlix.); and how he entered Jeru- 
 salem* in humble triumph according to Zechariah. He then’ 
 observes, that there are more persons in the Godhead than the 
 Father, is evident from™ Abraham’s communion with the angel — 
 called the Lord; from Jacob’s visions; and from: Moses’ wonderful 
 interview at the bush, even upon the Jews’ own shewing ; also* 
 that the Wisdom or Logos must be a person, even he who was 
 recognized in the creation of man. This person, or God, is 
 proved in conclusion, to have been promised in the flesh by the 
 prophets, and particularly to be born of a virgin, which thing 
 was accomplished in our Christ alone. 
 
 Our author! reminds Trypho, that the very cross which is 
 such a stumbling-block to him on account of the curse attached to 
 it, alone proves that Jesus is the Christ, cursed for us, because 
 crucified for us. He finds hints of the Cross in the Old Testa- 
 ment, as the spreading of Moses’ hands, the brazen serpent, &c. 
 
 The several incidents™ connected with the death and burial 
 of Jesus, are brought into view, as matter of prophecy in 
 Psalm xxii., and as realizations in the Gospels; thus, the piercing 
 the hands and the feet, the withdrawal of God’s countenance, 
 the parting of the raiment, the resurrection ; the last being also 
 
 * Dial. cum Tryph. s. 33—3865. m 10.8. Ona, °.1b..8. 40; 
 1795. '8.°60. © “20.8.2. t TRB: 8 Ib. s. 56. 
 n Tb. 8. 58. * Tb. s. 59. K Tbs) 61s 1 oT bS6RB9- 
 
 ™ Ib. 8s. 97 —99. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 105 
 
 foreshadowed® in the history of Jonah. Lastly, the conversion of 
 the Gentiles”, quoted from Micah, is shewn to be in part accom- 
 plished already, in the spread of Christianity ; ‘and a conside- 
 ration of the whole subject®, should warn the Jews ‘not to 
 speak evil of Him who was crucified for them, nor to laugh at 
 His stripes by which all may be healed, as we have been healed. 
 For it would be well for you, if you would assent to the Scrip- 
 tures and receive the circumcision of the hardness of your heart ; 
 not that which you have such an opinion of and fondness for, 
 which was given for a sign, and not for a work of te ae oar ae 
 as the Scriptures evidently declare.’ 
 
 TERTULLIAN first shews? how God promised to Abra- 
 ham that in his seed should all the families of the earth be 
 blessed; and that he should be the father of two nations, the 
 Jews and the Gentiles. He next® explains the true nature of the 
 sabbath, of circumcision’, of sacrifices and offerings; and points® 
 out where the prophets foretold that the old law would cease in 
 favour of a new law, at the coming of Christ and His kingdom. 
 This latter point® our author thinks is ‘ clearly seen accomplished 
 in the extension of Christianity among the Moors, the Spaniards, 
 the Gauls, the Britons, the Samaritans, the Germans, and Scyth- 
 ians with other nations, isles and provinces, too numerous to 
 name.’ Then! follow the predictions of the birth and passion of 
 our Lord, and of the destruction of Jerusalem, taken* from Daniel 
 ix. (the weeks are applied historically); from Isaiah xii.; Zech. xiv. 
 14, (the magi); and Psalm Ixxi. &c., all of which have received 
 their confirmation in the Gospel. 
 
 On the subject! of our Lord’s sufferings and death, he ad- 
 duces Isaiah lviii. 1, and xxxv. 5; Deut. xxi. 28; and Psalms 
 xxiv., Ixviii., and xxl. 
 
 In Ezekiel he discerns™ the fate of the Jew, and” in Psalm 
 ii. 7, and Isaiah xlix. 6, the calling and healing of the nations ; 
 and finally°, discriminates the two advents, one in humility and 
 the other in glory, as foretold by the prophets. 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS?, addressing the Jews, bids them lend their 
 
 @ Dial. cum Tryph. s. 107. >’ Tb. s. 109, 110, 130. OT Slots 
 4 Adv. Jud. s. 1. © Ib. 8. 3, 4. PE Uake Os & Ib. s. 6. 
 Eb: 83 'T- ‘TD, a8: ET hise Y Tbas. 10. 
 
 Pe Lobes: 11. 2 Tb. 8012, ° Ib. s, 14. P Adv. Jud. s. 1. 
 
106 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 ear; ‘You often boast,’ says he, ‘in that you have condemned © 
 Jesus of Nazareth, and because you gave him vinegar and gall to 
 drink. Let us consider whether this is a just boast, or whether — 
 that little drop of vinegar and gall has not brought upon you the — 
 most terrible denunciations and calamities.’ To establish® this, he 
 cites David, ‘ who predicted the true Christ, and sang praises to 
 our God through the Holy Spirit. This man clearly announced 
 all those things that were done by the Jews at the passion 
 of Christ, when he humbled himself and took upon him the 
 form of his servant, Adam. In one of the Psalms, Christ is 
 heard, as though in our stead, invoking his heayenly Father 
 thus, ‘The waters have come in unto my soul; I sink in the 
 mire.... For thy sake I have endured hatred (that is the cross) 
 .... therefore thou wilt not suffer my body to see corruption,” 
 (that is in the sepulchre). And again, complaining of the deser- 
 tion of his disciples; “I looked for some to comfort, and found 
 none.” But mark what follows, Oh Jew: « They gave me gall 
 and vinegar to drink!” Now these indignities he has suffered at 
 your hands, as you yourselves confess and boast. Hear then what 
 a price the Holy Spirit declares shall be paid for that drop of 
 vinegar: ‘ Let their table become a snare unto them, and a retri- 
 bution” (Ps. Ixix. 22); and what does that mean ? Manifestly 
 the miseries with which the Jews are now overwhelmed, when 
 according to the same prophet, “ Christ would speak to them in 
 his anger, and vex them in his fury.” ’ (Ps, ii. 5). 
 
 ORIGEN?” incidentally alludes to a discussion he once held 
 with some Jewish Rabbis, before a large and learned company. 
 He begged to know of his opponents on what grounds they be- 
 lieved their Moses to have written his history (seeing that it is 
 called an illusion by the Egyptians), whilst they disbelieve our 
 Jesus who wrote nothing himself, but was testified of by sincere 
 disciples. A still further resemblance between the two cases under 
 dispute is seen in that the authority of both leaders is supported 
 by a respectable and immense body of followers. ‘Now Christians,’ 
 he continued, ‘do not repudiate Moses, but tend to confirm him: 
 if therefore you want a Justification of our conduct in trusting the 
 blessed Saviour, do you first assign some reasons for believing in 
 Moses, who came into the world many ages before the Incarnation 
 
 * Adv. Jud. s. 8. » Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 45. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 107 
 
 of Jesus, (and therefore may be called a more indistinct cha- 
 racter), and then it will be time for us to acquaint you with the 
 rational grounds on which our faith is built.’ The Rabbis having 
 nothing to say to this, he proceeded to prove that Jesus is the 
 Messiah, from their own law and prophets, observing by the way, 
 that ‘though it may seem strange, the same argument proves 
 Moses and the prophets themselves, to be inspired persons.’ 
 
 Our author* charges Celsus, while he personates the Jew, with 
 ‘purposely or ignorantly overlooking one of the most cogent argu- 
 ments that can be brought in favour of our blessed Lord, namely, 
 his being foretold by the Jewish prophets, by Moses, and even by 
 some who lived before him.’ ‘I suppose,’ he adds, ‘ he knew that 
 he could return no reasonable answer to a proposition in which 
 the Jews, as well as the greatest heretics, agree with us. For my 
 own part, I firmly believe that the person, of whom there are so 
 many predictions in the sacred Writings of the Jews, is the Son 
 of God.’ He shews that these predictions apply to no one else. © 
 ‘For? all and each of them must tally with the history of the 
 individual to whom they are applied.’ By means of this rule® 
 of interpretation, he gets rid of various impostors or false Mes- 
 siahs, who are proposed by Celsus as answering the expectations 
 of the Jewish people. It is found, for example, that none of 
 them were born in Bethlehem; whilst that Jesus was born there 
 is notorious, since the cave is still shewn, and it was confessed 
 by the chief priests and teachers, in reply to Herod’s enquiry. 
 
 Next*, he touches upon the yet older prediction of Jacob 
 (Gen. xlix. 10). ‘Now any one who reads this ancient promise, 
 
 ~ eannot but wonder how Jacob could foreknow that the rulers of 
 
 the nation should come of a particular tribe, as also that they 
 should fail at a certain period.’ Yet both these events have 
 exactly taken place: the Jews have derived their very name 
 from the tribe of Judah; and that ‘the desire of nations’ is 
 come, the vast number of persons who flock to him abundantly 
 proves, making good the words of the prophet, ‘ They shall feed 
 in the ways, and their pasture shall be in all high places.’ I 
 must add because of Celsus’ reproaches, that the prophets fore- 
 told Christ’s sufferings, and the reasons why he underwent them, 
 and that they would conduce to the advantage of all mankind. 
 The references here, are Isaiah li. 13—-15; lui. 1, 2. 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 49. bbe: BO: GRY fi acer e 
 fr, Se Soe 
 
108 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 Speaking* of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah he relates, that in 
 another disputation with the Jews, one of them asserted that 
 these prophecies are to be referred to their whole body, whose 
 dispersion and other calamities were means to gain proselytes 
 to their religion. In answer to this, Origen says he quoted the 
 passages, ‘He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,’ 
 and ‘by his stripes we are healed,’ to shew that such a sense 
 could not be entertained, for they evidently refer to persons 
 cured of spiritual diseases; adding, ‘but what most perplexed 
 them was that expression, “ For the transgression of my people 
 was he smitten,’ which must be understood of some single person, 
 and not of the whole nation.” 
 
 Our author states” that the Saviour’s foreknowledge! of the 
 reception his doctrine would meet with, was a divine proof of its 
 future happy effect ; and this he explains afterwards to be the 
 more remarkable, because the events were so unlikely, and be- 
 cause hostile governors and kings have been made to bring them 
 about against their will. Wherefore he can see no stronger 
 evidence for the truth of any doctrine. 
 
 “Of the rejection of the Jews, he says, ‘ we see the prophecies 
 (relating to this subject) remarkably fulfilled in our own age ; 
 for the modern Jews, not rightly understanding the Scriptures, 
 abound in extravagant fancies, while Christians are led into the 
 spiritual knowledge of the truth, which can alone enlighten and 
 elevate the mind; and do not live after the manner of the J ews, 
 as members of an earthly republic, but like worthy and honor- 
 able citizens of that heavenly Jerusalem, of which the pompous 
 worship and external grandeur of Judaism is but a very imper- 
 fect emblem. It is, moreover‘, a matter of fact that since the 
 incarnation of our blessed Lord, the Jews have been left by God, 
 so that the beauty and glory of their religion is entirely effaced, 
 and there is no sign of the divine power among them, except in 
 the way of severe judgments: they are at this day the most 
 miserable people on the face of the earth; for what nation is 
 there beside, that is banished from their metropolis, and denied 
 the liberty of serving God on their native soil? In truth their 
 calamities are only surpassed by their wickedness in torturing 
 that blessed Being, who came to save them from sin and hell.’ 
 
 * Cont. Cels. s. 55. » 16. 3. 62: 
 * See also Hom. on Matth. ix. 37. ° Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 5. 
 © 7h. 820. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 109 
 
 CYPRIAN® shews that the rejection by the Jews of the 
 offers of grace, was foretold by their own prophets, and illus- 
 trated in the saying of St John, ‘He came unto his own and 
 his own received him not.’ 
 
 He alludes” to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dis- 
 persion of the Jews, as predicted by Christ; to the abolition® 
 of carnal circumcision in favour of a spiritual dispensation ; to 
 the cessation® of the law of Moses; to the New Law’ that was 
 all along intended, and to that Messiah who was to promulgate it 
 (recognized as Christ by Matthew in these words, ‘ This is my 
 beloved Son’); and to Christ’ taking the place of the temple, 
 on which Mark xiv. 58 is quoted; and, finally, to the promise 
 of Moses, that a prophet like unto himself should arise, which 
 the Saviour is found appropriating to himself, im John y. 46, 
 ‘Moses wrote of me.’ 
 
 The prophecies" concerning the divine nature of the Messiah, 
 are seen completed in Christ, and hinted at by St John xvii. 3—5, 
 and in Coloss. i. 15—18. 
 
 He points out’ how correlative are many of the expressions 
 of the New Testament with those of the Old, respecting the 
 Messiah: for instance“, that he was to come of the seed of 
 David, plainly agreeable to Luke i. 30; be born’ at Bethlehem, 
 confirmed in Matth. ii. 2; in a humble character™, noted in 
 Philipp. ii. 6—11; that he" whom the Jews should kill was 
 to be a just person, recognized in Matth. xxvil. 3, 4; that 
 he° was to be called the sheep and the lamb, literally ac- 
 complished in the words, ‘Behold the Lamb of God?;’ that 
 he was to be called? a stone, referred to by St Peter; that 
 the Jews were to crucify him, which they notoriously did’; 
 that there should be darkness at mid-day when Christ suffered, 
 as Amos (vill. 9, 10) and Jeremiah (xv. 9) had foretold, to which 
 _ agrees the event related by the holy Evangelist, who tells us that 
 from the sixth to the ninth hour, there was darkness over all 
 the land; and, to conclude, that the Christ* was not to continue 
 under the dominion of death, but that at his resurrection he 
 should receive all power from his Father, in fulfilment of which 
 
 4 Adv. Jud. Lib. 1. ¢. 3. > Jb. c 6. © Jb. c. 8. & Thi cs 9. 
 
 © 1b. c. 10. i Ls Ghee & 1b..¢.18. PEED. Lie Ths Ce 1. 
 0G: co.6. F £6. ce uke B16. c. 12: ad Ge Gh 15s 
 " Ib. c. 14, SED, Ge Sy P Ib. c. 16. 4 Ib. c. 20, 
 
 ¥ Tb. c. 23. Ss Tb. c. 24—26. 
 
110 THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY, 
 
 Jesus said and proved after he was risen, ‘All power is given 
 unto me in heaven and in earth.’ - 
 
 EUSEBIUS%, having treated of the divinity and humanity 
 of the Christ of God, and of his connexion with man as the 
 Logos, in the 3rd and 4th books, now cites some prophecies, 
 which he selects as being perfectly unambiguous. They relate 
 to the advent of Christ and to the calling of the Gentiles. The 
 Psalms”, the first of Kings, and Micah are adduced for this pur- 
 pose, and their consideration, as well as° the extent of their 
 accomplishment, is left to the meditation of the reader. Other 
 passages are then brought forward from Habakkuk, Zechariah, 
 Baruch, and Isaiah*, of a more general cast, which he supposes 
 to be partly fulfilling now, and certainly to be consummated in 
 the glories of heaven. 
 
 After this’, he narrows the circle of prophetical evidence, 
 and endeavours to concentrate the attention of his hearers on 
 a few facts, such as the sign of Ahaz, describing the manner of 
 the Messiah’s birth; Micah’s testimony, as to the locality ; and 
 that of the prophet Nathan in the 2 Chron., and of J eremiah, 
 Isaiah, and Jacob, as to the tribe and family. These predictions 
 are collated with the Gospels, and found confirmed in the history 
 of Jesus. 
 
 He devotes himself in the next place, to expounding the times 
 of Messiah’s appearance, hinted at by Jacob and David. These 
 predictions give rise to an elaborate historical investigation, in 
 the course of which appeals are made to the Evangelists, and to 
 the works of Josephus, for proof of their exact fulfilment. Micah, 
 Zechariah, and Isaiah furnish additional materials, relating to the 
 Messianic epoch. A further correspondence” is traced between 
 the Old and New Testaments, in regard to certain circumstances 
 of the Saviour’s life: Balaam’s announcement of the Star, is 
 recognized as complete in Matth. ii. 1; Christ’s going down into 
 Egypt (Matth. ii. 14), is found referred to by Isaiah (xix. 1); 
 Hosea x. 1, on the return of the holy family, appears to be directly 
 cited by Matth. ii. 15; the preaching of John in the desert (Isaiah 
 x]. 3) is confirmed in Luke iii.1; a foreshadow of the temptation 
 is seen in Psalm xci. 13, and of the walking on the sea, in Job 
 
 * Dem. Evan. Lib. vt. P Tbs, 1h oT Os aoe 
 4 Tb. A149. © Pht, OF. f Tb. Lib. vu. 
 & Tb. Lib. var. » Tb. Lib. rx. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. tif 
 
 ix. 8; Galilee, so frequently referred to in the Gospels, is evi- 
 dently predesignated in Isaiah ix. 1; the same prophet having 
 - many allusions to the Christian miracles, see ch. vill. 16, xxxii. 1, 
 |xi. 2, &c.; and the entry into Jerusalem, mentioned by Zech. 
 ix. 9, is traced in Matth. xxi. 2, with the acclamations of the 
 children on the same occasion, directly illustrating the Psalms. 
 Finally*, he notices the prophecies concerning Christ’s pas- 
 sion. The traitor Judas is discovered, in Psalms xli.9, lin. 12—21, 
 cix., and his thirty pieces of silver in Zech. xi. 18; the eclipse 
 of the sun, in Amos viii. 7, and Zech. xiv. 5, and many of the 
 circumstances of the crucifixion seriatim, in Psalm xx. These 
 prophecies are all aptly confirmed out of the Gospels, and in 
 conclusion our author ‘calls upon every person to obey the com- 
 
 _ mand of Christ, and “search the Scriptures” for himself, con- 
 
 cerning these matters.’ 
 
 EPHRAIM? (on a Palm Sunday) after a rapid survey of 
 various prophecies relating to Christ’s triumphal entry into 
 Jerusalem, calls upon his congregation to examine the Scrip- 
 tures of the prophets, and see if these things have not been 
 fulfilled. He quotes Jacob’s promise, and asks the Jew whether 
 there is a sceptre in Judah, or an interpreter between his feet? 
 He entreats all to observe the present commemoration of Christ 
 on the colt, and the scattered condition of Israel among all 
 nations. How truly has the stone which the builders refused 
 become the head of the corner! 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM® first insists that the Jews are not to be 
 honoured any more, and that their synagogue is scarcely to be 
 preferred before the theatre; while their company ought to be 
 avoided so long as they rail against Christ. He thinks that in 
 place of venerating them on account of their having the Scrip- 
 
 tures, we should on that very account be afraid of them. 
 
 He produces the prophecies of our Lord concerning the ruin 
 of the temple, pointing out how they have been fulfilled; ‘ which,’ 
 says he, ‘is a proof that he is risen from the dead, and now 
 lives in heaven.’ 
 
 Next‘, he instances the promise made by Christ to the 
 woman with the alabaster box of ointment. ‘There have been,’ 
 
 2 Dem. Evan. Lib. x. >’ Adv. Jud. s. 16. 
 © Orat. adv. Jud. s. 1. Or OG Be ok 
 
ja THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 
 
 he argues, ‘queens and noble women, whose names, however 
 they may have blessed their people and country, have long 
 since perished; but here is an abject woman in the presence of 
 a few witnesses, in a common house; and yet neither the hum- 
 bleness of the person, nor the paucity of the witnesses, nor the 
 obscurity of the place has prevented the memory of this action 
 from being handed down to posterity. Is not this the work of 
 God ?’ 
 
 With respect to the destruction of Jerusalem*, he remarks, 
 that though so many years have now elapsed, the temple has 
 never been rebuilt. He relates” the vain attempt under the 
 direction of Julian ; observing, that° if these Jews did not believe 
 this, the very stones of the ruins will ery out against them. 
 
 In conelusion®, he applies the different allusions in Isaiah, 
 touching Christ’s life and death, and the typical qualifications of 
 the high-priesthood in Leviticus, to the atoning sacrifice on 
 Calvary. 
 
 JACOBUS NISIBENUS (Syriacus) in his 18th Oration, (it 
 is against the Jews), refutes the assertion that the synagogue, &c. 
 will ever be restored, by appeals to the prophets. 
 
 * Orat. adv. Jud, s. 8, Pod Hotes airs © Ib. s. 10. 1 Orat. 6. 
 
CHAPTER IV, 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 * Certum est quia impossibile.” 
 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 N commencing this chapter, it should at once be stated, that 
 the reader must not expect to find the Apologists offering any 
 regular proof of the reality of the Christian miracles, or of the 
 authenticity of the writings that narrate them. This strange task 
 has fallen to the lot of modern apologists; and has been called 
 for by our doubting critics, who under every disadvantage, have 
 thought fit to question facts, which a Tiberius, a Celsus, a Por- 
 phyry!, a Julian, a Hierocles?, a Symmachus did not deny. The 
 heathen were only asked to receive our books, as they received 
 any other credentials; that is, for their intrinsic worth as his- 
 _ torical or rational matter. Up to this mark, it seems the con- 
 stant endeavour of the Christian writers to keep their opponents; 
 and, though there is a large amount of scattered reference to 
 contemporaneous and foreign testimony,—to Josephus, to the acts 
 of Pilate, to every monument and roll of antiquity, by Justin, or 
 Tatian, or Theophilus; and to the necessities of the case, by all 
 _ the apologists,—it had evidently not yet entered into the minds 
 of either Christian or Pagan, Jew or Gentile, at the only proper 
 time, seriously to doubt the reality of such a body of facts as 
 Christianity presented. The historical testimony to the miracles 
 was considered on all hands sufficient and conclusive. Any set 
 attempt therefore to confirm it would have been worse than 
 superfluous; it- would have introduced suspicion into the very 
 - grounds of the controversy. It was enough for Cyril of Alexan- 
 ‘dria, in his refutation of Julian, to find his adversary allowing, 
 _ however he might try to disparage, ‘the healing of the lame 
 and blind,’ as the deeds of Jesus, together with references to 
  ‘exorcising demoniacs, and walking on the sea.’ 
 While then demanding so much credit for the facts of Chris- 
 tianity, our authors did not, humanly speaking, expect more. 
 They knew that however an historical faith might come of 
 
 ‘ Chrys. Hom. vi. ? Lact. Div. Instit. v. 3. 
 H. E. 8 
 
114 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 evidence and good sense, a belief in spiritualities, in the inspira- 
 tion of words and divinity of deeds, could only come of the Holy 
 Spirit’s teaching ; and for this upon their unenlightened hearers, 
 they had rather to pray, than to contend. In short, the great 
 signa of Scripture were allowed by the one party, to have taken 
 
 place; and by the other, were thought sufficient as matters of fact, 
 
 (with other evidences) to support the truth of religion, and to do _ 
 
 all that man can do, towards convincing the understanding. 
 But there were other questions peculiar to that day, and 
 
 which grew out of the existing state of things. One of these — 
 has been already alluded to, in the opening of the last chapter; _ 
 
 that of the Pagans endeavouring to evade the force of the Chris- 
 tian miracles, by explaining them away as the effects of magic. 
 This is the reason given by some of the Fathers themselves, for 
 
 not insisting more upon this species of evidence. It was the — 
 
 prevalent opinion of early times, that a miracle, though ever 
 a proof of power, is not necessarily a proof of Divine power. 
 It might emanate from below, as well as from above. This notion, 
 Origen attributes to the Jews, conceiving that it grew out of the 
 collision between Moses and the magicians of Egypt. The tend- 
 ency of the present age has decidedly set in against any theory 
 of the sort, and all parties agree in allowing that a miracle, if it 
 can be proved authentic, is one of the strongest evidences any cause 
 
 can possess. But the apologists had to meet the difficulty; and | 
 
 this they did, not by relinquishing so valuable a proof, but by 
 associating it with other criteria, especially with morality. If 
 
 then it be found that they have said less upon this topic than — 
 we could have wished, we may be sure that what they have — 
 afforded, has been well guarded and sifted, and comes down to | 
 
 us with more than the usual value of tradition. 
 
 Another peculiar form of opposition the Fathers had to — 
 grapple with, was the attempt to confuse the Christian miracles _ 
 with the prodigies of marvellous men. Numerous examples of | 
 this occur, and were always carefully answered. Pythagoras — 
 was thus put forward by Porphyry, and Jamblichus and Apu-— 
 leius, by others; but the most considerable effort of the kind was — 
 made by Hierocles, who had the boldness to compare the miracu- | 
 lous accounts of Jesus and the apostles, with a life of Apollonius | 
 Tyaneus, written a hundred years after his death, and full of the — 
 most ridiculous inventions. Eusebius replies to this indirect — 
 attack of Hierocles, and considers it quite sufficient to expose the — 
 
 Ses ee 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 115 
 
 various incidents related by the original biographer Philostratus, 
 
 as in strange contrast with the want of authority, and even of 
 
 pretence of the hero himself during his life-time. He allows the 
 substance of the history, but disputes the extraordinary parts. 
 It is a curious circumstance noticed by Mr J. H. Newman, that the 
 
 only case in the entire document, which would fall under the 
 
 modern denomination of miracles (the raising of a dead youth), is 
 explained away by the philosopher’s own friend, on the ground 
 of natural causes}. 
 
 There is one more particular to be noticed, ere we enter upon 
 
 _ the proofs of this chapter, on account of the references made to it 
 
 by the Apologists; viz. the subject of post-apostolic miracles. 
 Gibbon having taken an argument against al/ miracles from the 
 
 ‘silence of ecclesiastical history respecting their cessation, the 
 
 t 
 
 Bishop of Lincoln replies, that a gradual withdrawal would ac- 
 count for the uncertainty which has prevailed respecting the 
 period of their cessation; while the alleged silence is as reason- 
 ably referred, ‘not to the insensibility of Christians to so im- 
 
 portant an event, but to the combined operation of prejudice and 
 
 policy ; of prejudice that made them reluctant to believe, and 
 of policy that made them reluctant to acknowledge their own 
 
 _ loss?.’ On the appeals and expressions of confidence, used by the 
 
 Fathers with respect to miraculous powers: having extended to 
 their own day, the Bishop further explains ‘that the narrations 
 
 of such occurrences being couched in general terms, and rarely 
 going so far as to instance any particular case, must needs be 
 
 open to question.’ These reflections are as judicious, as they 
 
 are warranted by the state of the case. The positive assertions 
 of patristic miracles may be met and cancelled by assertions as 
 positive on the other side, and, what is still more significant, by 
 arguments built upon them. What, for example, can be more 
 
 explicit than Augustine’s statement in his work De Doctrina 
 
 Christiana’, and repeated in his short discourse, De Utilitate 
 - Credendi ; ‘since the establishment of the Church, God does not 
 wish to perpetuate miracles even to our day, lest the mind should 
 
 1 Essay on the Life of Apollonius. 
 
 * I find a remark of Origen, (Cont. Cels. Lib. vir. s. 8.) analogically in 
 favour of the gradual withdrawal theory of Dr Kaye. Speaking of the in- 
 Spiration of the prophets, he says ‘signs of the Holy Spirit were shewn at 
 the preaching and after the Ascension of Jesus, but have gradually departed 
 since ; and if any traces are now to be found, it is among Christians.’ 
 
 3 @, 25, 
 ee 
 
116 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 put its trust in visible signs, or grow cold at the sight of common 
 marvels?” In the latter work, after reciting the miracles of Jesus, 
 it is asked, ‘ Why say you, do not those things take place now? 
 Because they would not move except they were wonderful, and 
 if they were usual they would cease to be wonderful!’ ; Again, 
 we have Chrysostom, urging the superior value of morality over 
 the extraordinary gift of working miracles, in these terms: 
 ‘Wherefore that this gift of grace is no longer bestowed on men, 
 can neither be to our prejudice, nor will it afford us an excuse 
 when we shall be called upon to render an account of our actions ;’ 
 and, ‘ We should not indeed require, in an equal degree, the assist- _ 
 ance of the word, if we possessed the power of working miracles. 
 But now that no vestige of that power remains, and enemies press — 
 us on all sides, we must defend ourselves with the weapons of 
 the word?.’ 
 
 Moreover, from a consideration of all the works of the pri- 
 mitive Fathers, it would seem a much greater miracle than any — 
 claimed for their age, how they have all so contrived to leave us _ 
 bare of those particularities, even of one (if it be true they wit-_ 
 nessed any), which are required alike by the common expecta-_ 
 tions of mankind, and by the example of the Scriptures, and | 
 which they themselves never neglected in other matters. 
 
 Granting, however, that the Apologists must mean something, 
 by their positive appeals and assertions respecting the subject | 
 in dispute; and also that they were upright men, of which there 
 can be still less doubt, a further explanation offers itself, and one, | 
 it appears to me, of a satisfactory nature. It is that they did~ 
 not mean miracles in our strict sense of the term. This is j 
 evinced by their calling and accounting the establishment of — 
 Christianity, or the moral change in individuals, miracles, inter-_ 
 
 - 
 
 1 The qualification of thisin Retract. B. 1. c. 14, 5, ‘this I said, because | 
 not so great miracles nor all take place now, not because there are none > 
 wrought now,’ cannot, I think, with fairness, be said to include or affect any © 
 of the species of miracles he had previously enumerated ; and among them | 
 are ‘healing the sick,’ and ‘curing the lame!’ But really after the above — 
 unmistakeable and sensible remarks, one is disposed to question the genuine- | 
 ness, as well as the authenticity of a list of miracles, passing under this | 
 Father’s name, and appended to his City of God. Take, for instance, the — 
 10th. A virgin is dispossessed of the devil, by anointing herself with oil 
 mixed with the tears of the priest who prayed for her: and if the rest are — 
 examined, it will appear that Augustine was present at only one, and that, 
 the healing of a fistula, in the course of the night. ei 
 
 * Neander's Life of Chrysostom, pp. 64, 71. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 117 
 
 changeably with miracles proper. And yet more to our pur- 
 pose is, what cannot have escaped the notice of any student of 
 ancient theology, viz. that almost every instance of the miracles 
 in question, implies a demoniacal possession. Now this is rather 
 an equivocal expression. It had in our Lord’s time, doubtless, 
 a distinct and express meaning, but by the time of Chrysostom, 
 it is to be met with in a wider signification. This writer, in an 
 epistle to Stagirius, a youth who had fallen into a nervous malady, 
 addresses him as one ‘possessed by the devil;’ and yet there is 
 no allusion to any power of relief extant; but the christian hope 
 of comforting and extinguishing ‘his great grief,’ is entertained 
 and supported by such advice alone, as a discipline of holy 
 thought and Scripture examples. Cyprian also, in his epistle 
 to Donatus, confesses that ‘the whole transaction (of exorcism) 
 passes indeed invisibly, and the wounds we give the evil spirits, 
 are not apparent, only their effect is manifest!,’ &c. We gather 
 the same idea from ‘the Constitutions. They allow that the 
 cure of demoniacs was a work of time, and that it did not always 
 succeed. In Const. vii. 7, the patients are seen being instructed 
 in the faith, but not receiving the communion unless near death, 
 which leads Jortin to ask, ‘Is it not probable that the ancient 
 Christians accounted mad, and melancholy, and epileptic persons 
 to be possessed, at least for the most part, which would greatly 
 increase the number of demoniacs” ?’ 
 
 Another hint may be thrown out here, in explanation of 
 these references to post-apostolic miracles. The Fathers copied 
 one from another. A case just in point occurs, where Cy- 
 prian borrows from Minutius Felix, almost verbatim, the fol- 
 lowing words*: ‘Even the worshippers themselves (of the 
 demons) may hear them (on the occasion of an exorcism) con- 
 fessing whence they came and whither they are going. Hither 
 they depart immediately, or gradually quit their hold, in pro- 
 portion either to the faith of the patient, or to the measure of 
 grace conferred on the manager of the cure.’ Again, as there can 
 be little doubt that Cyprian has drawn this, together with other 
 _ passages, from the Octavius of Minutius Felix, so Mr Holden 
 
 traces some of the Octavius to the Apologeticus of Tertullian; 
 
 1 Ad Donat. cap. 4. 2 Jortin’s Remarks, Vol. 1. p. 161. 
 ? Compare Cypr. Van. of Idols with Min. Fel. Octav. c. 27, or p. 121 of 
 the Cea dissertation. 
 * See Holden's Pref. to Minutius Felix. 
 
118 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 Pe, 
 
 ¢ 
 
 and thus with other writers!, and in other cases, it may be that 
 language which properly belongs to an eye-witness, has been 
 transcribed and handed down from nearly apostolic times. ; 
 
 I cannot do better in closing this digression, than refer to the — 
 Bishop of Lincoln’s summary and judgment upon the case. His — 
 opinion, after a careful view of the subject in every light, is, that 
 ‘the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the — 
 disciples, upon whom the Apostles had laid their hands?’ 
 
 It is refreshing in turning to the main body of this argument, © 
 —the Scripture miracles,—to know that such a collateral, doubt-_ 
 ful matter as that we have just glanced at, is but occasionally — 
 or slightly appealed to; and that even such casual expressions — 
 as do occur, admit of some psychological explanation, or only — 
 (if they must be taken in full literal force) serve to set off to — 
 greater advantage, the splendid and positive miracles of our 
 Lord and his immediate disciples. | 
 
 QUADRATUS?*. ‘The works of our Saviour were always 
 conspicuous, for they were real; both the healed and those that 
 were raised from the dead were seen not only when they were — 
 healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards; not only whilst | 
 he dwelled on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a__ 
 good while after it; insomuch as that some of them have reached — 
 to our own times.’ . B 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR? says, ‘Christ healed those who from 
 their birth were blind, and deaf, and lame, causing, by his word, | 
 even one to leap, another to hear, and a third to see; and having 
 raised the dead also, and made them live again, he by his works — 
 excited attention and induced the men of that age to know him; — 
 some of whom, however, seeing these things done, said that they _ 
 were magical appearances, and dared to call him a magician and 
 a deceiver of the people.’ x 
 
 Or‘, addressing the heathen: ‘Hear also in what manner 
 
 \ 
 
 Se 
 
 Ireneus, verbatim from Justin’s Apol. (see Iren. Lib. m. c. 56, and Lib. Ta 
 c. 2,) whilst Justin's Apol. itself is said to have been in imitation of one of © 
 Aristeides not extant, are instances of a general kind. a 
 
 2 Jortin likewise, ‘ would not engage for the truth of any miracle after 
 
 Ap. 107.’ So also Le Clerc and Moyle. me 
 * Euseb. Hist. Lib. rv. c. 8.» Dial, cum Tryph. 8. 69. © Apols 1, ¢. 68s 
 
 * Euseb. after Athenag. (compare pp. 50 and 53 of | this work), also 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES, 119 
 
 it was predicted that our Christ should heal all kinds of diseases, 
 and raise the dead (Isai. xxxv. 5, 6); and that he did these 
 things, ye may learn from the records of what was done under 
 Pontius Pilate.’ 
 
 In proof that Christ came to save us from the devil, allu- 
 sion® is made to the wonderful influence which his name has 
 over the demons, ‘so that many vexed in this way in the whole 
 world, and in your own city, have been relieved by Christians 
 in the name of Jesus Christ crucified.’ 
 
 Lastly by arguing for the power of God to restore the body, 
 he says; ‘It is evident that if Christ on earth cured all diseases, 
 and made the body whole and perfect, how much more will he, 
 in the general resurrection, raise it complete and perfect.’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS*. ‘To confirm the assertion that the 
 images of the gods are divine things, we are told of the miracles 
 performed by them. Let this matter be thoroughly investi- 
 gated.’ He then® supposes that ‘if the accounts of these super- 
 natural deeds be true, they must be ascribed to evil spirits, 
 making use of the statues.’ He explains® that by evil spirits 
 he means fallen angels, who delight in tempting men to idolatry. 
 
 But he would ‘rather’ take these said effects not to be real, but 
 the results of some senseless reveries of the mind concerning 
 certain opinions; which occasion men to form of themselves, ideas 
 partly of things existing, and partly of things imaginary; these 
 wild emotions of the mind, producing idolatrous imaginations, 
 especially if the soul be pliable and devoid of the true know- 
 ledge of God.’ 
 
 ‘THEOPHILUS®. ‘Our Scriptures teach us with one con- 
 sent, that God made all things from nothing by means of his 
 Word. And his Spirit likewise it was, that descended into the 
 
 _ prophets, and enabled them to describe the creation of the 
 
 world.’ Expounding the Mosaic account of the origin of things”, 
 
 he notices the dignity of. the description; and declares that 
 
 - though men had a thousand tongues they could not explain any 
 
 _ more, and that when they attempt it, they only weaken the truth 
 by the addition of insipid trifles. 
 
 ® Apol. 11. ¢. 6. "> De Resur. s. 1. ° Legat. c. 18. 
 
 J eh23. § Fb). 6. Bde FsTb) ef D7: 
 S Ad Autol. Lib. u. ¢. 10. c bathe 12. 
 
120 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 He tells* the Pagans that they will credit the stories of 
 
 Hercules, living after he was consumed by fire, and of Auscu- 
 lapius, after he had been scathed by lightning; it is only those 
 
 things which are said to have been done by God, they will not 
 
 believe; yea, though he should shew them the dead raised to. 
 
 life, they would not believe it. 
 
 IREN AUS? intimates that our Saviour’s miracles were ad- 
 mitted for facts not only by Christians, but by others also; 
 
 adding, ‘But if they shall say that the Lord performed his — 
 
 miracles by an illusory appearance, we can resort to prophe-— 
 
 cies!,’ 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS*. ‘Our Saviour has adopted 
 various ways of exhibiting himself to men; he spake out of the 
 bush, because men needed signs and wonders, and by the pillar 
 
 of fire and cloud. Afterwards, for that the human body is more — 
 
 noble than a column or a bush, he spake by the prophets; and 
 
 lastly, because some might not even believe them, he humbled 
 
 himself to be born of a woman; the merciful God, the Word, — 
 
 communed openly with men, in order that he might save the z 
 
 human race, and shame them out of infidelity.’ 
 
 Again*, among the evidences for the divinity of Christ, he 
 places the ‘testimonies that accompanied his visible generation, 
 
 and the powers that were announced and openly displayed by — 
 
 him after the resurrection.’ 
 
 4 
 
 TERTULLIAN® advances as an incidental proof of the : 
 reality of Christ's miracles, the fact of Tiberius the Emperor — 
 
 proposing some commemoration of him, founded on the intel- | 
 ligence received from Palestine; and though thwarted by the - 
 
 senate in his project of a statue, yet persisting in it; also of his — 
 
 threatening those with punishment who should accuse the Chris- Hy 
 
 tians. 
 
 _ Speaking’ of the Jews denying the divinity of the Saviour c 
 in consequence of his humble appearance, our author remarks; — 
 
 ‘It naturally followed that they should regard him as a ma- 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. 1. ¢. 18. > Lib. i. c. 57. 
 
 1 t : f 
 Speaking of heretics he says ‘their signs were not beneficial to man- — 
 
 kind, nor wrought in the name of Jesus.’ Lib. 11. ¢. 56. 
 
 ® Hortat. c. 1. * Strom, Lib. x. * Apol. c. 5. 1b. c. 21 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. LAL 
 
 gician: they had no other alternative when they witnessed his 
 preternatural powers, how he cast out devils by a word, gave 
 sight to the blind, cleansed lepers, restored the palsied, raised 
 the dead to life, ruled the elements, and walked upon the sea.’ 
 ‘At his crucifixion,’ he continues, ‘he voluntarily gave up the 
 ghost, while at the same moment the mid-day was deprived of 
 the light of the sun. Some who were ignorant that this also 
 was predicted concerning Christ, thought, doubtless, that it was 
 a natural eclipse; and when they could not account for it (the 
 moon being full) they denied the fact, although it is related in 
 their own annals.’ 
 
 In giving an account of the resurrection and ascension. of 
 Christ, he remarks that, ‘ Pilate sent a full account of all these 
 
 transactions to Tiberius Ceesar; whilst the disciples confirmed the 
 _ truth of all they had seen with their sufferings and blood.’ 
 
 He next®* appeals to the power of Christians over those 
 possessed of the devil, as a matter of fact and a proof of the 
 _ truth of Christianity. He proposes that ‘any one who is con- 
 _ fessedly under the influence of a demoniacal possession should 
 be brought before the tribunal, and if the spirit when com- 
 manded by a Christian shall not truly confess himself to be a 
 demon, then let the blood of that impudent Christian be shed 
 upon the spot.’ ‘ What,’ he exclaims, ‘can be more impartial 
 than such a mode of proof, where there is no room for suspicion, 
 and no effect of magic, as your own eyes and ears can testify ?” 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX”. ‘Most of you know very well that 
 the demons are forced to confess all things of themselves as often 
 as we command them by our simple word, and expel them from 
 the bodies they possess; for Saturn, Serapis, or Jupiter, or 
 whatever other demon you worship, are not able to endure the 
 pain, but proclaim their true nature even in the presence of 
 those adoring them. When we adjure them by the name of 
 _ the true God, the wretches, sore against their will, fall into hor- 
 
 rible shiverings, and either spring forthwith from the bodies they 
 _ inhabit, or vanish by degrees according to the faith of the patient, 
 or the grace of the physician.” 
 
 ORIGEN* having considered the nature of the Son of God, 
 
 SA pol. 0.28. e Oetate ¢..27. © De Princip. Lib. 11. ¢. 6, sect. 1. 
 
122 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES, 
 
 claims as ‘one of the greatest proofs of his divinity, and one of 
 the strongest motives to our admiration and love, his having laid 
 aside the pre-eminent majesty of that nature, and become man, 
 conversing with us; and that even in his humility he was not 
 without witnesses of his divine nature. The grace diffused into 
 his lips was a testimony of the Father concerning him: the signs, 
 wonders, and various miraculous powers which followed him, were 
 all confirmations of his dignity. Prophets were his forerunners, 
 and the messengers of his advent, before he appeared in the 
 body ; and after his ascension to heaven, there were in like man- 
 ner holy Apostles, replete with the power of his own dignity, and 
 whom, though but publicans and fishermen unskilled and un- 
 learned, he caused to circumvent the whole earth, that out of 
 every race he might collect a people, believing in his name. But? 
 of all the miracles and mighty things relating to Him, that which 
 most taxes the admiration of the human mind, as far as its weak- 
 ness will permit, is to conceive how that power of the divine 
 majesty, that Word of the Father, that wisdom of God, by whom 
 all things, visible and invisible, were created, could have dwelt 
 within the limits of the man who appeared in Judea.’ 
 
 ‘If we consider,’ says he”, ‘the journeys of the Apostles to 
 publish the Gospel through the whole world, the affair will ap- 
 pear greater than human, and indeed to have been undertaken 
 at the command, and carried through by the power of God alone. 
 If we weigh well the strange agreement of men to hear a new 
 and foreign doctrine, how they flocked to the Apostles, not to 
 ensnare them any more, but to learn what they should do to be 
 saved, none can doubt but that these Apostles performed mira- 
 cles, and that God gave testimony to their discourses by signs and 
 wonders and various powers.’ 
 
 In answer’ to an imputation that the powers possessed by 
 Christians, were owing to demoniacal agency, our author asserts — 
 that they are not due to any kind of enchantment, but to the use of 
 the name of Jesus, with a becoming disposition of mind and a 
 most lively faith. Yea, the name of Jesus hag exerted such in- — 
 fluence over demons, that sometimes it has proved effectual though _ 
 7 Se by a wicked pergon!, as Jesus himself foretold in | 
 
 is day. | 
 
 * De Princip. Lib. 1. ¢. 6, sect. 11, » Tb, Lib. vas. be 
 
 © Cont. Cels. Lib. 1.5. 6. ' Acts xix. 18, et seqq. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 123 
 
 Again, Celsus having accused Jesus of working miracles 
 by the help of magic, Origen replies, that though we cannot tell 
 in what way the Saviour performed his miracles, we know that 
 his followers only wrought them by repeating his name. 
 
 ‘It is seldom* that any one person is celebrated for a com- 
 bination of many things at once; but our Saviour was very re- 
 markable for the best sort of wisdom, for authority, for miracles, 
 and for other innumerable excellencies.’ 
 
 ‘The effect” of Christ’s doctrine, far from depending on the 
 assistance of learned men, was owing to that divine and mira- 
 culous power that accompanied the Apostles in their sacred 
 ministrations ;’ for, as he says elsewhere, ‘if* the ministry of 
 Jesus and his Apostles had not been accompanied by miracles, 
 they would never have been able to prevail with their hearers 
 to forsake the religion in which they were born, and take up 
 with a new and persecuted one.’ 
 
 He further* begs to ask the Greeks, ‘ whether they can shew 
 that either Perseus, Inachus, or Minos did any extraordinary 
 service to the world, or performed any exploit to induce future 
 ages to believe the truth of those fables which represent them as 
 having a divine origin? Or which of their fabulous actions can 
 be compared to what our Saviour did; unless they would have us 
 believe their stories rather than our own, of the truth and im- 
 portance of which we have all the evidence we can reasonably 
 desire ?” 
 
 Celsus has acknowledged* the reality of some of the mira- 
 cles, such as the healing of diseases, the raising the dead to life, 
 -and feeding the multitude; but chooses to compare them with 
 the performances of the Egyptian magi. Origen points out an 
 essential difference between the two cases. ‘One,’ he says, ‘is 
 a vain shew of calling back departed souls, or representing to the 
 deluded sight a table spread with imaginary dainties; the other 
 as real as it was public. The design of the first is not to reform 
 morals, for such amusements have not the slightest tendency to 
 beget in persons a true sense of God or to regulate their actions, 
 and prepare them for the great day of judgment; whilst the 
 design of Jesus is just to do all this, and to affect mankind with 
 a sense of the will of God. In connexion with this contrast, he 
 hints at the immoral lives of magicians and necromancers gene- 
 
 « Cont. Cels; Lib. tr. 8. 27. b Tb. 83 62: 
 © Jb. s. 46. @. Th SCR ¢ Tb.s. 68, 
 
124 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 rally, and then at the bright example of unaffected virtue and 
 piety which Jesus gave us all in his own personal conduct ; and 
 concludes by giving it as his opinion, that ‘ genuine miracles 
 must be connected with morality, and have for their chief end 
 the converting of those who see them, to a sincere and sacred 
 regard for the honour of God and the interests of the Redeemer.’ 
 
 ‘Our blessed Saviour* abundantly discovered that his power 
 was nothing less than that of God, by the frequent and incon- 
 testable miracles which he wrought even in presence of the Jews ; 
 and which they did not deny, but tried to evade on the plea 
 that they were done by the aid of the devil, as Celsus now ascribes 
 them to magic. But our Saviour refuted this absurd conceit, 
 by shewing that the kingdom of Satan was thus suffering a most 
 violent shock, as evidently appears to those who read the Gospels 
 with any share of judgment.’ 
 
 Again”; ‘Is it any wonder at all that he who in the whole 
 course of his life, did so many actions which nothing short of a 
 divine power could have possibly enabled him to perform; who 
 wrought in attestation of his doctrine, miracles so surprising and 
 open before his implacable foes, that Celsus himself has not the 
 face to deny their reality ; is it, I say, any wonder that such a 
 person should have something extraordinary about his death ?’ 
 
 In reply ° to the challenge, ‘ what did Jesus ever do that was 
 truly great and worthy of a God,’ Origen refers to the Evan- 
 gelistic account of the earthquake, the rending of the rocks, the 
 
 opening of the tombs, the rent veil, and the darkness of the sun. 
 
 at noonday. Touching the last phenomenon, ‘ which happened 
 while the Sun of righteousness was suffering a darker eclipse,’ 
 he affirms that ‘it is well known to have taken place in the 
 reign of Tiberius; and also that the earth trembled when the 
 God of Nature groaned, we have the concurrent testimony of 
 Phlegon, if I mistake not, in the 13th Book of his Chronicle.’ 
 The dream of Pilate’s wife, and the confession of the centurion 
 at the cross, are not overlooked. 
 
 He says" the Jews are to be condemned, ‘ because they 
 refuse to believe the miracles of Christ, which though so evi- 
 dently stamped with divine authority, they assign to Beelzebub, 
 the prince of devils;’ and presently asks, ‘what excited the 
 rage of the chief priests and elders and scribes, but the consider- 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 11. s. 9. > Tb. 8.16. © 16 B28, 
 9 Tb6.88: é 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES, 125 
 
 ation of the vast numbers of people who followed Jesus, charmed 
 with the sweetness and heavenly expressions that dropped from 
 his lips, and convinced by the miracles that he wrought ?’ 
 
 Next’, he obtains a highly probable argument against the 
 hypothesis of miracles having been done by legerdemain, or of 
 the evangelists having forged the accounts they give of some 
 raised from the dead, from the idea, that had they practised the 
 invention of falsehoods and delusions, they would have supplied 
 more frequent instances of that striking nature, and also of the 
 resurrection of such as had been dead for a longer period, than 
 we meet with in the Gospels. 
 
 It is added, ‘the disciples performed more miracles than 
 Jesus did, according to his promise (John xiv. 12). For the eyes 
 of the spiritually blind were frequently opened by them, the ears 
 of those who were once deaf to all the awakening precepts of 
 religion were unstopped, and many spiritually lame were cured 
 by the Gospel, so that they leap as the hart; they could imme- 
 - diately tread on serpents and scorpions, and were effectually 
 fortified against vice from within, and the malicious attempts of 
 demons from without: events, which Jesus foretold some dis- 
 tance of time before their fulfilment.’ 
 
 He shews? that false miracles are indications of true ones; 
 that the miraculous resurrection® of Christ is not to be compared 
 with the Greek fables of heroes; concluding upon the whole, that 
 ‘the glorious miracles® of the Gospels were realities, and that 
 Jesus was raised from the dead by the immediate power of the 
 Godhead. His resurrection is all in harmony with the pro- 
 phecies and miracles, indeed crowns and completes the whole.’ . 
 
 An argument is drawn® from the old dispensation. ‘The 
 Jews would have renounced their religion long ago, unless they 
 had had especial signs of God’s favour. Tle firmness of this people 
 in adhering to their institutions during their captivities and dis- 
 persions, is a testimony in favour of the truth of their histories. 
 So in like manner‘, Christianity is not indebted either for its 
 origin or progress to human influence, but to God, who has mani- 
 fested himself by means of various miracles, founding his religion 
 thereon.’ 
 
 He points® to the destruction of Jerusalem forty-two years 
 after the crucifixion of Christ, as a circumstance implying some- 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 48. >’ Tb. s. 49. ° Fb 856i 4 Jb.s. 62. 
 or 6. Libs nr. Obs LAs & 16. Lib. ‘ty. s.-22. 
 
126 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 thing sacred about his person, connected as that place was with 
 his history. 
 
 Finally*, he asks ‘ how, if Jesus had been a mere phantom 
 since his resurrection, he could have enabled his followers to 
 perform such great marvels, to convert souls, and to induce 
 men to govern their actions according to the will of God, their 
 judge? How could a spectre chase demons, or work miracles, 
 pervade the entire world, and attract to himself by his own 
 divinity whosoever wishes to be virtuous ?” 
 
 CYPRIAN?. ‘Wherefore when Jesus, according to what 
 the prophets had foretold, cast out devils by the word of his 
 power, cured the sick of the palsy, cleansed the lepers, restored 
 the sight of the blind, caused the lame to walk, raised the dead to 
 life again, compelled the powers of nature to minister to him, and 
 the winds and waves to obey him, the Jews were surprised at the 
 mighty works he wrought among them; and though the humility 
 of his flesh represented him only a common man, yet the power 
 of his miracles made them think him a dealer in magical arts. 
 He also appeared to his disciples after the resurrection just in the 
 form and manner wherein he had conversed with them, and their 
 ‘senses proved the reality of his appearance.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUS*® answers those who ask if we can prove that 
 Christ is God, by holding up ‘the variety of his powers, as the 
 greatest proof; which things,’ he says, ‘they themselves dare 
 not convict of falsity.’ But ‘it may be replied, he was a magician, 
 and did all his works by secret arts stolen from Egypt. In con- 
 tending with this objection, our author ‘begs to know whoever in 
 former ages did a thousandth part of what Christ did, and that 
 too, as is worthy of notice, without any observance of sacred 
 rites, sacrifices or seasons, but all by the power of his own name ? 
 Yet this is what Jesus did, and it is consistent with the character 
 of the true God. There was nothing hurtful in any of his deeds; 
 but he gave his salutary assistance to man when it was needed, 
 with all the marks of a munificent power. But’, you say, 
 ‘He was a mortal and one of us.’ Was he a mortal and one of us, 
 at whose voice sicknesses and diseases fled away ? whose presence 
 the race of demons, hid in the bodies of men, could not endure? 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. vu. s. 35. > De Idol. Van. c. 7. 
 © Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 15.. 4° Tb. . 16; 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 123 
 
 - who caused the lame to run, and those borne on the necks of 
 
 others to carry home their own beds? Whose light touch stayed 
 the issue of blood, restored the withered hand, and gave eyes 
 even to those born blind, so that they might see the light of 
 heaven? who healed hundreds vexed with divers diseases ? who 
 calmed the sea, walked on the waves, and raised those who were 
 dead and buried? Was he one of us, who after he had delivered 
 _ the precepts of a true religion to his followers, has suddenly filled 
 the whole world; so that what and who he is, is manifest by the 
 unveiled greatness of his name? Was he one of us, who when his 
 body had been laid in the tomb, raised himself, in the sight of 
 men? whose name since, has silenced oracles, destroyed the busi- 
 ness of augurs, and caused the spells of arrogant magicians to be 
 of no avail? Which things indeed were done by Jesus, not to 
 exhibit himself with vain ostentation, but that hardened and in- 
 credulous man might know that what he promised was not false, 
 and perceive-from the beneficence of his works that he is the 
 true God.’ 
 
 Our author further observes that the fact of Christ’s over- 
 coming difficulties like dumbness and blindness, which the heathen 
 conceived to be indissoluble bonds of fate, was a proof clearer 
 than the sun, that he was more powerful than their idea of 
 necessity. 
 
 He insists* strongly upon the circumstance, that Jesus wrought 
 his miracles without the intervention of any instrument. ‘ Christ 
 _ was known,’ he says, ‘to have healed by the application of his 
 hand, and the sound of his voice; whilst the gods are said to have 
 used the medium of medicine or food; which is no great thing to 
 
 do, seeing that physicians perform such cures every day. But is 
 _ it not degrading and indecorous for a God to be unable to heal 
 
 without the help of some material means?’ Again he tests the 
 miracles of Christ, in order to shew that they were not tentative, 
 and asks his readers, ‘how many thousands do you wish to be 
 shewn of your sick and afflicted, consumed by diseases, who have 
 received no cure though they visit all the temples in turn, pros- 
 trate themselves before the very faces of the gods, sweep the 
 threshold with kisses, and fatigue /Xsculapius, the restorer of 
 health, forsooth! with their prayers, so long as life remains? 
 How many of these unfortunate creatures have grown old in 
 their malady, and become worse instead of better, for their days 
 
 2 Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 17. 
 
128 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 and nights spent in appeals for mercy! What then does it profit 
 to shew us one and another cured by chance, when no one 
 comes to the help of the multitudes, and every temple is full of 
 poor and miserable beings ? Christ*, on the other hand, relieved 
 the evil and the good; none were repulsed by him: this is 
 worthy of a God and a King. Was he not kind and gentle, easy 
 of access, familiar in his address, pitiful towards any who were 
 oppressed by grief or any bodily evils? and did he not with 
 singular benignity restore and heal them; even permitting others 
 also to heal in his name; so that what the gods could not effect 
 with all their appliances, was continually done by the command 
 of rude and simple Christians ?’ 
 
 He shews” how much more reason the Christian has for 
 reposing faith in Christ, than the heathen have in their philoso- 
 phers, ‘ because we follow those most magnificent works, those 
 extraordinary exhibitions of power, which Jesus displayed in a 
 variety of miracles; by which any one ought to be brought to 
 the necessity of believing that those things were not done by a 
 man, but by divine and inscrutable assistance. But what can 
 your philosophers exhibit,’ says he, ‘that it becomes you to 
 trust to them, rather than to Christ? It is useless to produce 
 their beautiful compositions and treatises on Music or Numbers; 
 such matters are nothing to the present purpose; he is not to 
 be accounted the good author who speaks well, but he who fulfils. 
 his pledges and assures us by divine works.’ 
 
 ARCHELAUS:* assures the heretic Manes that he could not 
 turn Christians from their faith, though he were to do signs and 
 wonders, raise the dead, or even summon the image of St Paul: 
 
 and the reason given is, that his life is not that of a virtuous | 
 
 man. He is nevertheless challenged to say what miracles he 
 has performed. ‘Has he raised the dead, stanched blood, opened. 
 the eyes of the blind, &c. ?” | 
 
 LACTANTIUS4 having spoken of the birth of Christ, next 
 
 proceeds to discuss the power and works of his life. ‘The Jews 
 seeing his miracles,’ he says, ‘supposed they were done by 
 magic, forgetting that everything he did had been foretold by 
 their own prophets. He forthwith healed the sick, and those 
 “ Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 18—24, > Tb. Lib. 1. ©. 6. 
 © et. Disp. * Epit. c. 45. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 129 
 
 that had been long languishing, by the power of his words, and 
 without the use of any instrumentality, he recovered the weak, 
 raised up those who were bowed down, gave eyes to the blind, 
 tongues to the dumb, ears to the deaf, cleansed the lepers, re- 
 
 : stored to a right mind those in whom demons had dwelt, and 
 
 recalled the dead and buried to light and life. Five thousand 
 
 _ men he satisfied with five loaves and two fishes, walked on the 
 
 sea, stilled the tempestuous wind; all which wonders had been 
 
 long predicted by the prophets. Indeed it was on account of 
 
 the popularity which these miracles gained him, that the chief 
 
 _ priests were filled with envy and rage, and at length condemned 
 
 him, as if he had been an unjust man.’ 
 
 Finally, it is observed that the Jews charged Jesus with 
 
 « healing on the sabbath ;’ and also that at the crucifixion, ‘there 
 
 was an earthquake and a great darkness, just as Jesus gave up 
 the ghost.’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS?. ‘Whoever allowed others, even such as are 
 pure and sincere and arrived at the knowledge of God, to cast 
 
 ~ out evil spirits from persons by calling upon him? Every one? 
 may hear the words and deeds of Jesus; how he taught pub- 
 
 licly and healed every sort of disease and infirmity; and how 
 ready he was to good works; and how those things which eye 
 hath not seen nor ear heard, he delivered in mighty deeds, and 
 
 _ caused his disciples to approach the very summit of excellence 
 
 with God, and made them wise through the power which cannot 
 
 be described: how he healed those whose souls were corrupted 
 by every sort of sin, rebuked others, instructed all, calmed the 
 
 _ storm, and fed thousands with a few loaves. To whom does this 
 _ not appear astonishing; and does it not likewise challenge en- 
 
 quiry with regard to his invisible power ?’ 
 
 The Chiliarch’s son healed® is adduced as a proof of the 
 
 effect of Christ?s word. 
 
 ‘If it be said? he was a magician and deceiver, how came 
 > 
 
 _he to be taught without a teacher or a book? Observe his 
 
 knowledge, his wisdom, his miraculous works: surely the matter 
 
 is divine, and such as exceeds all human endeavours! Besides, 
 _had he received his learning from the Egyptians or any one 
 else, how is it that his teachers were not known as well as he? 
 
 * Theoph., Lib, 11. ¢. 14. bb. ep 40) © Tb dai be iv, ¢,2: 
 @ Lib. v. ¢, 15,16, 
 H. E. g 
 
130 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 their praise proclaimed like his? And moreover what eye-— 
 witnesses of miracles have ever so sealed the truth of their testi- — 
 mony by the trial of fire and sword, as the disciples of the — 
 Saviour have done; who indeed suffered all things for the sake — 
 of what they had seen, and submitted to every species of tor- 
 ment, still declaring to the last that he was the Son of God?” 
 
 Again’ he asks, ‘How could he be a magician who neither 
 used libations nor enchantments of any kind, nor was in league ~ 
 with demons, as he proved by destroying them; and yet? all our 
 writers have attested with one mouth, his cleansing of lepers, his — 
 casting out devils, his raising the dead, his restoring the sight, — 
 and many other instances of cure ?’ 
 
 ‘Indeed°, how could he have attached to himself so many, 
 both of Jews and Gentiles, unless he had made use of miracles, and 
 astonishing deeds, and of doctrines till then unknown? The book 
 of Acts fully goes to shew how he, the Christ of God, did, by 
 means of these wondrous works which he performed, reduce — 
 many of all classes to his power. Nor could® his disciples have — 
 undertaken their enterprize at all without divine aid; but in attes- 
 tation of his resurrection, not by mere words without proofs, but 
 by power and deeds, did they persuade and shew forth the works 
 of the living God; for® the multitudes, that witnessed them, must 
 have thought it impossible for those acts to have been brought 
 about by men, though they might not all have acknowledged 
 the truth. This‘ it was then, and nothing else, that explains — 
 how the disciples of the Saviour gained credit from those who 
 had from the first heard them; and how they came to persuade — 
 both barbarians and Greeks, to think of Christ as the Word of 
 God, and set up in the midst of the cities and villages, houses 
 appropriated to the doctrine and worship of the supreme God.’ 
 
 Our author® in following out a comparison which Hierocles— 
 had instituted between Jesus and Apollonius Tyaneus, says, he 
 will not allude to the Christian evidence of ancient prophecy, nor 
 to the mighty results of the Saviour’s teaching throughout the 
 world, nor to the sufferings of his disciples in testimony of the 
 truth, nor to the excellence of Christ’s personal character, nor 
 to the fact that he alone of all men being opposed in every way, — 
 has nevertheless prevailed, these things speak for themselves; 
 but he will proceed to weigh well the incidents in the history of ; 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. vy. ¢. 18. Tb. a 27: ° 1b.2)46. a J6/496 
 © 3p, 6, OL. F Ib. c, 52. ® Cont. Hieroc, c. 4. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. lot 
 
 Apollonius as furnished by his friends, by which means, he 
 thinks, ‘the authors will be shewn to have indulged more in ima- 
 _ gination than in truth.’ He begins* by allowing that Apollonius 
 was a philosopher, but nothing more: he does not seem to haye 
 been bad enough for a magician; but he denies altogether that 
 he had any divine communication of power. Laying out of the 
 question”, the mere rumours that a Protean spectre begot him, 
 and that a thunderbolt and a chorus of Swans announced his 
 birth, as well as of his understanding the languages of animals’, 
 &c., as monstrous and equally inconsistent with reason and the 
 character of Apollonius, he runs over the biography and finds it 
 laden with more absurd tales than even the writers of ancient 
 fiction pretended to. He takes occasion by the way, of remind- 
 ing Hierocles that these stories sound yet more strange, when 
 put forward by those who charge Christians with credulity. He 
 cites, for instance, from Apollonius’ Eastern journey, the detec- 
 _ tion of an Empusa*, who was seducing a youth into marriage ; 
 his meeting among the Brachmans® with a female, the lower 
 part of whose body was white, the rest black; and with dragons 
 having flames on their heads; also, on his return from India to 
 Greece, his declaring men’s thoughts, and holding discourse with 
 the absent Emperor Titus; and, finally’, his making a satyr 
 drunk. By such ridiculous stories as these, our author thinks 
 that Philostratus does the Pythagorean philosopher no justice, 
 making him out to be a base man, besides flatly contradicting 
 himself, and shewing that as a biographer he is not to be com- 
 _ pared with our Evangelists. If, says he, in conclusion, some of 
 these narrations were true, we should attribute them to the 
 assistance afforded by demons; but he contends they never were 
 true: they are essentially fabulous, because they are useless and 
 _ absurd, and make out of a harmless philosopher, a most wicked 
 magician, Books® of this kind, therefore, are pronounced desery- 
 ing of abhorrence and contempt. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM! observes" that the Apostles did not in- 
 _troduce or spread the Gospel by force of arms or wealth, but 
 their words simple in themselves, were sustained by miracles. ‘In 
 proclaiming a crucified Redeemer, they produced miraculous 
 
 2 Cont. Hieroc. c. 5. BP Tb: ¢. 8: ° 1b. ce. 10. 2 Jb, c. 13. 
 © 10. 18: f Ib. c. 34. & Ib. c. 48. 
 ~ ™ On the Divinity of Christ. ‘ See Homily on 1 Ep. to Cor. 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES. 
 
 effects, and so subjugated all the earth. Was there ever any- 
 thing more wonderful than to see a poor fisherman, a publican, 
 a tent-maker raising the dead by a simple command, casting out 
 devils, confounding philosophers and orators, overcoming princes 
 and kings, and conquering barbarian, Greek, and all other 
 nations by their laws!? How could the Apostles have under- 
 taken to convert the whole world unless they had received some 
 guarantee from heaven, some indubitable marks of the Divine © 
 aid; and how could they have persuaded men to receive their 
 doctrine, without miracles? That they did persuade them, as 
 certainly is the case, is alone a proof of Divine power. For it 
 would have been a still greater marvel to have produced such an 
 effect without any cause, that is, without a single miracle. What 
 could have induced these men to expose themselves to so many 
 dangers, if they had not been convinced of the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ; and how could they have expected to succeed in 
 their enterprize, if it had not been true that Christ was raised 
 from the dead? Is it not evident to the most short-sighted, that 
 if they had not been filled with a strong and celestial influence, © 
 and if they had not had certain proofs of the truth of the Re- 
 surrection, they would never have thought or conceived of, much 
 less carried out such a design ?’ 
 
 AUGUSTINE? argues that a true religion must be founded 
 upon miracles; and that it is our plain duty to choose and follow 
 those doctrines which lead us to adore one God, and not many, ~ 
 and that worship which is rendered certain by a series of visible — 
 miracles, credited in past ages and handed down to us. He 
 adduces> the miracles of Jesus, as being more than unusual 
 events (against the Manichzean heretics who set up reason in the — 
 place of faith): ‘the sick were healed, the lepers cleansed, strength 
 restored to the lame, sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, 
 water was turned into wine, multitudes fed with little means, — 
 seas traversed, the dead raised ;’ and then concludes, ‘that thus 
 a vast number of believers having been gathered together, and 
 afterwards spread abroad, the authority necessary to cure men © 
 of evil habits, and enforce new morals, was obtained and applied.’ 
 
 * Tabl. des Peres, Vol. 11. p. 41. 
 * De vera Relig. c. 25. > De Utilit. Cred. 
 
CHAP teey: 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE REASONABLENESS 
 OF DOCTRINE. 
 
 Quare oportet, in ea re maxime, in qua vite ratio versatur, sibi quemque 
 considere, suoque judicio ac propriis sensibus niti ad investigandam, et perpen- 
 dendam veritatem ; quam credentem alienis erroribus decipi, tanquam ipsum 
 rationis expertem. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione sapientiam ; ut et 
 inaudita investigare possent, et audita perpendere...... Quare cum sapere, 
 id est, veritatem querere, omnibus sit innatum; sapientiam sibi adimunt, 
 qui sine ullo judicio inventa majorum probant, et ab aliis pecudum more 
 ducuntur". | 
 
 LACTANTIUS. 
 
 HIS argument chiefly consists of a comparison between the 
 
 heathen and Christian systems of doctrine. In urging it, as 
 well as that of the next chapter (on Morality), the question may 
 be asked, what authority or standard the Apologists used? 
 Who was the judge of the respective merits? With what sense 
 or hope could they charge the heathen to renounce the one and 
 adopt the other, as the more rational system, the purer rule of 
 life? We answer, the heathen themselves were the judges, even 
 in their own cause. Conscience was to be the balance, reason 
 the umpire for every man. Not that these faculties of ours 
 were considered less prone to evil in their way, than our wills; 
 but it was thought, there was enough light left amid all the 
 darkness, to compare things by, to distinguish quo wirtus, quo 
 ferat error, though not to rectify or save. And to these facul- 
 ties the Fathers appealed all the more confidently, because of 
 the example of the Holy Scriptures, the first and best of Apo- 
 logies. There we discover the use of certain terms without 
 any definitions; a common understanding being presumed, be- 
 tween God and man, between man and man, as to their meaning, 
 and as to the value of rational or irrational deductions, and of 
 moral or immoral qualities. They suppose, for instance, that 
 
 _ piety, humanity, justice, and their opposites need no explana- 
 
 tion; that Pilate’s question, ‘ What is truth ?’ was indeed a fruit- 
 less one : all men will agree as to the general sense of such terms. 
 
 1 Inst. Div. Lib. u. ¢. 7. 
 
134 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 ‘The ideas in fact which they represent, had words to express 
 them for many ages antecedent to the introduction of Chris- 
 tianity into the world: the realities therefore must have pre- 
 existed also; and not only existed but been admired (or de- 
 spised). The Scriptures recognize the competency of man to 
 estimate the right and the wrong, the lovely and the unlovely 
 in character* (Rom. i.) In like manner, our Apologists refer to 
 this tribunal in the breast of each man; to those principles of 
 feeling and action, by virtue of which, he knows, however little 
 he may practise, what is just and right. ‘If there be a willing- 
 
 ness,’ says Justin, ‘to hear the reason of this thing, it will be 
 
 shewn that we have not been in error, &c.’ They hoped that 
 men might be brought in thoughtful hours, notwithstanding the 
 distraction caused by a false education, to render homage to 
 truth; and that so, under God!, by discovering the follies of 
 Polytheism, the absurdities of heathen philosophy, and the im- 
 moralities of idol worship, their understanding if not their heart 
 might be affected. ‘Although difficult,’ continues the author 
 just quoted, ‘we are persuaded it is not impossible that a plain 
 representation of the truth should be sufficient to dissipate error.’ 
 
 From this point the Apologists advanced a step further, and 
 proceeded to shew that there is another religion which omits all 
 the absurdities, supplies all the deficiencies, and far surpasses all 
 the excellences of Paganism. The benevolence of Christianity 
 did not propose to take away what it could not replace, or wound 
 where it could not heal. It was an infinitely blessed exchange ! 
 A contrast they thought would deduce and illustrate this? 
 
 I have endeavoured, but in vain, to arrange the matter of 
 this chapter under minor heads, without doing injustice to the 
 continual comparison, or connexion of ideas in each author’s 
 mind. It is a consolation, therefore, to think that though less 
 condensed than it might be*, the method of a simple chronologi- 
 cal succession which I shall give, is more characteristic, and will 
 
 * Chalmer’s Discourses, Vol. 1. p. 3. 
 
 * The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, tells his Pagan friend, that 
 ‘he must not expect to be taught the mystery of true religion by any man 
 but by God only’ And so other Fathers, 
 
 * Palmer, c. 1, Of Development and Conse. includes the contrast be- 
 
 tween Christianity and false Religion, as one of the Apologetic evidences, 
 p. 10. 
 
 ss oe 
 As it is, these chapters are the essence of many volumes. 
 
 Se 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 135 
 
 perhaps be, under the circumstances, more interesting. At the 
 same time it may assist the reader to have an idea of the plan 
 usually adopted by the Fathers, in arguing upon doctrine. 
 They commonly began with the heathen side of the question. 
 This they separated into several views of theology, as taken by 
 different classes of men. There were the gods of the poets: these 
 they proved to be human and wicked; human, by their births, 
 their sexes, their relationships, their numbers, their various adap- 
 tations to localities and times, which are mere earthly distinctions, 
 _ their passions, their calamities, and their deaths!; and wicked, 
 _ by their adulteries, their cruelties, discords, and the bad effect of 
 _ their example upon the minds of their devotees. ‘But these 
 _ were feigned pictures of the poets,’ said some, ‘ invented only to 
 _ please the populace.’ The gods of the philosophers were there- 
 _ fore next discussed. Under this division, were investigated the 
 different materialist and physico-theological theories of the an- 
 cients, which honoured the works of God with a worship and 
 glory due only to the Creator. Thus the heavenly bodies, 
 fruits, animals, the world’s elements, the world itself, animated 
 nature, mind, were each and all exalted into the place of God. 
 These opinions are proved vain, by their want of spirituality and 
 dignity, and by the great contrariety of views they engendered. 
 Then came the images or gods of the people. The poets might 
 be jealous of another art beside their own, the philosophers might 
 despise all the arts together ; but the people wanted something 
 visible and tangible. Here they found it. The Apologists 
 attacked idolatry, on the score of images beg mere matter, 
 - fabricated by men, subject to purchase, liable to insult, damage, 
 u and decay, and utterly unable to help themselves, much less 
 others. Once more, the gods of the magicians, whether demons, 
 or auspices, or oracles, were condemned alike for their impurities, 
 - their extravagances, their fallacies, and their general worth- 
 lessness. 
 
 Many of these false and idle notions of Deity were attributed 
 by the Fathers, to the deceptions of the evil spirit, ever bent on 
 _ turning men’s minds from the contemplation of the true God, and 
 _ inserting himself or his ministers in his place. 
 
 ‘| Having exposed the fabulous origin and the degrading pro- 
  fligacy of the heathen mythology, the Apologists turned to 
 
 1 The Apologists make good use of Cicero’s candour, in his volume De 
 _ Nat. Deor. 
 
136 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 the true religion, and with all these vanities, contrasted the God, 
 the Teacher, the prophets, and the writings of Christianity : the 
 one God, holy, just, invisible, and incomprehensible to finite rea- 
 son, without passions, parts, or variableness ; the one Word and 
 Saviour, active, wise, powerful, pure, gentle, beneficial ; and the 
 harmonious, because filled with the one Spirit, calm yet energetic, 
 eloquent yet simple, poor yet useful prophets, and their books. 
 Thus the day was made to succeed the night, and to gain addi- 
 tional lustre by contrast with the shades it had chased away. This 
 matter of precedence’ was.often intentional on the part of our 
 authors, and the reason for it is given. For instance, Athana- 
 sius takes care ‘first to rebut the ignorance of unbelievers, in 
 order that the truth may shine of itself?;’ and Lactantius holds 
 that ‘the first step towards the temple of truth, is to understand 
 the false religion; the second, to know the true God; the third, 
 to follow his messenger Jesus*.’ 
 
 It might also be expected that the preponderance, as well as 4 
 the precedence of matter, would belong to the heathen side. The 
 one system was something of the heathen’s acquaintance: they 
 could undertake its discussion. The other was altogether strange 
 and hard of carnal comprehension. The one was intricate and 
 multiform, as error always is, and could not be exposed in a 
 volume; the other was simple and quietly operative, almost. ex- ) 
 pressible in a sentence. Moreover, there were the Scriptures ) 
 themselves at hand, (to the consultation of which the Fathers | 
 ever pressed their opponents), and the constant contemporaneous 
 expositions of the ministers of the Church. 
 
 Such appears to have been the train of thought by which © 
 this argument was approached, and the mode of its application, — 
 though its course yaries more or less (within these limits), 
 according to the nature of each particular treatise. Taken asa 
 mass, it forms one of the most striking kinds of proof in * 
 
 favour of Christianity, and none the less perhaps, because its 
 edges are somewhat indefinite, 
 
 ‘ Eusebius however reverses this order, upon the ground of our theology 
 being the most ancient and popular now. But the truth was, the tables had 
 just been turned. Hellenism was almost out of fashion. 
 
 ? Con. Gent. c. 1. * De Ira Dei, c. 2. 
 
 * Compare Grotius On the Truth of Christianity, Book rv. with the sub- 
 stance of this chapter. 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 137 
 
 THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS® 
 asks his heathen friend to consider the substance and forms of 
 
 the gods: ‘ whether one is not made of the stone you tread upon 
 
 and another of the same brass that is used for vases; one of 
 wood, worthless because it decays, another of silver, so precious 
 as to require protection from thieves; this of rusting iron, that 
 of fragile pottery, out of which at the same time the commonest 
 utensils are manufactured? And are they not all liable to cor- 
 ruption, the end of all material things? Might they not have 
 been as well made into anything else, and could they not even 
 now be converted to other uses? Yet these are the gods you 
 worship and invoke, until almost as senseless as they are you 
 become! Wherefore Christians are hateful to you, because they 
 do not account them gods, but ridicule and despise them.’ 
 He likewise? denounces the Jews for adhering to their 
 superstitions. 
 With these ‘vain ceremonies’ he contrasts the marvellous 
 _wisdom displayed in the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ. 
 ‘It is no human system,’ he says’, ‘that we so carefully follow. 
 God himself has placed his heavenly truth, his holy word with 
 men, that it may become firmly established in their hearts. He 
 sent it not by a man, nor yet by an angel, but by his Son, even 
 the Creator of all things; not in terror, but in love and mercy ; 
 to call them, not to condemn them. Though the son of a King, 
 yea, though God himself, he became a servant. Surely such a 
 transaction as this is not after the manner of men, it is the power 
 of God, the sign of his presence. How vain‘ and trifling, com- 
 pared with ours, were the ideas of the philosophers respecting 
 God! Some thought he was fire, because fire benefited them, or 
 water, or the other elements ordained by him. All such notions 
 are lies and impostures, for we cannot see God except by faith.’ 
 
 Finally he shakes the Jewish dependence upon sacrifices, by a 
 
 i 
 
 beautiful eulogium on the Atonement. ‘ God himself, he ex- 
 claims, ‘bare our sins; He gave his only Son as the price of our 
 redemption. He gave him in whom was no sin, for the sinful; 
 the just for the unjust ; the incorruptible for the corruptible; the 
 smmortal for the mortal. Oh! sweet exchange! oh! inscrutable 
 device! oh! mercy beyond hope! that the iniquity of many 
 should be put away by the righteousness of one.’ 
 
 * Ep ad Diog. c 2. b Tb. 8, 4. 0: TE: Gal « tok 
 
138 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR* ‘ We do not imagine,’ he says to the 
 emperor, ‘ that God has a bodily shape, as some pretend. Why 
 should I repeat to you who know so well, in what way the fabri- 
 cators of images treat their materials, cutting, polishing, melting, 
 hammering them, frequently out of the meanest utensils, merely 
 changing their form, fashioning them anew, and giving them the 
 names of gods? In our opinion this is not only unreasonable, 
 but offers great dishonour to God, when he who possesses a glory 
 and form which cannot be expressed, is thus named after corrup- 
 tible things, and such as need care for their preservation.’ He 
 then? hints at the confused and melancholy contrast in which 
 Jupiter and his sons stand to Jesus. ‘How many sons your 
 approved writers attribute to Jove ! such as Mercury, teacher of 
 men; A‘sculapius the physician, struck by lightning; Bacchus, 
 torn in pieces; Hercules, who burned himself to escape torments ; 
 Castor and Pollux, children of Leda; Perseus, the son of Danie; 
 and Bellerophon, carried off by Pegasus; to say nothing of Ari- 
 adne and her company, whom, with your emperors, you exalt to 
 the stars of heaven. But I need not relate their various actions, 
 you know them all by heart; but this much I will say, that the 
 documents relating to them, tend to corrupt and pervert the mind 
 of any reader or hearer. We, on the other hand, have been 
 taught that they only are worthy of immortality and a place in 
 heaven, who have lived holy and virtuous lives here. 
 
 ‘Some of the nations,’ he continues’, ‘ worship trees, and 
 rivers, mice, cats and crocodiles, or other brute beasts, according 
 to the country they inhabit; and, what is still more astonishing, 
 they account every foreigner impious, who will not worship what 
 in his own land are not regarded as gods, but as animals or 
 victims. Others again, offer libations and the fat of beasts to 
 the dead. How absurd is this! and yet they reproach us for 
 not doing the same, and for not presenting senseless images with 
 garlands and sacrifices. But* we out of every nation, who for- 
 merly adored Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son 
 of Latona (whose infamous abominations it is a shame even to 
 mention), together with Proserpine and Venus (inflamed with pas- 
 sion for Adonis), do now, for the sake of Jesus Christ, despise 
 all these mysteries, and though threatened with death, dedicate 
 ourselves to the true God who is unbegotten and without pas- 
 sions, of whom we believe not as you do of Jupiter, that under 
 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 9. P’ 1d. e229, © Ib. c. 32, * Tb. c. 33. 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 139 
 
 the influence of base desire he followed Antiope or Ganymede 
 and was released from bonds by Briareus. Nay, we sincerel ; 
 pity those who can credit such fables, and feel persuaded she 
 evil spirits must be the authors of them.’ 
 
 The Oratio ad Grecos opens* with a protest against idola- 
 trous worship. ‘Think not, oh Greeks,’ says Justin, ‘that I 
 have withdrawn from your ceremonies without reason of reflec- 
 tion. The truth is, I found nothing in them that is holy or 
 worthy of God. The works of your poets are monuments of 
 frenzy and lust.’ Instances of heroes are then cited to shew 
 that they did not deserve their honourable titles. The great 
 Agamemnon is found sacrificing his own daughter, and disturb- 
 ing all Greece to recover Helen, while he himself is led captive 
 by Chryseis. Achilles slays Hector, and yet is compelled to 
 serve Polyxena, and is overcome by a dead Amazon. ‘I con- 
 tend not, exclaims our author, ‘for such virtue as this. Homer 
 is nothing more than a rhapsodist, and the beginning and end 
 of the Iliad is a woman.’ Referring” to the trifling and im- 
 moral theogony of Hesiod, he says: ‘Read to Jove, ye Greeks, 
 your laws against such as strike a parent, and the punishment 
 inflicted for adultery. Teach Minerva and Diana the duties of 
 wives, and Bacchus those of husbands. How unfeminine is it 
 for a goddess to appear in arms; how unseemly for a hero to 
 wear female attire, and with cymbals and flowers, to celebrate 
 the orgies among a troop of women!’ ‘The bad examples which 
 the gods set the young are next noticed. ‘ How,’ he expostu- 
 lates®, ‘can you, a father, be angry with your son for plotting 
 against your life, or defiling your marriage-bed? He only 
 imitates Jove! How can you punish him, and yet reverence 
 your God for the same thing? Can you, a husband, blame 
 your wife because she lives an abandoned life, while you your- 
 self frequent the temple of Venus? These specimens are taken 
 from your own literature; they are not invented charges of 
 ours....Come then, rather, and be partakers of incomparable 
 wisdom, be instructed by a virtuous king. He and his heroes* 
 
 (the apostles) did not slaughter people; our chief is the divine 
 
 Word who rules us, delighting not in strength of body, but in 
 purity of mind only, and in good actions.’ 
 Addressing the Jew’, he argues; ‘Those who were under 
 
 @ Orat. ad Gree. ¢. 1. Pr1b, Go Ze ° Ib.c. 4 
 Tere: oD. © Dial. cum Tryph. 
 
140 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 the law, were under the curse, because they could not or did 
 not perform all things contained therein; and is it not still more 
 evident that all the Gentiles who worshipped idols, corrupted 
 youths, and committed every kind of wickedness, were under a 
 curse? If therefore it pleased the Creator of all things that 
 his Christ should take upon him the curse of all mankind, and 
 you reject and despise him, will not his blood be justly required 
 at your hands, who have put him to death, for no vicarious 
 reason, but in the murderous malice of your hearts ?” 
 
 The author of the Admonition to the Greeks proposes* to 
 discuss the subject of true religion, by ‘enquirmg about the — 
 masters of the respective systems, taking into account both who 
 and what they were, and when they flourished, in order that 
 those who formerly indulged a false faith, may be freed from 
 their error, and that we for our parts, may clearly prove our- 
 selves to be followers of our ancestors according to godliness.’ 
 Who then”, he demands, were the masters of the Grecian religion, 
 and what did they teach? He first draws attention to the 
 poetical theogonies, and finds that ‘Homer, called the prince of 
 poets, deduces the Deity from water.’ He then hints at the 
 quarrels, the unbridled lusts, the perjuries of the gods; at the 
 indignities that some of them suffer at the hands of mortals (as 
 Venus and Mars wounded by Diomede) ; all of which is confirmed 
 by Hesiod: ‘so that if you are to believe your own famous 
 writers who have furnished divine genealogies, and histories, 
 you must either admit your gods to have really been such cha- 
 racters, or deny that they were gods at all. But‘ if you refuse 
 to abide by your poets, because they have invented fictions, 
 then, I ask again, who were the masters of your religion? Tell 
 us from whom did your poets obtain the ideas they have thus 
 embellished ; for they must have learned them from some one? 
 Do you say the philosophers? Yes, to these, as to a fortified 
 wall, you are wont to fly, when any objection is made to the 
 descriptions of the poets.’ He then commences ‘ with the elder 
 philosophers,’ and endeavours to shew that their notions ‘are 
 equally ridiculous.’ Thales the Milesian, the head of the~phy- 
 sical school, asserted that all things were made from water, and 
 into water are resolved. Anaximander considered space to be 
 the principle of all things; but Anaximenes (also of Miletus) 
 found it in air; whilst Anaxagoras, the Clazomenian, placed it in 
 
 * Cohort. ad Gree. c. 1. D 1bo. a. © 15: ¢. 3. 
 
He 
 
 a: 
 
 REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 141 
 
 the symmetry of homogeneous elements. Again, Archelaus of 
 Athens supposed it to reside in boundless air, and its variations 
 of temperature. Such was the sect of Thales. Another branch* 
 of philosophy sprang from Pythagoras. It indulged more in 
 abstractions, and called number the principle of things, or its 
 proportions and harmonies. But Epicurus, not content with 
 anything so indefinite and intangible, sought it in corporeal 
 matter, perceived by reason; while Empedocles fancied that it 
 was better explained as the four elements, with the double ruling 
 force of attraction and repulsion. Thus you see in what an un- 
 settled state of opinion were the very doctors of your religion. 
 How then can it be safe for. those who would be saved, to sit at 
 the feet of men who cannot agree among themselves? ‘But 
 perchance you will yet say, you have not received your instruc- 
 tion from the ancient, but from the more modern philosophers, 
 as Plato and Aristotle, men celebrated both for wisdom and 
 virtue. Well, but we shall find upon examination, that neither 
 do these agree together. Plato” affirms the three principles of 
 the universe to be God, matter, and form; Aristotle, only God 
 and matter. Again, whereas Plato teaches that the supreme 
 God and ideas live in the first sphere of the highest heaven, 
 Aristotle ranges, not ideas, but other deities after the supreme 
 God. Moreover, it is plain to any one studying the writings of 
 these men, that they are not consistent with themselves. Plato 
 at one time talks of three principles, at another of four, haying 
 added the soul of the universe, which is supposed to personate 
 all things. Now he speaks of matter as created; then, as un- 
 created: now, of form as self-originating and self-subsistent ; 
 and presently as the motion of the mind. So that your sages 
 do not appear to harmonize either with one another or with them- 
 selves; and if this be the case with regard to mundane matters 
 and objects so apparent, how much more must it be when the 
 subjects are spiritual and invisible?’ In proof of this diversity 
 of opinion, various hypotheses on the nature of the soul are 
 produced, which would make it fire, air, wind, an exhalation, a 
 stellar influence, a numeral endowed with the power of motion, 
 or generative water. ‘ Wherefore“,’ he infers, ‘since you find 
 so little truth is to be learned from your teachers, nay that, on 
 the contrary, they display their ignorance by mutual disagree- 
 ments, it seems to me that we should all turn together to our 
 
 4 Cohort. ad Grec. c. 4. bi ED; Ge 6: © Ib. c. 8. 
 
142 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 ancestors, our masters, who were both older and wiser than 
 - yours; who have taught nothing according to their own fancies, 
 and who have never disagreed or attempted to overthrow one 
 another’s statements, but have without prejudice handed down 
 what they learned from God himself. The fact is, that neither 
 by nature nor art, can the human mind attain to the knowledge 
 of divine things. For such lofty flights of thought it was need- 
 ful that the gift of God should descend into the breasts of holy 
 men, not exciting in them a care for the artifices of language, 
 or sentiments of strife and envy ; but purifying and using them, 
 being just men, like some instruments of music, to reveal to 
 others the certainty of heavenly doctrines. In this way alone 
 can we account for the constant harmony and consistency of our 
 prophets, although they delivered their doctrine in various places 
 and at different periods of time.’ 
 
 TATIAN*. ‘We (Christians) distinguish God from what he 
 has created, and only admire his works as they are proofs of his 
 skill and power. I cannot bring myself to adore an object like 
 the sun or moon made by him on purpose to serve us. It would 
 be like worshipping my own slave: still less can I dare to 
 deify wood and stone, mere substances, pervaded by an inferior 
 kind of spirit, if by any at all.’ 
 
 Speaking” of the Grecian gods, he calls them ‘demons, who 
 first tempted men to believe in fate, and suggested the colloca- 
 tion of animals in the Zodiac, the origin of brute worship.’ 
 ‘Consider,’ he continues‘, addressing the Greeks, ‘that these de- 
 mons, who, you say determine your destinies, can be transformed 
 at your own pleasure. Rhea becomes a tree; Jupiter a dragon, 
 for the sake of Proserpine; and a bull is translated to the skies, 
 whilst you are slaying its fellow on the earth.’ How‘ can we 
 approve of an administration which boasts of such governors ? 
 How could we be so self-deceived as to believe in fate? It was 
 our own choice that ruined us. We made ourselves servants, 
 who were free; we are sold under sin. No evil is of God; we 
 have brought it upon ourselves. This is our doctrine’. We 
 have thoroughly investigated the stratagems of your furious de- 
 mons: they are degrading, and easily seen through; but the doc- 
 
 * Orat. ad Gree. c. 4. > Ib. c. 9. © M00. 20; 
 4090.6, 1, © 1b. c. 12, 
 
ee pe ee 
 a ea Se eae es Ea 
 
 REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 143 
 
 trines of Christianity are too sublime for a wicked world to under- 
 stand.’ He beseeches* them ‘to give up the dogmas of fatality, 
 and the worship of demons, which only pretend to heal the ills 
 of men, while they seduce them by means of the arts of life. 
 Whence Justin has truly called them robbers,’ 
 
 Again”, he says: ‘ We are not so foolish as you who pub- 
 lish fables concerning God incarnate. Compare your fictions with 
 our narrations before you reproach us. You relate that Apollo 
 fed the curved-footed oxen of Thessaly out of gratitude to Ad- 
 metus; that Prometheus was chained to Caucasus for having 
 benefited mankind; and that Jupiter, being jealous, withdrew 
 sleep from men, in hopes that they would perish. Surely if you 
 admit such tales as these, you cannot but approve of ours, espe- 
 cially when you find them to be in no respect foolish or trifling. 
 Do you not see also that in such accounts you admit the humanity 
 of your gods? Nor does any allegorical interpretation help your 
 cause. One of two things is true: either these gods and their 
 shameful conduct go together; or else, with their names transfer- 
 red to natural objects, they are no gods at all; for the worship 
 of the elements is too idle to think of,’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS*, in meeting a charge of Atheism, reminds 
 the Athenians that formerly, with some colour of justice, they con- 
 demned Diagoras for this crime, because he not only divulged - 
 the Orphan and Eleusinian mysteries, but took the statue of 
 Hercules, and burned it to boil his rape-seed; yea, he utterly 
 denied the existence of a Divine Being. ‘ But we only distinguish 
 God from every thing material, and believe him to be self-ex- 
 istent and eternal, Far be from us then the great impiety of 
 Atheism! The poets“ and philosophers vainly endeavoured to 
 search out to perfection, that God who is inaccessible to all the 
 attempts of natural reason. They deservedly failed, _ because 
 they sought not from God himself, but from their own imagina- - 
 tions, the knowledge of spirit and matter, form, and the world. 
 But we have the prophets for vouchers of our faith ; men who 
 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, concerning God 
 and the things of God. They teach® us that there is one invi- 
 sible Being, not subject to passions, not circumscribed by space, 
 incapable of divisibility, only to be comprehended by the mind ; 
 
 * Orat. ad Gree. c. 18. bibe 21. ° Legat. c. 4. 
 a © Ib. c.10. 
 
144 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE : 
 
 as one endued with inconceivable glory, beauty, power, and ma- 
 jesty ;_by whom all things were made through his Word, were 
 disposed into harmony, and are so continually maintained. We 
 believe too in the Son of God, though we hold not the same 
 views concerning his generation as your absurd mythologists 
 have, who make their gods as wicked and insane as themselves. 
 We hold, that the Son of God is the Wisdom and Word of God, 
 to whom all matter was subject by formation. We believe like- 
 wise in that Holy Spirit who speaks by the Prophets, proceeds from 
 God, and returns to God, as a beam of light passes from the sun, 
 
 and is reflected back again. Who then cannot wonder to hear | 
 
 us charged with Atheism, though we declare there is God the 
 Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and acknowledge 
 their power in unity and distinction!? But* with respect to 
 your gods, they are allowed not to have been from eternity, but 
 were every one of them born as we are. Orpheus, who first 
 invented names for them, and gave us their genealogies and lives, 
 is supposed to have delivered the most correct accounts, and from 
 him Homer drew largely. He makes ocean or water the foun- 
 tain from whence all the gods sprang. How then? can these 
 gods live for ever, et they are no way self-existent, but ori- 
 ginated ? Or wherein can they be thought superior to matter, 
 who derive their nature from the first material, called water ? 
 There are other theories as to the origin of the gods, quite as 
 unstable, and which indeed are only worth a thought as they 
 prove the disagreements of your theology.’ He then° passes 
 to ‘the forms and figures so monstrously and unwarrantably be- 
 stowed upon the Deity. Heracles is a writhing serpent: the 
 Titans have a hundred hands: Jupiter's daughter by Rhea or 
 
 Ceres, has four eyes, a bird’s beak, and horns on her head,’ &c.’ 
 
 Again he calls attention to the crimes of these divinities, ‘Sa- 
 turn mutilates his father, and hurls him headlong from his 
 chariot; he in his turn is put in chains by his sons, and.driven 
 out of heaven. This worthy son then makes war with the Ti- 
 tans for his empire, tries to ravish his mother Rhea, and has a 
 son Dionysius by his own daughter, Persephone. Who can con- 
 ceive that forms and crimes like these are compatible with the 
 idea of Gods? Moreover we find Juno in a rage, Jupiter in 
 sorrow, and unable to save his son Sarpedon; Venus wounded 
 
 * Dr Waterland quotes this confession. Serm. 8. Camb. 1720. 
 * Legat. c. 18, » Ib. ce. 19. © Ib. c. 20,  Ib.e. QA: 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE, 145 
 in her body and in her heart; Vulcan lame; Mars pierced and 
 baffled, though the god of war, and finally caught in the act of 
 adultery! ‘These are your gods#! But it may be said, ‘ this is 
 _a dress the poets have given to theology. There is a philosophi- 
 cal explanation of these matters.’ Well, then, let us view the 
 subject in the best light that can be put upon it; and as Empe- 
 _ docles says, ‘let Jupiter be fire, Juno the air, Pluto the earth, 
 _and Neptune the sea.’ But these are the elements of the world, 
 and not gods! They are all material, which God is not; they 
 are all variable, but God is unchangeable”: the worship offered 
 to them is strangely cruel, whilst the true God is beneficent,’ 
 Our author® therefore will not accept of the physical theory of 
 _ the gods, but proceeds to identify them with departed heroes by 
 means of their names. He finds, ‘ Herodotus, in the epistle of 
 Alexander to his mother, assuring us that the priests of Helio- 
 polis, Memphis, and Thebes, knew and confessed their gods to be 
 butmen. Orus, son of Osiris (by the Greeks called Apollo), they 
 _acknowledged to have been the last king that reigned after he 
 _had destroyed Typho. By Osiris is meant Bacchus in the Greek, 
 Thus the last, and therefore all the preceding kings of Egypt, 
 “were men, from whom are derived the names of the gods among 
 the Greeks. Their queens also were deified. Hermes Trisme- 
 
 - gistus and many others agree that the gods have not been from 
 
 eternity, but had reigned on the earth; and the Egyptians them- 
 
 selves confirm this, by informing us that the temples are their 
 
 _tombs. Apollodorus says thus much in his book concerning the 
 
 gods; and Herodotus adds that their passions or deaths were 
 
 -inysteries, which for decency’s sake, he declines to explain, In- 
 
 deed not only is the place where Osiris was buried, exhibited, but 
 
 also his mummy. It was on this account, doubtless, that the ~ 
 Greek poets never scrupled to impute anything human to the 
 
 gods. Pindar and Hesiod are quoted in attestation. ‘ But,’ he 
 
 continues, ‘the Divine nature must be above the want or desire of 
 
 anything, nor can it die.’ 
 
 _ Moreover these deities of the Pagans were not only human, 
 
 they were wicked, illiterate, covetous, &c.: ‘Castor and Pollux 
 
 and crazy Ino with her son Palemon for example ; also Semi- 
 
 ‘ramis a blood-thirsty and lustful woman, who is worshipped in 
 
 ‘Syria.’ Some have been adored for strength of body, as Her- 
 
 cules and Perseus; some for their actions, as A‘sculapius; and 
 
 ® Legat, c. 22. & 16: G26; ee 4 oar 
 H. E. 
 
146 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 many princes through love or fear, have been treated with divine | 
 honours. So Antinous not long ago, by favouring one of the 
 emperors, obtained among his subjects the esteem of a god. And 
 observe this extract from Callimachus : 
 
 ‘The Cretes are always liars'; they presume to shew the 
 tomb of Jove; but great Jove lives,’ | 
 
 Dost thou, Callimachus, believe his birth and doubt his 
 death? Dost thou think to conceal the truth by talking thus to — 
 the ignorant ? Canst thou look on the cave, and acknowledge — 
 him to be born of Rhea, and view his urn, and yet question his — 
 decease? Art thou ignorant that the only God without begin- 
 ning of existence, is the eternal one? WHither then all the : 
 accounts of the poets and philosophers are false, and therefore — 
 the worship of the gods vain; or if the narrations of their births, 
 amours, murders, robberies, mutilations, and judicial deaths are 
 true, then are they evidently deceased, they must have died, 
 because they were born, &c. I have thus proved at least, that 
 we (Christians) are not Atheists, but believe the Creator of all | 
 things, and the Word, to be God. | 
 
 THEOPHILUS? being asked to exhibit his God, replies that 
 he has no form, nor beginning, because he is unbegotten; and — 
 that he is immutable as he is immortal. He moreover refers _ 
 the enquirer to the works of Nature. ‘ And° thus,’ says he, ‘I _ 
 shew you my God, the Lord of all, who alone stretched forth | 
 
 1 Warburton, in his Divine Legation (p. 182, Vol. I.), gives ‘the Cretans — 
 on the authority of Diodorus Siculus, as an exception to ‘the general rule 
 observed by other nations, of keeping their mysteries secret. The great — 
 secret of the earth-born nature of the gods, they proclaimed to all the 
 world by shewing and boasting of the tomb of Jove himself, the Father of — 
 gods and men.’ It was this that so exasperated the other Grecians against 
 them, and gave birth to the proverb, ‘The Cretans are always liars.’ This A 
 opinion seems to have been commonly held by the Fathers. They quote two aI 
 heathen poets in affirmation. (1) Epimenides the Cretan prophet (alluded 
 to by St Paul in his Epistle to Titus) who lived circ. n.c. 650. His work — 
 (probably upon oracles) is lost. It is quoted by Clemens Alex. Strom. Lib.1. 
 Art. 3. (2) Callimachus, a later poet, said to have filled the post of librarian uy 
 to Ptolemy. His versus (the one before us) occurs in a hymn of Jove still — 
 extant. (Vid. Schol. on these lines, and ‘proverbium in Chiliad.’ Erasm.) | 
 Other references to Callimachus, by the Apologists, will be found in Tatian, 
 c. 27; Clem. Alex. Hortat. c.2; Theoph. ad Autol. c. 10; Origen, Contr. — 
 Cels. Lib. m1. s. 43. te o4 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. 1. ¢. 3, 4, » STOR CLO: * TbSCS 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 147 
 
 the heavens, and established the earth ; who opened the deeps of 
 the sea, and set a bound to its waves ; whose spirit enlivens all 
 _ things, without which the universe would cease to exist. Your 
 faculty of speech, your very breath is from him, of whom you 
 are ignorant, because of the darkness and hardness of your 
 heart. But there is a remedy for this disease: the Word, the 
 - Wisdom of God, heals and revives: if you understand this truth, 
 my friend, and live purely and justly, you can see God—having 
 faith coupled with fear in your heart, you will perceive him here, 
 and being made immortal in heaven, you will see him who is 
 immortal, hereafter. : 
 But* as to your gods, who and what were they? Their 
 names are but those of dead men! Their characters yet more 
 despicable! Was not Saturn the devourer of his children? Are 
 not Jupiter’s adulteries described by Homer? Did not one of 
 his sons, Hercules, burn himself to death? Was not another, 
 Bacchus, a drunkard and a madman? Behold! Apollo a fugitive 
 for fear of Achilles; and though a god, ignorant of the death of 
 his beloved Hyacinthus! Venus wounded! Mars, the destroyer 
 of men! We even meet with traces of blood flowing from the 
 gods! I do not assert these things myself, but on the authority 
 of your own historians and poets. And why» should I enumerate 
 the variety of creatures worshipped by the Kgyptians, reptiles, 
 birds, cattle, wild beasts, fish, besides washing vessels, and even 
 obscene sounds; and though the Greeks may not have debased 
 themselves quite so low, yet we see them adoring stones and 
 blocks, and other material things, images, as we have just said, of 
 dead men.’ He further observes of these images, that they are 
 mere human productions, ascribing the Olympian Jove at Pisa, 
 and the Minerva in Arce at Athens, to the well-known sculptor 
 ‘Phidias. Passing on, he reckons at least eight Jupiters be- 
 longing to different countries, and having different origins; and 
 reminds Autolychus that ‘he who is called the son of Saturn 
 was once a king of Crete, where his sepulchre is pointed out to 
 this day.’ He thinks® that he would rather worship the em- 
 -peror than the images of dead men, but concludes, that ‘God is 
 the only true object of adoration,’ as is found confirmed by a 
 careful investigation of the prophetic Scriptures*; a safe way of 
 avoiding eternal punishment, and of obtaining eternal blessings.’ 
 ; a Ad Autol. Lib. 1. ¢. 9. > Tb. ec. 10. 
 
 ‘e Ib.c. 11. d 7b. ¢. 14. 
 10—2 
 
 a Seer ne ean ade 
 
148 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Having thus* dispelled these illusions of the arts, and asked — 
 ironically how it is that Mount Ida is so deserted now, and ~ 
 
 whither Jupiter Olympus can be gone, our author” next turns to 
 the philosophers. He quotes ‘the Stoics denying a God altogether, 
 
 or at least his Providence, and the followers of Epicurus and — 
 
 Chrysippus of the same opinion: others asserting that the world 
 was made by chance, or not created at all, but self-existent; or, 
 that God is merely another name for the consciousness of every 
 individual, or the spirit pervading all things. Plato, however, 
 and his disciples confess that God is not produced, but is the 
 Creator himself; yet, at the same time, they inconsistently hold 
 that matter is also unproduced.’ He then exposes° the discor- 
 
 dances and follies of the heathen writers generally. He points © 
 
 out the differences between Homer’s explanation of the origin of 
 the gods and of the world, and the theories of the philosophers ; 
 
 also between both of these, and Hesiod; and4 concludes there- — 
 fore that ‘all the historians, poets, and philosophers of the © 
 Greeks, only sport with those who give them credit, whether _ 
 they exhibit the gods in their true characters as drunken, lasci- | 
 vious, murderous men, or endeavour to explain them away by | 
 psychological and physical theories. He attributes much of © 
 the dreadful delusions of the poets, to their having sought their | 
 
 inspiration, and attributed their gifts to the profane Muses. 
 
 With such false prophets® he now compares the érue pro-— 
 phets, and begs his hearers to consider the variety, the beauty, © 
 and the force to be found in their writings. ‘As rivers and | 
 fountains nourish the sea,’ says he, ‘so has the law of God and | 
 the prophets preserved the world by a continual supply of gentle- _ 
 Less, pity, justice and obedience, that else had failed long since — 
 on account of the great wickedness in it; and as there are fruit- 
 ful and salubrious isles in the sea, and many ports affording a 
 shelter to the tempest-tossed or shipwrecked mariner, so God has | 
 set his churches in a world ebbing and flowing with sin, in order | 
 that those who desire salvation, may fly thither and learn to avoid | 
 
 his anger and just judgment.’ 
 
 In contrasting’ Plato’s story of Deucalion’s! flood, with the 
 Mosaic account of the deluge, our author shrewdly observes, that — 
 
 * Ad Autol. Lib. 1m. c. 1—8. Pay bac. © (veh. 
 
 CTO. 8. © Ib. c. 14, f 7b, Lib. m1. ¢. 18. 
 ‘ Theophilus fancifully derives the name ‘Deucalion’ from Noah's 
 mission of ‘ calling’ man ‘to God.’ 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 149 
 
 ‘the latter ‘explains how such a dreadful visitation came to befal 
 the earth, with all its particulars.’ 
 
 HERMIAS?. ‘Some of the philosophers assert that the 
 soul is fire, as Democritus; some, air, as the Stoics; some, mo- 
 tion, as Heraclitus: an exhalation or emission from the stars 
 furnished with motion, as Pythagoras; some, generative water, 
 as Hippon; or harmony, as Dimarchus; or blood, as Critias; 
 or breath, or unity, &c. Behold the variety of opinion enter- 
 tained by the sophists, each of them pretending to the truth. 
 Again”, one calls pleasure the chief good; another calls it an 
 evil; and a third places it between the two extremes. Some 
 assert the immortality, some the mortality of the soul. Some 
 reduce it to a bestial level, or dissolve it into separate bodies, or 
 give it a migratory circuit of three thousand years. What else 
 is this but fiction or madness, or both together? And® being at 
 such a loss with regard to their own nature, is it any marvel 
 that they should fall short when they begin to investigate the 
 nature of God ? Nevertheless they have had the boldness, not to 
 say stupidity, to attempt it. They who know nothing about 
 themselves, freely discuss God. They who are ignorant of the 
 construction of their own bodies, undertake the fruitless task of 
 explaining that of the world. But* at the very outset they oppose 
 one another. Anaxagoras differs from Melissus; Parmenides 
 and Anaximenes from Empedocles®; Protagoras from Thales 
 and Anaximander; and‘ Archelaus from Plato and Aristotle. 
 Even those who are more ancient yet, as Pherecydes (who said 
 that the gods were only natural principles) and others exhibited 
 the like rivalry. Leucippus, Democritus, and Heraclitus* all 
 think differently from Epicurus and his followers, whilst" Pytha- 
  goras concludes that the beginning of all things is unity, from 
 whose figures and numbers the elements were made, thus dis- 
 senting from all. These things’ I have related, that the contra- 
 _ riety of philosophical opinions may be made manifest, and the 
 ~endiessness and inutility of their theories exposed.’ 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS* examines the origin of the 
 _ Pagan orgies, and discovers that ‘they are founded on profane 
 
 " 2 Trrisio. c. 1. P= Jp. Gave €''16..¢. 3s 4 Jb. c. 4. 
 me. 6° Tb. c. 5. f Ib ¢. 6. & Jb. c. 7. b Jb, ¢. 8. 
 m2 7p, -c, 10. k Hort. ad Gent. c. 1, 2. 
 
150 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 and dangerous fables, the inventions of atheistical men ; for by — 
 right,’ it is added, ‘are they called ungodly who venerate a little | 
 boy torn from the Titans, a wailing woman, and even parts of : 
 the human frame! They know not God, whosoever worship % 
 that which is not God, but commit a double crime. ‘ Atheism 
 and superstition are the extremes of ignorance. Originally,’ he 
 continues, ‘there was free intercourse between earth and heaven, ; 
 which has been interrupted by man’s seeking his present happiness _ 
 in the earth alone, and prostrating himself according to covert 
 species of idolatry. He has deified (1) the heavenly bodies, as @ 
 the Phrygians and Indians, who adore the moon ; (2) the fruits of 
 the earth, which the Athenians honour in the person of Ceres, — 
 and the Thebans in Bacchus; (3) or, urged by a consciousness of | | 
 guilt, they ascribe divinity to punishments and calamities, whence 
 the furies of the dramatists; (4) or, to the passions and affections; _ 
 so the philosophers treat hope, fear, love, joy, &c. even as Hume- | 
 nides of old built an altar to impudence; (5) or, to the incidents of - | 
 life; thus fate, justice, &c. came to be esteemed goddesses by the — 
 Athenians ; (6) or, they have accepted the twelve gods of Hesiod ; : 
 (7) or, the common benefactors of the race, who, (in place of that _ 
 God from whom all good comes,) were feigned to be his servants, _ 
 like Bacchus, Hercules, and Aisculapius.’ Our author taking © 
 the last explanation as the most satisfactory, now goes on to | 
 shew that the common gods of Greece were men by their actions, 
 their numbers, and their names. He reminds the Pagans that 
 their own writers mention three Jupiters, five Minervas, as many | 
 Apollos, and Mercuries and Vulcans ad libitum. He then 2 
 glances at the native countries of the deities, their occupations, _ 
 their sepulchres, each attesting their earth-born and mortal 4 
 nature. Mars is confessed by some to have been a Spartan, by 3 
 others a Thracian chief, and the poet himself makes him change — 
 sides in war, and presently puts him in chains for thirteen months. 
 Vulcan is hurled out of heaven by Jupiter, falls on Lemnos, and — 
 being lamed in his feet, works a forge with his hands. But be- — 
 sides a smith, the gods have a doctor among them, a certain | 
 
 Aasculapius, whose humanity, however, is betrayed by his” : 
 avariciousness. Hercules was accounted a mortal man by Homer, © 
 and the Muses are styled by Alcander, the daughters of Jove and 
 Mnemosyne. Then follows a review of the vices and mis- — 
 fortunes of the deities. Their marriages, their child-births, their 
 
 adulteries, their intemperance, their wounds and servitude, their 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 151 
 
 Jaughter and quarrels over the festive cup, are all brought into 
 requisition as witnesses against their divine essence. Nor can the 
 minister of God here refrain himself from a practical remonstrance. 
 ‘These are the gods whom your wives, your children worship ; 
 - obnoxious to all the passions and sufferings of men; goddesses 
 revealing their charms to a shepherd judge; wounded ; in tears: 
 gods struck in the stomach, losing blood, feeding on human flesh, 
 _ not knowing the while that it was their own children. Behold 
 your gods, and they that worship them will be like them. Better 
 would it be, like the Egyptians to follow dumb animals from city 
 to city and street to street, than to have such immoral gods as 
 
 ~ these.’ 
 
 He next comments” upon another class of gods, the demons, 
 who are described as impure, gluttonous, and cruel, deceiving 
 men by means of oracles and statues, and delighting in and 
 abetting the bloody contests of the world. 
 
 This” leads him to consider the subject of images or symbols 
 of idolatry. He shews that first of all, men began by worship- 
 ping senseless things; the Scythians, a scimitar; the Persians, 
 a river. The first figure of Diana was a mere block of wood, 
 and that of Juno, a hewn trunk. Afterwards statues began to be 
 shaped into human figures. It is well known that the statue of 
 _ Juno at Athens was cut by the chisel of Euclides. Philochorus 
 
 says that Telesius executed the sculpture of Neptune and Am- 
 phitrites, nine cubits high, which the inhabitants of Tenos adore. 
 Demetrius in the second of the Argolics states that the figure of 
 Juno Tirynthia was made of a pear-tree, by an Argive: the 
 statue of Morychus Bacchus was cut out of Phellensian stone by 
 Simon the son of Hupalamus, as we gather from a letter of 
 - Polemon; and to conclude, who does not know that the great 
 demon of the Egyptians, Serapis, whom all countries honour 
 _ with a peculiar reverence, was constructed by men’s hands ? 
 The history of this statue is supplied, as well as of the temple 
 _ containing it; our author observing upon the dishonour cast by 
 - Cambyses and Darius upon this and other Egyptian gods, that 
 though not done from any proper motive, it certainly proves 
 their inherent weakness. A like inference is drawn from their 
 having ‘suffered from fire and earthquakes, which seem to re- 
 gard an image no more than a pebble on the sea-shore.’ Another 
 fact going to prove the worthlessness of statues, appears on the 
 authority of Posidippus, who tells us that Praxiteles carved the 
 
 * Hort. ad Gent. ¢. 3. b Jb. c. 4. 
 
152 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Venus of Cnidus, as like as possible to Cratina his own mistress ; | 
 so that in reality the mistress of Praxiteles is worshipped: and — 
 also that at one time all the painters expressed the form of | 
 Phryne, the Thespian courtezan, in their pictures of Venus ; | 
 whilst the sculptors were copying Alcibiades in their Mercuries, 
 ‘Judge ye,’ he exclaims, ‘whether it is right to adore base 
 harlots, and effeminate men; but, being dead yourselves, you 
 worship the dead! Truly these things are called images or. 
 shadows with some propriety! Yonder figure is fair Parian 
 marble, and not Neptune; beautiful ivory, and not Olympian 
 Jove! Matter requires art to turn it to account; the true 
 God needs nothing. Will you then be more senseless than apes, 
 and worship representations of wood, or gold, or ivory, a mighty 
 medley introduced into the world by sculptors and painters ?” 
 
 Lastly*, he detects the philosophers ‘making a god out of 
 nature and the elements of the world; or, if it be allowed that 
 any of them saw the truth at all, it was only as in a dream.’ 
 Each of the philosophical systems with their principal opinions, 
 is then reviewed, and the conclusion arrived at, that ‘ though 
 the philosophers have not worshipped stocks and stones like the - 
 Greeks, nor the ibis and ichneumon like the Egyptians, yet they 
 have fallen into other errors, equally grievous and fatal.’  Ele- 
 mental worship is traced back to the Persians, on the authority 
 of Berosus. 
 
 ‘And thus”, reflects our author, ‘amidst all this crowd of 
 demons and deities, images and fables, man lies like one in a night- 
 mare. It is the Christian alone who looks above material things, to 
 God. How different® are the sacred books from which he derives 
 instruction ! They stand as the foundation of all true worship. 
 They will be found, upon examination, free from obscurity and 
 mere outward ornament; evidently intended to withdraw us 
 from vice, to teach men to despise the various misfortunes of 
 this life, to subdue their passions, and to seek salvation. He 
 therefore exhorts every one’ to be ‘both a participator and a 
 follower of the one God, « crying, Abba, Father” ‘If you 
 truly desire® to seek God, you may become a partaker of the 
 atonement, which pleases him, and be encircled not with gar- 
 lands, but with the leaves of temperance. Jesus saith, “I am 
 the door:” this is the reasonable gate which is opened by the 
 
 * Hort. ad Gent. c. 5. POF eb. © 16.6.8. 
 4 Ib. ¢. 9, TEs e352: 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 153 
 
 key of faith. Explore then no longer the impious adyta of 
 
 your temples, nor the mouths of deep and wondrous caves, the 
 . Thresprotian cauldron or the Cirrhean tripod, or the knotted 
 _ tree among the sands of the desert. By the side of the decay- 
 
 ing trunk, leave also these worn out fables: the Castalian foun- 
 
 tain is silent; the wave of Colophon is dried up: the oracles 
 
 are deserted, (greedy ventriloquists that they were, performing 
 their divinations for wheat and barley); the palmistry of the 
 Etruscans, and the secret arts of Kgyptian jugglers deceive no 
 more.’ 
 
 TERTULLIAN? is led in his defence of the Christians, to 
 prove that the gods of the Gentiles are no gods. On this point 
 he refers his opponents to their own works of antiquity, from 
 which alone they derive any knowledge of their deities. ‘These,’ 
 he says, ‘are found to bear testimony to the humanity of the 
 gods, by naming the cities where they were born or died, and 
 the countries in which they had left traces of their achievements.’ 
 Owing to the great number of the gods, he is obliged to make 
 a compendious summary’. He gives us an account of Saturn, 
 Bacchus, Ceres, Minerva; and wonders why the Pagans did not 
 deify Socrates and some other really worthy characters. He 
 
 observes’, that ‘Seneca has severely inveighed against these 
 
 ~~ oS . 
 
 divinities; and? that the heathen themselves continually treat 
 them with irreverence, by neglecting some out of such numbers; 
 by buying and selling the Lares; by converting them to the 
 basest purposes, when battered and worn; by letting out the 
 
 revenues of the temples to the highest bidder, so that the more 
 
 popular the divinity, the higher it is taxed; and by admitting 
 the lowest and vilest characters, into the circle of the gods.’ 
 
 He next® glances at the weaknesses and calamities of the 
 heathen deities; how they fought in pairs like gladiators, for 
 Trojans or Greeks; how they were wounded, imprisoned, re- 
 leased, in sorrow, in disgrace. ‘Which of the poets,’ he asks, 
 ‘does not calumniate them? One sets Apollo to keep sheep; 
 another hires out Neptune to build a wall; Pindar declares 
 ZEsculapius was deservedly scathed for his avarice in exercising 
 the art of medicine to a bad purpose; whilst the writers of 
 tragedy and comedy alike, take for their subjects the crimes or 
 
 @ Apol. c. 10. Meloi cei © Jb.c-12. 
 @ Jb. Gls. “be CALA: 
 
154 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 ithe miseries of the deities. Nor are the philosophers behind- 
 hand, in this respect. Out of pure contempt, they would swear 
 by an oak, a goat, a dog; Diogenes turned Hercules into ridi- 
 cule; and the Roman Cynic Varro introduces three hundred 
 Joves without heads.’ 
 
 From the stage-abuses*, our author selects those of Diana 
 being flogged, the reading of Jupiter’s will after his decease, and 
 the three half-starved Hercules! Of some of these things he 
 mournfully reverts to his having been an eye-witness: ‘We have 
 joined in the laugh at the cruel entertainments with which you 
 beguile the mid-day, when Mercury went about with a red-hot 
 caduceus to ascertain whether the bodies were really dead! We 
 have seen also Pluto dragging off the corpses of the gladiators, 
 with a hammer in his hand.’ 
 
 In passing”, he rebuts the charge made against the Christians, 
 
 of worshipping an ass’ head, which he attributes to ‘ Tacitus (his 
 loquacity and falsehood ill agreeing with his name)’ by stating 
 
 that neither among Jews nor Christians, have any images been 
 
 allowed; and makes it return upon his accusers, by shewing 
 that they worship the beast entire. Again, he® illustrates the 
 inability of the gods to help their worshippers. He observes 
 that, ‘even while M. Aurelius lay dead, the high priest of 
 Cybele was offering vows and drinking impure blood for his 
 safety, and that too for seven days after his decease; that 
 Jupiter allowed his own kingdom of Crete to be subdued by the 
 Romans; and Juno, her beloved Carthage, to be desolated.’ As 
 to their dates, he finds that ‘ Rome reigned before the circuit of 
 her Capitol with all its gods, was erected; and to look further 
 back yet, the ancient monarchies of Babylon, Media, Egypt, and 
 Assyria were established, long before the Pagan priests and 
 virgins, and even gods were heard of.’ , 
 
 In contrast with all this, a simple sketch of Christian doc- 
 trine is set forth, to show that the object of our worship is one 
 God, the Creator; Christ® is introduced ag God, and his nature, 
 incarnation, and death dwelt upon ; and the written word referred 
 to, as ‘indited by holy men, who have lived at various intervals 
 from the beginning’, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’ 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX®, with the intention of exposing the 
 vulgar belief concerning the Divine Nature, remarks: ‘Our fore- 
 
 ® Apol. c. 15. » 7b. 16: © Ib-c, 2 
 ae fs Oe he SAA * T0018. § Octav. c. 20. 
 
REASONABLENES OF DOCTRINE. 155 
 
 fathers credited every monster and prodigy, Scylla with all her 
 bodies, and Chimeera with all her shapes, the many-headed monster 
 hydra reviving from its fruitful wounds, and centaurs, half man 
 and half horse; in short, fame could not be better at lying 
 than they were at believing. What do you think of the meta- 
 morphoses of men into beasts, and trees, and flowers? And this 
 credulity extended to the very gods they worshipped. From 
 venerating their kings and desiring their effigies after death, they 
 grew to treat these memorials with adoration, and now every 
 country has its founder, or hero, or queen, or inventor, for . 
 a god. This* the Stoics confess. Euhemerus explains how men 
 were deified for their courage or wit. He furnishes us with 
 their nativities and their tombs, in every province. Proditus 
 mentions that travellers who imported useful products, were 
 esteemed gods by their countrymen ; and Perseus the philosopher 
 adds, that fruits often went by the names of their discoverers.’ 
 ‘The vain and wicked mysteries’ are next handled. ‘It is 
 deplorable to see how the Egyptian Ceres, with a serpent for a 
 girdle and lighted torches in her hands, searches pensively for 
 her ravished Proserpine; or how, in the rites of Jove, a goat is 
 introduced for a nurse, and to drown the cries of the boy 
 (stolen from his father, lest he should be devoured), the Cory- 
 bantes play on cymbals; while those of Dindymene Cybele, prac- 
 tised among the Gauls, are too shameful to rehearse. Besides, 
 what figures do you make of your gods? There is Apollo, 
 though so old, without a beard; and yet smooth Apollo’s son, 
 ZEsculapius, with a very respectable one; there is green-eyed 
 Neptune, blue-eyed Minerva, goggle-eyed Juno; Mercury with 
 wings to his feet; Pan hoofed; Saturn in fetters; and Janus 
 with two faces, as if he walked backwards. ‘There is Diana the 
 huntress, under the title of Trivia, branching out into three 
 heads, and hands innumerable; Jove, with or without a beard, 
 horned as Ammon, armed with thunder as Capitolinus, or as 
 Latialis, smeared with gore; Erigone, who died by a halter to 
 live a virgin in the skies; Castor and Pollux, who live and die 
 
 3 by turns; dZsculapius, who was struck by lightning to rise up a 
 
 god; and Hercules, who was scoured from his human dross in 
 the AStean flame, and turned into a divinity. These strange 
 stories” the poets have embellished, still more to prejudice the 
 truth; on which account Plato, to his eternal honour, banished 
 
 * Octav. c. 21. b I[b.'c. 22. 
 
156 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Homer with all his laurels from his imaginary commonwealth. 
 For he is the first poet that introduces the gods to men, with 
 jest and railery. He sets them quarrelling, wounds Venus, 
 enchains Mars; he sings of Jove’s escape by the help of Briareus, 
 and how, when the mighty god could not deliver his son 
 Sarpedon, he wept showers of blood. He tells likewise of 
 Venus’ enchanted girdle to draw the god from his mistresses, and 
 make him a kinder husband to Juno. Sometimes Hercules is a 
 hostler, Apollo a cow-herd, and Neptune, Laomedon’s mason, 
 cheated of his wages. There we have the thunder of Jove, and 
 the arms of Aineas forged on the same anvil (as if the heavens 
 and the thunder and lightning were not in being, before Jove was 
 born in Crete); the adultery of Mars and Venus; the lewduness 
 of Jupiter with Ganymede, all of which were invented for the 
 gods, to authorize men in their wickedness.’ The history of 
 Saturn, and his flight from Crete to Italy, by which he is 
 proved to be a man, completes the research; and ‘ having thus,’ 
 says our author*, ‘proved the fathers to be mortal, it must 
 needs be that none can doubt the humanity of the children,’ 
 
 Of the practice of turning men and emperors into gods, the — 4 
 
 folly is plainly seen, ‘inasmuch as none of them wish to die and 
 be deified, but would rather by far remain here,’ 3 
 
 Images” are yet more absurd. ‘Man makes and dedicates 
 his gods of wood, stone, brass! Why, the very. mice, the 
 swallows, the kites, know better than that ; they tread on them, 
 and sit on them; the spiders crawl over their faces, and use the 
 sacred heads for blocks on which to spin their webs. You your- 
 selves wipe, and scrape, and clean them, and yet fear what you 
 make and are compelled to protect. Moreover, the temples in 
 which they are erected, become the resorts of wickedness. In 
 some processions, the most noted adulteress is dressed up, and 
 the high priest sacrifices with his own blood, or practises the 
 greatest obscenities. Where® are there more sins contracted for, 
 more assignations made, more adulteries concerted, than by the 
 priests in the temples, and at the very altars ?’ | 
 
 Lastly*, the deceptions of the auguries must be exposed. 
 ‘Regulus was taken prisoner notwithstanding all his observation 
 of the auspices; while Caius Ceesar sailed to Africa, in spite of 
 them, and gained an easy victory. Amphiaraus pretended to 
 
 * Octav. c. 28, > Tb. ©. 24, © Thc. ob. a 10. ©. 26. 
 
 a 
 es 
 
 ES 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 157 
 
 prognosticate his own fate, but did not know that his own wife 
 would betray him for a necklace; blind Tiresias could foresee 
 things to come, but nothing present; in the case of Pyrrhus, the 
 poet Ennius helped out the Pythia with an answer ; and, to con- 
 clude, how wise it was in the oracles to leave off riddling, just as 
 men began to be incredulous !’ 
 
 ORIGEN® asks Celsus, why it is he can discover the pro- 
 foundest mysteries ‘in those strange and senseless accidents, 
 which, according to the most admired poets and historians have 
 befallen his gods and goddesses, making them out to be polluted 
 with crimes, contending with their parents, and doing many 
 shameful things of a like nature; whilst Moses, who says nothing 
 derogatory to the character of God, angel, or man, is treated as 
 an impostor.’ He continues, ‘I would openly challenge any 
 one to set author against author. I would say, Pray sir, pro- 
 duce the poems of Linus, Museeus, and Orpheus, and the history 
 of Pherecydes, and compare them with the laws that Moses gave 
 to the Hebrews. Examine which have had the greatest and best 
 influence over the minds of men. Inmpartially consider how few 
 of your writers have had any effect upon the common people ;, 
 whereas the works of Moses are fit for all classes, both learned 
 and illiterate. I do not see what public service your books ren- 
 der; but the books we boast of, have persuaded Jews, as well 
 as other nations, to believe that the laws they contain -were 
 given by God himself.’ He applies this argument to Christianity, 
 by shewing that Moses was as far inferior to our Lord, as he was 
 superior to the wisest of the philosophers or poets. 
 
 ‘St John tells us® in his Gospel, of the majesty with which 
 the Saviour uttered the divine and important truths that formed 
 the subject-matter of his teaching, and of the authority with 
 which he engaged the affections and attention of his audiences.’ 
 
 ‘Only shew me@ what Bacchus and Hercules have done. 
 Whom have they made better by their discourses and examples, 
 that they deserve to be called gods? Let us unfold the many 
 histories written about them, and see whether they themselves 
 were free from intemperance, injustice, folly, and cowardice. If 
 
 none of these vices are discovered in them, then may Celsus 
 
 @ Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. 8.17. b Jb. 8.18. 
 ¢ Jb, Lib. 1. 8. 73. 4 7b, Lib. 10. s. 42. 
 
158 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ~ 
 
 compare them with Jesus. Jesus" was never charged with any 
 sin, even by his enemies; every one” acknowledged the wisdom 
 of his doctrine.’ 
 
 Our author® also alludes to the brutal nature of the Egyp- 
 tian deities; to the dissolute lives of those of the Greeks, as well 
 as to the vain stories® of their heroes; to the temple of Antino- 
 us‘, a minion of the emperor Hadrian; and to the tomb® of 
 Jove in Crete; as proofs of the essential carnality and absence 
 of divine marks in the heathen systems. 
 
 He then proceeds to illustrate out of the holy Scriptures, 
 the Christian doctrine of the immutability of God, quoting the 
 texts, ‘but thou art the same,’ and ‘I change not.’ With these 
 he compares the Epicurean rationale, which deduces the gods 
 out of atoms, and dissolves them again at pleasure; likewise 
 the god of the Stoics, who is corporeal, or at best mental, evi- 
 
 dently a vain endeavour to form a natural notion of Deity, as of | 
 
 something incorruptible, uncreated, and indivisible. 
 
 The genealogies! of the Pagan Divinities, as furnished by 
 Hesiod, are contrasted with those of the Jews; -also* the respec- 
 tive accounts of the creation, upon which the observation is 
 repeated! that ‘the simplicity of the Scriptures and their accom- 
 modation to the multitude (qualities quite overlooked by the phi- 
 losophers) speak much in favour of Christianity. On the other 
 hand what can be more suspicious than the fact that, on account 
 of their obscurity™, as well as their licentiousness, Plato felt 
 compelled to. banish Homer", and the authors of poems like 
 his, from his Republic ?’ 
 
 Origen®, continuing his contrast, points out, that while the 
 heathen have used birds’ entrails, &c. to obtain an imaginary in- 
 sight into futurity, the true God uses not animals for such 2 
 solemn purpose, nor even common men, but selects the holiest 
 and purest souls, whom he fills with his own Spirit, and renders- 
 prophetic. Wherefore Moses commands, ‘ There shall be neither 
 augur nor soothsayer among you; but a prophet will the Lord 
 your God raise up unto you from your brethren, like unto me.’ — 
 
 Again, he asserts? that ‘not only are the works of the pro- 
 phets more ancient than those of Homer and Plato, but also 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. m. s. 23. et, oO. © AO; Set ye OTD Bae 
 © Id. s. 31—83. f Ib. 8. 36. 7b: a Aas 
 
 » J6, Lib, rv. s..14: i Ib. s. 36. K Ib. s. 38. ' Tb. 8. 50. 
 Ib. s. 86. ae (0 © 16,8298. P 1b. \EAb. Vis eens 
 
 EF 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE, 159 
 
 more worthy of God who inspired them. They are greatly to 
 be admired for loftiness of thought; and those persons are not 
 wise who through idleness read them not; or, for a better under- 
 standing of them, never ask, as Jesus commanded, that God would 
 give them wisdom, and open the closed door of their minds.’ As 
 instances of the superior sublimity of the Scriptures, to the epis- 
 tles and sentences of Plato, he quotes Psalm xvii. 12; Exodus 
 xx. 21; xxiv. 2; Psalm ciii. 6; Isaiah’s description of the sera- 
 phim, Is. vi. 12; and Ezekiel’s vision of the cherubim, Ezek. 1. 5. 
 7 The respective claims to the prophetical spirit are next* con- 
 sidered. ‘If the Delphic oracle was truly divine, he ought. to 
 use his knowledge of the future in attracting men to a change of 
 life, to the cure of the soul, and to the improvement of morals. 
 But nothing of this sort is recorded of him in history. He pre- 
 fers what contributes to his own advantage, rather than to the 
 furtherance of honour and truth. The like may be said of the 
 other oracles!. On the contrary”, the Jewish prophets, whether 
 wise before, or enlightened by the reception of the gift of God, 
 all followed a life rarely imitated, a life of constant exposure to 
 danger and death. They were not in favour with the men of 
 their day. It was to such persons the divine oracles were com- 
 mitted; and even our reason teaches us that their dispositions 
 were such as became true prophets; by the side of which, the 
 character of a Crates, or a Diogenes is mere child’s play.’ He 
 particularly alludes to ‘their reprehension of sinners, to Isaiah’s 
 austerities, to Daniel’s abstinence ; these are they who had the 
 honour of prophesying concerning Jesus, and it is no wonder that 
 we, possessing them, make nothing of the heathen oracles, falsely 
 called prophetic. We cannot help admiring the constancy and 
 upright lives, so worthy of the Divine Spirit, which these Jewish 
 teachers displayed, and who, for every reason except that which 
 moved the predictions of demons, foretold future events.’ 
 Finally°, our author contends that the Christian system is to 
 be preferred to that of the poets, for the clearness of its doctrines, 
 and to the Jewish superstitions, for the catholicity of its spirit. 
 ‘It is agreeable to reason,’ he says, ‘ that God should leave none 
 ignorant or unacquainted with his will, from any want of capa- 
 city. The Gospel therefore which instructs unlettered men, wo- 
 
 @ Cont. Cels. Lib. vit. s- 5- 
 1 In Lib. viz. s.46, an instance is furnished of the Pythia being bribed. 
 > Cont. Cels. Lib. vit. s. 7. | en Tb,’ s: 43. 
 
160 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE. 
 
 x 
 
 men, and even slaves in doctrines they can understand, and in 
 ’ 
 
 morals which elevate them, must be divine. The Greek philoso- 
 phers* may have said, and their priests have done some good 
 things (though often only to gain esteem for apparent sanctity), 
 but here is something much more influential, a perfect system of 
 virtue. How can the precepts of Ausculapius, Orpheus, Anaxa- 
 
 goras or Epictetus be compared with those of Jesus, whose words — 
 are accompanied with a divine power, and though so simple, con- — 
 
 vert the world ?’ 
 
 CYPRIAN® grieves that ‘vice should come recommended to 
 
 the heathen with such an appearance of authority as the example 
 of the gods. Venus is represented as an harlot, Mars as an adul- 
 terer, and the famous Jupiter descends upon the stage and enters 
 
 upon his amours with all insignia of Godhead about him. At one 
 
 time his divinity is cloaked in the feathers of a swan; again he is 
 
 pleased to let himself down in a golden shower, or his eagles are — 
 
 employed to pander to his lusts, Now let me put the question 
 whether any man is likely to be a spectator of such scenes, and 
 yet preserve the purity of his thoughts, and the chastity of his 
 life, untainted ? People are ever found imitators of the gods 
 they worship; and thus the most enormous sins are consecrated 
 into acts of devotion.’ : 
 
 ‘There is evidence® enough that they were really no gods, 
 whom the vulgar honoured. They were but. ancient kings or 
 persons of eminence, to whom after death religious honours were 
 paid in memory of their greatness. Temples were raised over 
 their ashes, and statues were made to represent their living | 
 bodies, while sacrifices and holidays were appointed to comfort the 
 survivors, and to immortalize the dead in the minds of posterity.’ 
 
 He gives particular cases of this transition from the natural to © 
 
 the superstitious, in which he closely follows Minutius Felix, 
 only adding that ‘the Moors avowedly and openly adore their 
 
 kings, nor attempt to cover the practice.’ He then® points out 
 how the heathen religions vary with soil, cl 
 
 tions whether according to the popul 
 into sexes, the progeny 
 and wonders why none 
 
 ar separation of the deities 
 by this time ought not to be innumerable; 
 are born in his own day. ‘But, perhaps, 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. vir, 5, 49, ® Ad Donat. c. 5. 
 
 ° De fdol. Van. c. 1. SL Os ie, Be 
 
 ather imate, and language, — 
 all disagreeing in their objects and modes of worship. He ques- — 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 161 
 
 some are being born now, which would account for certain late 
 Roman divinities, as the goddess Cloaca, the gods assigned to 
 various passions, fear, pallor, the goddess of fever, also Acca and 
 Flora, infamous women ; while even doors, hinges, thresholds, and 
 all ascents, as well as orphans, have now each their proper patron.’ 
 He comments upon the folly of A®neas in caring about 
 those domestic gods, which could not preserve him from exile; 
 and upon the indecency of modern times, ‘wherein Venus is 
 _ more exposed than she was even by Homer, when he represented 
 her as wounded by a mortal arm.’ 
 ; He gives* Scripture proofs, first that idols are nothing, and 
 that the maker must be worthier than his manufacture; and 
 secondly, that the Lord God is the only fit object of adoration. 
 
 ARNOBIUS., in reply to a charge of atheism, asks if it is 
 atheism to worship the Maker of all things, to call upon him, and 
 in the midst of every trouble to embrace him with the affections 
 of the heart? ‘Is this why your gods are so severe against us, _ 
 _and why you yourselves strip us of our goods, banish us from our 
 country, torture us, burn us, cast us to the wild beasts? are men 
 who will do these things, and gods who are supposed to encourage 
 them, worthy of the names they bear? and who or what are we, 
 to be thus treated? Nothing more nor less than Christians, 
 under the teaching of Christ. This is the gravamen of the 
 charge, and this is the proposed end of our duties. Before him we 
 all bow according to custom, and present him with our prayers. 
 But° do you affirm, “ you have also a supreme god, Jupiter ?” It 
 is true, but he has a father, a mother, brothers, and cousins. He 
 was himself but lately borne in the womb; how then can he be 
 God? At any rate, you see that our religions so far harmonize, 
 that it must be unjust in you to persecute ws, and it is manifest 
 by this inconsistency of yours, that you know not God.’ 
 ‘We acknowledge® that Christ was one of us, as to his human 
 condition and physical infirmities; indeed it is this great con- 
 descension of his, and the benefits accruing from it, that make 
 him worthy to be accounted a God. You honour Bacchus, be- 
 cause he discovered the use of wine; Ceres, of bread; A‘scula- 
 pius, of medical herbs; Minerva, of oil; Triptolemus, of the 
 plough; and Hercules, for his subjugation of robbers and wild 
 beasts. With what additional honour then should he be treated 
 
 * Tract. ad Fortun. b Adv. Gent. c. 7. Tbe 6 bin @ Tb. '¢. 18. 
 H, E. EL 
 
162 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 who drew us from fatal errors to the light of truth! who raised 
 us from serving figures of vile clay even to heaven itself, and ; 
 introduced our prayers to the Lord of all? Ought we not to i 
 account this Christ, a God? A short time since, and I myself . 
 (alas! what blindness!) was venerating images fresh from the | 
 anvil and furnace; gods wrought out of iron, or carved in ivory ; fi 
 logs of wood, crowned with flowers. But now I see no virtue in # 
 anointed stones, but only in my anointed teacher: I pray no © 
 more to senseless trunks, but only to the true God: I treat such — 
 things with the utmost contempt, while I adore and magnify the — 
 Divine name.’ A 
 He therefore implores* the heathen, ‘no longer to keep — 
 themselves from Christ, who when on earth healed all that came — 
 to him; for he was the sublime God sent to be a Deliverer.’ a 
 ‘What can induce you’, he” further complains, ‘to reproach — 
 and hate him who was never charged with any crime? Your | 
 tyrants and kings may desecrate the temples of the gods, lay | 
 waste entire states, and slaughter the inhabitants; yet you admire § 
 and applaud them, you raise them to the skies, and preserve their | 
 deeds in your libraries. Oh! unreasonable, ungrateful age! If _ 
 a physician had come from some regions unknown, bringing such | 
 a medicine as would heal your bodies of every. disease and sick- ' 
 ness, would you not all run to him and honour him? Well, | 
 Christ has appeared the announcer of the greatest good, pertain- | 
 ing to the salvation of the soul! Adopt his doctrines, rather | 
 than the hallucinations of your poets,’ 
 Pursuing’ the contrast, he begs the Gentiles to consider , 
 ‘whether Christ has overrun the world with hostile legions, — 
 claiming his royal authority? Has he avariciously collected all 
 the wealth of nations? Has he indulged himself in pleasure, — 
 idleness, or arrogance? Rather4, did he not introduce a religion | 
 than which there can be nothing more true, more practical, more _ 
 just, more salutary. It is to know the great God, and to sup- 
 plicate him, the fountain of all power and goodness.’ re | 
 Some excellent chapters occur here, shewing that the phi- 
 losophers were vain and presumptuous, in trying to explain the | 
 nature of God, the origin of evil, moral and physical, &c. ; and | 
 that ignorance on such subjects as these is no crime, but only | 
 
 makes it more evidently the duty of man to submit his reason to | 
 the word of God. j 
 
 “ Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 19. b bie. 26. et 
 © Jo. Lib. 11, ¢. 1. dp eo: 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 163 
 
 To expose” the absurdity of idolatry, allusion is made to the 
 
 number of gods inhabiting Olympus. He tells” the Pagan that 
 out of a thousand, or rather five thousand, he must neglect some ; 
 _ that the supposition of deities having sexes is an unworthy notion, 
 _as indeed the furnishing them with a corporeal nature at all; 
 
 and that ° if it be said, these forms, whether human or animal, 
 are but the assumptions of poetry, the insult to divinity seems 
 
 only the greater, 
 
 He refers* to the usual disagreements of the oracles and 
 
 theologians respecting the gods, asking, ‘ how any one is to tell 
 
 which is the right god, amidst such a confusion?’ and then°® to 
 the sad example they set to the people; where he observes that 
 all the miseries of men have arisen from the indulgence of their 
 
 private gratifications, in which the gods have set them the ex- 
 
 ample. They are therefore the more hurtful on account of their 
 exaltation; and the first duty‘, both of the government and of all 
 who have any respect for Deity at all, is to destroy the books 
 and pull down the theatres which encourage such licentious 
 fables regarding it. This, he submits, would be doing some- 
 
 thing better than giving Christian writings to the flames, and 
 razing churches to the ground; churches in which the great God 
 is worshipped, and we pray for peace and pardon for magistrates, 
 
 for armies, for kings, for slaves, for enemies; wherein nothing is 
 
 heard but what tends to make men gentle, chaste, affable, and 
 
 united in the closest brotherhood. 
 Touching upon® image-worship, he thus addresses idolaters : 
 ‘You laugh at the Persians for adoring a river, and at the Scyth- 
 
 -ians with their scimitar for a god; but it is equally ridiculous to 
 
 mould and then supplicate little figures of men. How absurd to 
 
 worship the work of your own hands! Look inside of your 
 images, and observe the hollow spaces; can you conceive that the 
 
 gods abide within such plaster and pottery ? Consider moreover 
 
 how these figures have to be kept under lock and key, lest they 
 should suffer detriment.’ He gives”, for an illustration of their 
 
 helplessness, the story of Antiochus (Cyricenus) carrying off a 
 
 golden Jove fifteen cubits high, and substituting one of wood in 
 ‘its place. <‘ Now,’ says he, ‘if the gods are really so nigh as to 
 inhabit these statues, in what business or care was Jupiter en- 
 
 ® Adv Gent. Lib. m1. ¢. 3. "An, Crs ha Be 3p 
 pee. Lab. 1v.c. 8. © Jb. c. 11—16. aad di ad Mg GS 
 © Jb. Lib. vi. c. 5. To ell: 
 
 t2 
 
164 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 tangled that he could not avenge this personal insult? Their 
 weakness and their misfortunes make them objects of contempt.’ 
 ‘Come then, to sum up, let us compare notes, and see whe- 
 ther you or we think most worthily concerning heavenly things. 
 First, you profess that the gods whom you believe to exist in the — 
 nature of things, and whose images you place in every temple, 
 were born and produced after the manner of men. We, on the 
 contrary, even allowing that they exist and have their right 
 names, assert that as gods they cannot be produced; it would 
 be impious to suppose such a thing. Secondly, you give them — 
 sexes ; but we deny that the celestial powers are distinguished in | 
 this way, since it is a mark of an earthly nature, for the continu- _ 
 ation of the species. Thirdly, you conceive of your gods after _ 
 the likeness of men; we reckon that God has no corporeal form | 
 or feature, that we can understand. Fourthly, you furnish them | 
 with symbols, like any workmen; we laugh at such an idea, holding | 
 that arts, which are merely means of subsistence, are not neces- | 
 sary in heaven. FFifthly, you relate their discords, and wars, _ 
 their thirst for blood, their indulgence in the basest passions, — 
 their performance of all the functions of mortality; we esteem 
 these things opposed to the nature of God. You” think to © 
 honour heaven with offerings of wine and frankincense ; we think | 
 it monstrous to suppose that God can be dignified by smoke, or | 
 appeased by drops of wine, holding rather that opinions worthy 
 of his name, are the best gifts, the truest sacrifices. Again, you | 
 are wont to charm your gods with the tinkling of brass and the © 
 sound of pipes; with horse-races, and other spectacles; we con-— 
 sider it wicked even to imagine that God takes delight in what a 
 wise man ridicules and despises, as sports invented to humour | 
 the people. | sit 
 ‘When, therefore, there is such a diversity of sentiment | 
 between us, you ought not to claim the monopoly of piety, or | 
 undertake to punish us, until the whole matter has been weighed — 
 in the scales of reason and conscience.’ 
 
 LACTANTIUS’, after stating the Christian doctrine con-_ 
 cerning the eternity, the immortality, and the impassiveness of — 
 the Divine nature, begins an examination of the heathen notions — 
 of deity, and shews that the actions of the gods, according to the 
 poets and historians, plainly prove their humanity. Thus Her- 
 
 * Adv. Gent. Lib. vu. c. 18. > Tb. ¢. 60. © Epitom. c. 7. | 
 y I 
 
 ~ 
 
. REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 165 
 
 cules* basely born, and addicted to the vices of his father, is con- 
 ? quered by a woman; murders his wife and his own children ; is 
 __ afflicted with ulcers; and, impatient of grief, constructs a funeral 
 _ pile for himself. Other fables” are cited of Apollo, Mars, Castor 
 and Pollux, Bacchus, &c.; after which, the attention is directed 
 to their crimes. He insists that Jove’s lusts, even though feigned 
 by poets, must mean something. The story of Danaé may 
 _ stand for the effect of gold on virtue; the iron shower, for darts 
 and weapons of war; the eagle, for a legion; and EKuropa’s 
 _ bull, for a ship. But these metaphors do not get rid of the 
 _ wickedness, nor do they explain the generations and connexions 
 of the deities. 
 
 _.___ Jupiter® is next proved to have been a mortal man, on the 
 authority of Euhemerus; also his father Saturn (called Chronos 
 _ because he was full of years, as Cicero says), and his grandfather 
 _ Ceelus (Ops according to the Stoics), to have been some wealthy 
 _ and powerful chiefs. He gives‘ it as Cicero’s opinion, that men 
 were deified for their virtues, or for the benefits they did to their 
 _ fellow-creatures. This appears in a volume written to console 
 himself on the occasion of his daughter’s death; which testimony 
 should be the more respected, in that the author was not only 
 an augural priest, but a reverer of the gods, notwithstanding 
 this persuasion. 
 
 Lactantius® then shews that divinity cannot be distinguished 
 by sex, or misfortune; ‘for which reason,’ says he, ‘the Stoics 
 _ endeavoured to explain away the names and offices of the gods, 
 i by references to natural things. Do you not see’, asks Cicero, 
 that reason falsifies the old women’s fables of the gods, their 
 ‘a shapes, their ages, their vestures, their ornaments, their genera- 
 tions, their alliances, all traced after the manner of human in- 
 
 ae 
 
 firmity m 
 
 bs Image-worship our author traces to Prometheus (called the 
 son of Japeth, uncle of Jupiter) and to the sculptors generally. 
 ks Elemental worship®, and superstitions connected with magic* 
 
 and oracles, are then discussed ; and lead to a consideration of the 
 origin of evil, which he ascribes to a wicked power created ne 
 - God, abusing his free-will, and deceiving mankind in Paradise’. 
 
 * Epitom.c. 8. Be Te. ce LO. S FG. ¢,13, 9 26 Gob. 
 2 : 6 26 be Douce, 27 
 © Fb..c. 16. Fisc Th. Ib. c. 26, 
 F ' J omit here, as elsewhere, an allusion to the strange theory of a second 
 - fall of the angels, so commonly held in the early church, and to be traced 
 
166 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Calling his hearers now from the false to the true doctrine®, our 
 author introduces them to Christ as the divine Logos, explaining 
 out of the prophets, his double nature of God and man. He ob- 
 serves” that one reason why the sacred Scriptures have obtained 
 such credit is, because the prophets have spoken in simple and 
 natural language. _ o* 
 
 EUSEBIUS*. ‘They who follow many gods are like chil- 
 dren, and commit a grievous mistake, when they deify the con- 
 stituent parts of the universe, and virtually divide the world into 
 many’; as if we should say the eyes of a man, or his ears, or his 
 hands, were the man. Still worse‘ is it to imagine that this 
 entire world is God, not considering® that the Divine nature 
 cannot consist of parts, or of the qualities of matter.’ ; 
 
 Pursuing his exposure of the philosophers, our author shews — 
 how ‘the evil demons blinded men and turned them to the wor- 
 ship of the heavenly bodies; of the elements, under the names of 
 Neptune, Vulcan, Jupiter, Juno, and the like; or of fruits of the 
 earth, under the titles of Ceres, Proserpine, Bacchus; even the 
 faculty of thought in man, they called Minerva, and of speech, | 
 Mercury ; while the memory and the muses? were not neglected. — 
 Descending yet lower, men made themselves gods out of their 
 very passions, and the grosser members of their bodies. They had 
 their Cupid, Priapus, their Venus, &c.; and when men were 
 once transformed into gods, every species of irrational animal 
 soon followed, with noxious reptiles. Trees were cut down, rocks | 
 hewn, metals run into the shapes of men, women, and brutes. To 
 these figures the appellations of Gods were given, and to them and 
 to the devils inhabiting them, sacrifices were offered. Thus‘ the — 
 
 through the Jews to a misinterpretation of Genesis vi. 2. It is not true, 
 however, as has been asserted, that all the Fathers give credit to this legend. | 
 Many of them never mention it, whilst Augustine (De Civit. Dei, Lib. xv. | 
 c. 23. s. 2) distinctly says on the above passage, ‘Men they were, without | 
 doubt ; the sons of Seth, who married the daughters of Cain.’ He shews, in © 
 ‘support of this exposition, that ‘the sons of God were called “ angels,” and — 
 John the Baptist also :’ and that ‘ Aquila, the best Jewish expositor, calls the | 
 persons in question the Sons of God, and not angels.’ 
 * Epitom. c. 42.” Divin. Instit. Lib. v.c. 1. & Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 26. | 
 * See Demonst. Evan. Lib. rv. ¢. 5. i 
 * Theoph. Lib. 1. ¢. 27. © Ib. Lib. mm. ¢. 3. 
 * Theodoret more at length, Gr. Aff. Cur. Serm. 
 * Theoph. Lib. 1. ¢. 18. 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE, 167 
 
 _ Egyptians, the Phoenicians, and the Greeks obtained their gods 
 
 _ from the elements, fruits, their own passions, mortal men, and 
 demons to complete the list. And then*, as the natural result of 
 _-all irreligion, they fell under the error of fatalism, neglecting 
 
 _ virtue as well as God. 
 
 a ‘And? while the masses of the people were thus bewildered 
 _ and corrupted, the philosophers, with all their pride of learning, 
 _ were equally at a loss. Some accounted indivisible atoms the 
 origin of all things ;’some® found rest to be the supreme good; 
 _ these limited Providence within the moon’s orbit ; those banished 
 _ it from the world altogether. Aristotle determined the extreme 
 _ good to be neither virtue nor philosophy, unless attended by 
 wealth and rank. Some affirmed the soul was immortal or only 
 a quality, like colour to the body; others taught that God was a 
 body, or fire, or sensible earth ; infamous doctrines! Plato® alone 
 of all the Greeks, came nearer to the truth, and held what was 
 right concerning the First Cause and the Logos. Yet® even he, 
 though he knew God, honoured him not as God; he dared not 
 confess him before men, but, with the inhabitants of Athens, con- 
 _ ducted himself as no philosopher at all, going down to the Pirxeus, 
 _ to pray to the goddess, and to complete the feast of Bendis. How 
 _ inconsistent‘ this, in one who had driven Homer and Hesiod out 
 _ of his republic'! The Peripatetics and the Stoics®, whatever may 
 _ have been their private views, also submitted through fear to the 
 _law which commanded the worship of the gods. But why should 
 I exhibit sages, arranging themselves in ranks, separating one 
 from another, and all contending together with their rival opinions, 
 _ until, as one of the poets sings, 
 
 *‘Behold the abundance of the uproar thickened, 
 Of the destroying, and of the destroyed? ;” 
 
 ~ or with Plato himself, it might be said, ‘‘ The conflict between 
 ri them might be assimilated to that of the giants, because of the 
 . contention they had one with another about matter?” Aristotle 
 opposed Plato’, others opposed Aristotle. The sceptics put for- 
 ward Pyrrho, and ridiculed everybody ; the only thing in which 
 they all agreed, was that which they all ought to have opposed, 
 
 ie 3 * Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 16. Put O10: 0 FB. e: 20: 
 im °° Ib. c. 24, © Tb. 26. € Tb. ¢. 4. 
 : 1 Theodoret. Gr. Affect. Curat. Serm. 11. p. 486. seq. Tom. tv. 
 ee & Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 48. h Tb.c, 47. 2 Iliad, Lib. rv. 1. 451. 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. 1. ¢. 49. 
 
 ee ee 
 
168 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 the multiplicity of gods.’ This is attributed to their dependence 
 upon human teaching. 
 
 ‘The oracles* were equally fallacious; nor could those of Del- 
 phos, Lebadia, Colophon, or Miletus, lead men to the truth. The 
 philosophers, together with the very refuse of society, attended 
 the oracular rites. But what did they consult these diviners 
 about? About things advantageous to philosophy ? No one can 
 say this. But with respect to the common commodities of life, the 
 discovery of a slave or a missing ship, the purchase of an estate, 
 or the choice of a wife. Thus philosophers, kings, and people, had 
 themselves, through an estrangement of the intellect, learned to 
 place the divine essence in material bodies and crafty demons; and 
 to these they sacrificed their own children, which is against na- 
 ture!, and strangers’, which is against the rights of hospitality.” 
 He introduces other cases of cruelty in the Pagan services, argu- 
 ing that the ‘tree is known by its fruits.’ | 
 
 In contrast® with all this, Eusebius has occasionally dropped _ 
 a reflection, to shew ‘how needful then was a Divine Saviour, to 
 turn men back to the original simplicity of worship handed down | 
 through the Hebrews‘, who were considered worthy to receive © 
 the revelation of the Word of God, of prophecy, and of the doc- | 
 trines of righteousness ;’ and he now® draws attention more — 
 directly to the character of Christ, indicating how completely he — 
 realizes all that could be required in a Saviour. ‘He excels men — 
 and gods too. Let any existing philosopher come forward and — 
 say what god or hero has at any period delivered the doctrine of 
 eternal life, and of the kingdom of heaven to mankind, as our 
 Saviour has done? Who has caused innumerable multitudes to 
 be instructed in his own doctrines and wisdom, and has persuaded 
 them to follow after the life which is heavenly, and to despise 
 that which is temporal, and to hope for mansions in the skies 
 reserved for the souls that love God ?” 
 
 He further‘ asks, in answer to the charge of Jesus being a 
 ~deceiver ; ‘ Was there ever a man heard of, who as a magician” 
 
 and deceiver, was also a teacher of meekness, chastity, and every 
 
 other virtue? He would not allow that men should indulge even 4 
 an impure desire. He taught his disciples to give rather than to 
 
 @ Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 50. * Prep. Evan. Lib.t. ¢. 4. 
 > Theoph. Lib. 1. c. 58, 54. ay SRL an EL 4 7b: Lib. m1. c. 42. 
 © Tb. Lib. ur. ¢. 83, ‘To. Libs. 2. 
 
 ? Dem. Evan. Lib. m1. ¢. 3. 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 169 
 
 receive, to follow peace and retirement, and commanded men to 
 honour truth above all things. Surely every one must confess that 
 he was the Word of God in truth, and the teacher of righteous- 
 ness. He raised our minds to God and denounced idolatry, 
 
 taught the worthlessness of sacrifices, and admonished men of the 
 
 day of judgment*. Such then being the instructions contained in 
 the doctrinal ordinances of our Saviour, there is no room for 
 imagining him to have been a deceiver. He was” a doer and 
 
 preacher of righteousness, and was himself an example to his 
 
 hearers.’ 
 
 ATHANASIUS¢ opens his discourse with tracing the origin 
 of idolatry to the temptation of the serpent in Eden, who turned 
 men off from the contemplation of God, to a desire after earthly 
 things. The Greeks, he says‘, affirmed that evil was self-existent ; 
 they erred indeed in one of two ways, by robbing the Creator of 
 one of his peculiar attributes, or by making him the author of evil. 
 He himself ® prefers with the Scriptures, to lay the blame on man‘, 
 
 y ‘who having once departed from God, fell lower and lower, and 
 
 having commenced with the deification of the heavenly bodies, at 
 length descended to crawl on the earth like a worm, and worship © 
 the very brutes. Others ventured to number their chiefs among 
 the gods, either on account of the benefits done by them, or 
 
 | through fear of their tyranny. This® ancient practice is often 
 
 _ mentioned in history.’ 
 
 From the humanity he passes to the immorality of the gods, 
 which appears to have been ‘such as even men are not allowed 
 to commit with impunity, by the common law of Rome.’ 
 
 He then glances” at their infirmities, their contentions, and, 
 above all, their attempts to stir up the evil passions of men’s 
 minds. 
 
 Images are the next theme. He is astonished at any one’s 
 
 adoring wood and stone, that he has just purchased of the 
 _artificer, with money and thanks. Still more surprise is mani- 
 
 fested, that the artist himself can supplicate the work of his own 
 
 _ hands, and salute as a god, what he has lately been hammer- 
 ing and cutting. ‘The people ought rather to esteem the 
 sculptor the worthier, of the two, of divine honour. For the 
 
 ® Theoph. Lib. v.c..7. © Ib. c. 19. © Con. Gent. c. 1. 
 4 Con. Gent. c. 6. Lb: 6. f Tb. c. 9. 
 8 Ib. c. 10. © Lb lz 
 
170 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 material does not cause the art, but the art adorns and immor- 
 talizes the material. And this* indeed is the way, some say, 
 the gods were made out of men, because of their merit, or the 
 benefits they conferred on their fellow-creatures. Jove, it has 
 been supposed, was the inventor of the plastic art, Neptune of 
 navigation, Vulcan of the forge, Minerva of the loom, Apollo 
 of music, Diana of hunting, and Juno of dress. By this con- 
 fession”, the idolatrous gods were but men, whilst their crimes 
 prove them to have been not only men, but base men.’ 
 
 He perceives® an additional proof of the vanity of idols, in 
 the care and protection they require; in their need of renovation 
 through age, or of repair after a storm, or the act of some mis- 
 chievous animal. If cast down, they must be set up again by 
 hands not their own, and at all times have to be enclosed in 
 shrines and temples. 
 
 And again’, in their variety, and the differences of national 
 sentiment with regard to them. The Pheenicians know not the 
 gods of the Egyptians, nor the Scythians those of the Persians; 
 in short, there are as many gods as there are countries, states, 
 villages. The Crocodile is adored here, and dreaded there. The 
 
 Lion is worshipped in one place, and hunted in another. A fish 
 that is honoured in some parts, is eaten in others. All this 
 difference of opinion arises from the contempt of the one God. 
 ‘Since® then,’ he argues, ‘neither the heavenly bodies, nor any 
 other part of created Nature; nor images of stone or gold or 
 any material; nor the gods of the poets, nor the heroes of an- 
 tiquity are to be accounted gods; and since the worship of such 
 is the greatest impiety, and tends to evil and not to good; come, 
 let us, having refuted the error, enter upon the way of truth, — 
 
 . and contemplate the Creator of the World, the Word of the © 
 
 Father, that we Gentiles may know the Father also, for the way 
 
 of truth leads to him.’ 
 . Our author concludes* by pointing out that the superiority — 
 
 . of man over the beasts, lies chiefly in reason and the immortality 
 
 of the soul; in his capacity for meditating on eternal things, 
 and looking forward to the future; all which is alone duly re- 
 
 “‘eognized in the Christian system of doctrines, 
 
 MATERNUS* shews that the worship of the elements is — 
 
 a Con. Gent. c. 18. » Tb.c.,1Gi hat Cie cay | a7 bees. 283 
 © 7b. 6/29. tT hie 31S OR ® De Err. Prof. Relig. c. 1. 
 
REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 171 
 
 founded upon a notion of their beneficial effects, «Thus the 
 Egyptians pretend to explain their absurd mysteries by making 
 out Osiris to be the seed of fruit, Isis the earth, and Typhon 
 generating heat; but then why need they have added the story 
 
 : of the incest, so that men, naturally sinful, should be tempted 
 yet more, by an evil example?’ 
 
 He asks* also, ‘how it has come to pass that obsequies and 
 
 _ funeral rites are usually connected with the mysteries of the 
 
 _ heathen? Surely this is a mixture of earthly and celestial 
 
 _ things? of darkness and light? of the regrets of men, with the 
 honours of Divinity ?’ 
 
 After reckoning” the Persians and other Orientals as wor- 
 shippers of the Sun, he imagines that luminary addressing an 
 assemblage of its idolaters and reproving them for their folly. He 
 
 suggests by the way, that if fire is worthy of regard for its 
 usefulness, it should have had cooks instead of Vestal virgins_ 
 for its attendants. 
 
 The idolatrous ceremonies® of Adonis, Venus, Jupiter and 
 
 _ the Corybantes, are lastly brought under review. By the latter 
 
 it seems that parricide was taught. ‘In truth, he adds, ‘the 
 
 _ bad example which these stories offer to the public, is one of the 
 
 _ worst features about them. A palliation is. thus set up for 
 
 giving and receiving the wages of lewdness; the gold of Jove 
 
 1s seen in the bosoms of corrupt women; wicked traitors are 
 allowed to betray a father.and a kingdom to an ungrateful son; 
 and all the laws of hospitality, friendship, and religion are 
 publicly abused.’ 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN® asserts that the fables of 
 the Gentiles are not to be compared to the mysteries of the 
 _ Christians. 
 
 PAULINUS* says antithetically, in his poem; ‘ ee God 
 _ had formed man, man dared to form God. The Platonists have 
 i sought in vain to define the nature of the soul. The Cynics® 
 ~ act ridiculously and ungraciously towards God, in refusing the 
 _ gifts his. hand bestows upon them. But what shall I say of the 
 
 different religions, the temples, the gods and goddesses ? In the 
 
 } ss —13. 
 * De Err. Prof. Relig. c. 7. b Five.8. Ib. ¢. 9 
 1 Orat. ad Jul. 1. 30. © 1G 20 f Tb. 1, 35. & Jb. 1, 44. 
 
172 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Capitol you may see a god, or his wife, or his sister, which ever 
 you please.’ This leads him* to notice the immoralities of the 
 gods, and finally” to point out the light and peace that have 
 dawned in the person of Christ, who has ‘ regained what Adam 
 lost. Christ the Word creates and arranges all things, becomes 
 incarnate, and offers pardon to all” . 
 
 AUGUSTINE‘ proves the inherent weakness of the heathen 
 deities by historical facts. ‘A neas saw Priam slain before the 
 altar he fled to, and the gods of the Romans have not been able 
 to save them in the late sack of the city (by the Goths).’ 
 
 He affirms® that ‘the gods never troubled themselves about 
 the lives or manners of those states that worshipped them, but 
 contrariwise, led the way to all kinds of abominable deeds. Let 
 any one who denies this, shew us where any worthy lessons of 
 the gods were ever rehearsed, and whether their worshippers — 
 were ever wont to hear of such matters as we discourse of con- 
 tinually in our churches, erected for this purpose in all places 
 where the religion of Christ is diffused. The truth is*, the in- 
 structions of the philosophers were weak and useless for want of 
 authority, and because’ of the bad examples of the gods, which 
 are enough to vitiate anything. How could the gods be justly — 
 offended with the adultery of Paris, since they did the same 
 thing so frequently and freely ? How hate in Paris what they 
 saw in Venus? — It was Varro’s opinion that it was politic for 
 some men to feign themselves begotten of the gods. By this at 
 least he acknowledges that they may be false; and what a broad 
 road is here opened for chicanery ! 
 
 In the ninth chapter of his fourth book, our Ait has 
 shewn that according to the Pagan theologians, all the universe 
 is full of Jove. ‘But now Juno is added in the air, Neptune in 
 the sea, Pluto in the earth, and that there may be no lack of 
 them, Neptune must have Salacia, and Pluto, Proserpine, for wives! 
 But the world and its elements being thus more than complete, 
 where is Minerva’s share? “She is related by the poets to have — 
 issued from Jove’s brain.” Why then was she not made mistress 
 of heaven, seeing she sits above Jove? ‘Because it is not 
 proper to exalt the child above the parent.” Wherefore then 
 
 * Orat. ad Jul. |. 62. > Ib. 1. 137. 
 
 P.We Civ. Dei, Libst..0.2) @ Tb ALADSIE ec. 6. 
 Parte. 1. forb. Labs ur. ¢.3. 
 
Pie, POE Eek. i ee 
 
 Saree 5 Aa 
 
 REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE, 173 
 
 was not this principle observed between Saturn and J upiter ? 
 “ Because Saturn was conquered.” Did they fight then? «Oh! 
 this is only a fable: Saturn, meaning length of time, the king of 
 all gods, is said to be born of time, that is, in time.” But how 
 is this? Terra is also called the mother of the gods, though 
 Juno is Jove’s wife, sister, and mother also; and the same earth 
 is styled both Ceres and Vesta? and then Vesta is called Venus, 
 though the one was a virgin and the other an adulteress? Do you 
 grieve to hear these things from our lips? then why do you 
 applaud them on the stage? But? let us suppose there is only 
 one Jupiter (to omit the odious catalogue of his transmutations) 
 as Virgil says in the 4th Georgic; let him be Jupiter in the sky, 
 Juno in the air, Neptune in the sea, &c....Numeria for teaching 
 children to count 20, Cameena for singing, and Fortuna barbata 
 for our chin’s sake, let him be all these and more; or as those 
 hold who make him the soul of the world; let all these be but 
 his parts and virtues, I ask, why not take a shorter course, and 
 
 adore but one God? Thus only can he be completely worshipped. 
 
 For if the stars are parts of him, some must be neglected; and 
 will they not be incensed, that while they shine above disregarded, 
 
 - filthy Priapus stands below in great request and credit ?’ 
 
 He next” calls attention to the impious consequence of the 
 
 theory that the world is the body of God, ‘since in that case 
 _ aman treads a part of God under his feet, and every creature he 
 
 kills is a portion of Deity. Or’, if only animated life is of the 
 divine essence, then when a child is beaten, can it be supposed 
 that a portion of God’s essence is beaten? and will God be 
 
 . angry with man (a part of himself) for not worshipping him ?’ 
 
 He remarks‘, casually, that the Romans, quite in character 
 with their turbulent disposition, would not allow the temple of the 
 
 _ goddess Rest, within the city-walls, nor any public honours to be 
 _ paid to her. ‘ How differently does our Jesus speak to us, say- 
 
 * 
 
 - ing: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heaven-laden, 
 
 and I will give you rest.” ’ And presently again®, our author is 
 
 found gladly ‘turning from the midst of all this confusion in 
 which the city of this world seems to lie, to the city of God, 
 
 alone kept unmoved.’ ‘Just so long,’ says he, ‘as the Jews 
 worshipped the true God, so long were they happy and prosperous. 
 They never called on the heathen gods to help them; yet they 
 
 4 De Civit. Dei, Lib. rv. ec. 11. B Fbsc, 12: 
 Pe 1be co. 18: ST betes ¢ Tb. ¢..34- 
 
174 ‘THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 grew and flourished, and that too notwithstanding the opposition 
 of their enemies. They prayed to no nymphs when the rock 
 was cleft in the wilderness, and the water flowed out; to no Mars 
 when they fought and conquered; they had corn and oxen, 
 honey and apples, without Legetia, Babona, Melona, or Pomona. 
 In fine, whatever the Romans begged from so many false 
 gods, they received of the one true God, in a far happier 
 measure,” 
 
 He now? returns to the heathen deities and casts doubts upon 
 their existence, by quoting the acknowledgments of Varro”, and 
 the criticisms of Seneca. The more abstruse physiological doc- 
 trine°’, which attempts to cover the falsehoods of Polytheism by 
 natural expositions (commended by Varro), our author thinks an 
 equally unfortunate theory; for the obscenities and cruel sacri- 
 fices cannot be thus resolved, while it is plain that® all the honour 
 _ the naturalists refer to the world’s parts and qualities, ought to 
 be rather referred to God. Christianity °, he observes, is the only 
 power that was ever able to explain and chase away the abo- 
 minable tyranny of the gods over meu. It was Christ who 
 routed the gods}. 
 
 He next considers the philosophers more particularly, and 
 though he allows that some of their later doctrines were worthy | 
 of praise, he proves by the general diversity of opinion they 
 manifest as to the nature of God and the origin of things, that 
 their authors knew nothing of the truth, but were, at the best, 
 and Socrates included, mere idolaters. 
 
 ‘But whilst‘ among this world’s philosophers, there was such 
 a diversity in trying to attain the one point, happiness, ‘our 
 canonical authors do not either contradict one another nor them- — 
 selves; whence it is, that so many nations believe that God 
 spoke in them and by them. Our prophets are not numerous, 
 but their concord is wonderful. In the multitude of philosophical 
 writings, scarcely two can be found to agree. The Epicureans in 
 the gardens, opposed the Peripatetics in the schools, and they in 
 their turn the Stoics in the gallery?. The philosophers could 
 
 @ De Civit. Dei, Lib. vi. ¢. 4. > Ib. c. 10. ¢ Jb, Lib. vir. c. 5. 
 Sl bc, 29. © Tb. Lib. vu. 
 * Reminding us of Milton’s fine hymn on the Nativity. 
 
 -* 7b, Lib. xvut. c. 41. 
 
 2 It is observed elsewhere that Varro allows 288 sects to the single sub- 
 
 ject of the perfection of goodness. 
 
bition, and curiosity, against the Manichwans (or rationalists), 
 _ against the wickedness of the Pagans in adoring demons, the 
 
 REASONABLENESS OF DOCTRINE. 175 
 
 never teach the people aught else but confusion. 
 might well be called Babel. 
 the true Israel !’ 
 
 He thinks® that one of the 
 
 Their city 
 How different the city and king of 
 
 principal marks of falsity about 
 Paganism, is the insincerity of its wise men, who, while they held 
 
 their own sceptical opinions concerning the nature of the gods, 
 nevertheless frequented the public sacrifices and the temples of 
 the gods, with the rest of the people. This” is even true of 
 Socrates ; and those who succeeded him, were too much alarmed 
 at his fate, to be so bold as he, in mocking superstition. 
 
 To conclude’, he warns his brethren against pleasure, am- 
 
 elements of the world, the stars and planets, or spirit, whether it 
 
 be of men, however excellent, or of angels. To draw us from all 
 _ these delusive hopes Christ came, was incarnate, and has taught 
 
 _ us that men ought to adore only that which all intellectual and 
 _ rational beings adore. We are to honour angels by loving, not by 
 
 {Sees 
 
 serving them. He refers to the case of the angel in the Revela- 
 
 tion, xix. 10, forbidding St John to worship him, and saying, that 
 
 he himself adores the only Sovereign Lord, of whom both are 
 4 equally subjects. We are also taught to respect men}, Says 
 _ Augustine, but only according to the command: ‘Render unto 
 
 Cesar the things that are Cesar’s.” He acknowledges the holy 
 Trinity to be the object of his adoration. 
 
 * De Vera Relig. c. 1. WELUe Cee ° Ib. c. 55. 
 * In allusion to the practice of swearing by the genius of the emperors ; 
 
 _ the primitive Christians accounting all genii, demons. 
 
CHAPTER VL 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 ‘Talk they of morals? O thou bleeding Love! 
 Thou maker of new morals to mankind ! 
 The grand morality is love of thee. —Youne. 
 
 HE subject of this chapter is intimately connected with the one 
 
 which we have just been considering. Here we see the legi- 
 timate result—_the good fruit of the good tree. It is the glory 
 of Christianity to have done what all other Religions have failed — 
 to do, viz. to make people better and happier. Not that the 
 heathen systems overlooked morals, or did not consider them as 
 necessary in religion, and to be highly recommended. Far 
 otherwise: there are indications enough amidst the thousand in- 
 consistencies of men, to prove that they have ever had an ex- 
 cusing or else an accusing conscience, which has compelled them, 
 at least outwardly, to recognize the propriety of moral maxims 
 and virtuous conduct. But the authority, ‘the power’ was 
 wanting. Their theory, like that of Archimedes by which he 
 could poise the world, was good enough, but where was a ful- 
 crum to be found? The Religion of Christ came to effect what 
 the sign of Nature, the voice of Philosophy, the law of Moses 
 were too weak to do. The mission of God’s own Son was 
 doubly executive; to save men from sin, both as regards its 
 penalty and pollution; ‘to bear our sins in his own body on the 
 tree,’ and ‘to redeem unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of | 
 good works.’ He did not come to introduce morality, the — 
 world had never been without a sense of it; nor altogether, as 
 Paley remarks, to teach it, that also had been more or less 
 conscientiously done in every age; but to cause it to be car- 
 ried out; to change a faded notion into a lively practice; to 
 supply sufficient motives and sanctions; in fine, to exert a power | 
 from above, without which the dead could not live, or the blind — 
 see. Hence Christianity is as much distinguished by its actual 
 morals, as by its peculiar doctrines. It furnishes the only ex- 
 ample of a Religion, giving all the glory to God, and prodncia | 
 a hearty and complete morality in man. Mi 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY, 177 
 
 g It must therefore redound to the credit of the early Chris- 
 he tians, that they exemplified this holy end of religion in their 
 _ lives, and insisted upon it in their writings. Indeed, it may be 
 _ asked, how could they have succeeded in overcoming, as they 
 _ did, the prejudices of a sinful world, had not this been the case? 
 5 Dr Hey supposes that, ‘even miracles could never have gained 
 P the assent of mankind, if the internal evidence of the Gospel 
 _ plainly contradicted the external, or if the precepts it promul- 
 _ gated were evidently unworthy the Deity, and productive of the 
 _ misery of human nature:’ while Origen affirms much the same 
 _ thing of prophecy, which he thinks is not necessarily to be ac- 
 _ counted a divine gift, unless accompanied by morality. And again, 
 _ without morals how could we account for the unmitigated perse- 
 _ cutions endured by the early Church? It was, as some of our 
 ‘i authors observe, as if all other religions were bent upon de- 
 : stroying this. To what can such an unanimity of opposition be 
 _ attributed so reasonably, as to its demanding a purity of life, 
 _ which the rest most certainly neglected ? 
 
 : But the best proof of the morality of the early Christians, 
 and of the immense importance they attached to it, lies princi- 
 pally in the writings before us; and it is truly delightful to find 
 that no argument was so much and so feelingly urged by the 
 _ Apologists. Lactantius is but an echo of the rest when he says, 
 ‘Nulla alia religio est vera, nisi que virtute ac justitia constat.’ 
 _ Hereby do they prove their connexion with patriarchs, and pro- 
 _ phets, and apostles in the clearest manner ; hereby they prove 
 Z their acquaintance in a practical way with that Holy Word, 
 whose province it is to ‘enlighten the eyes, and ‘cleanse the 
 heart; hereby they prove their religion to be from Heaven; for 
 behold the heavenly graces in their heart and on their tongues, 
 and throughout their lives! ! 
 
 It will scarcely be thought strange, if in some of these ar- 
 
 * 
 _bitrary divisions of so united a subject as the Christian Religion, 
 “the proofs occasionally run one into another. Such an excuse 
 is particularly needed with regard to the contents of this and 
 the preceding chapter. I have said that the two classes of subjects 
 “are intimately connected; the consequence is, that some of our 
 
 ee 
 
 % 1 Palmer sums up the evidences of the Apostles, and Christian Fathers as 
 + derived, first, from prophecies ; second, from miracles ; and third, from the 
 purity and excellence of the christian doctrines, as compared with those of 
 
 other religions—On Develop. and Conse. c. 2, p. 21. C 
 
178 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 materials might be said to belong to both of them. Tt has been 
 my aim, however, to distinguish them as much as possible, into 
 ideas intended to include the relations of God to man, or (strictly 
 speaking) theology; and the relations of man to God and to his 
 fellow-man, or morals: the one being an appeal to reason or 
 judgment, looking objectively; the other an appeal to conscience, 
 looking subjectively: that regarding opinions more; ¢hzs, actions. 
 Where the object of an Apologist seems to have been the com- 
 bined one, it can matter little into which of these divisions it 
 falls. Whether, for instance, the Philosophers and Evangelists are 
 exhibited as teachers, and so associated with doctrine; or as 
 exemplars, and so ranked with the rules of life they professed. 
 But the reader must judge for himself. 
 
 With regard to any summary of the method adopted by 
 the Fathers in pressing this argument home, I have only to 
 repeat, that it generally consists of a comparison between the 
 systems of ethics under discussion, a knowledge of the difference 
 between right and wrong being taken for granted’. The unity 
 and definiteness of the subject of morality seem to leave room 
 for no further explanation?. 
 
 AUTHOR OF EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS’, while he 
 charges the heathen with having become as wicked as their 
 gods, says of the Christians; ‘they may not perhaps be distin- 
 guished from other men by earthly abode, by language, or by 
 custom ; their home is any region, however barbarous or remote; 
 for they are but strangers and foreigners here: but, with this 
 conformity to the various usages of the countries they inhabit, 
 as to dress, food, and external matters, they exhibit a peculiar 
 morality, wonderful and striking to all. They obey the exist- 
 ing laws, and triumph over them by their conduct.’ 
 
 Exhorting? his correspondent, he says: ‘If you really desire 
 this faith, and accept it, then first will you know God, and with 
 what joy will you be filled! How will you love him, who so 
 long before loved you! And if you love him, you will then be 
 an imitator of his goodness; for‘ neither is life without know-— 
 
 | The epistle to the Romans opens much in the same way, 
 
 * Not a little of the substance of Paley’s main argument, drawn from 
 the voluntary sufferings of the original .witnesses, will be found under 
 this head. 
 
 ° Ep. ad Diog. c. 2. > Tb..c. YO. © 1b. :.12, 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 179 
 
 ledge, nor knowledge safe without a true life. They must be 
 
 7 planted near together, like the trees of Paradise.’ 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR*. ‘Many assume the name and garb 
 of philosophers, who act not at all in conformity with their pro- 
 fession. You (the emperors) well know that men holding dis- 
 sentient opinions and doctrines among the ancients, are styled by 
 the common name of philosophers. But some of these taught 
 atheism, and some immorality, without your prohibition. Nay, 
 you propose prizes and honours to such as shall eloquently illus- 
 
 _ trate the disgraceful lives of your gods”. Now we confess indeed 
 
 that we are unbelievers in these pretended gods, but not in the 
 most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and 
 all other virtues, in whom is no mixture of evil: Him we wor- 
 ship and adore, with the Son and the Prophetic Spirit, knowing 
 them in reason and in truth; and to every one who wishes 
 to learn, we freely deliver our opinions, even as we have been 
 taught.’ 
 
 ‘When questioned® as to our profession of Christianity, how 
 easy would it be for us to deny it, and escape; but we choose 
 not to live by falsehood, desiring to attain a purer and eternal life, 
 where no evil can assault us.’ 
 
 ‘Neither® do we honour with numerous sacrifices and gar- 
 lands those whom men have invested with a bodily shape, and 
 placed in temples, and denominated gods. You well know that 
 these images are senseless and dead; and also the impure lives of 
 the artisans who make them, so that they even corrupt the women 
 
 assisting them in their works. Oh! astonishing blindness that 
 
 men thus impure, should be said to form and change the fashion 
 
 _ of gods for the purpose of worship; and that such men should be 
 
 placed as guards of the temples where they are erected, not con- 
 _ sidering that it is impious to imagine or say that men are the 
 
 _ keepers of gods.’ 
 
 ‘We* are firmly persuaded that God’requires not from men 
 
 material offerings, seeing he hath given us all things ; those per- 
 _ sons only are accepted of him who imitate the perfections of his 
 
 eS eee 
 
 holy nature, chastity, justice, humanity, and whatever virtues 
 
 belong to God, to whom no name can be ascribed. To exist at 
 _ the beginning was not in our power, but to obey what is conform- 
 
 * Apol, 1. ¢. 4. > Ib. e. 6. © 16..6.'8, 
 * Tbe. 9. 10) 1: 
 12—2 
 
 / 
 
180 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 able to his will, making our choice by means of the rational 
 faculties with which he has endowed us; thus he persuades us 
 and leads us to faith.’ ; 
 
 ‘We confess* that we are Christians, though we know that 
 the punishment of death awaits us.’ 
 
 He argues” that truth is to be honoured before established 
 practices, and that ‘as all avoid the inheritance of poverty or 
 disease or disgrace from their parents, so will every wise person 
 reject that which right reason commands him to refuse.’ 
 
 ‘We have learned‘,’ he says in answer to a charge of im- 
 piety for not sacrificing, ‘that the only honour which is worthy 
 of God, is not to consume with fire what he has given us for 
 our nourishment, but to use it ourselves, and to distribute among 
 
 those who have need; and that our thankfulness to him is best. 
 
 expressed by the solemn offering of prayers and hymns.’ 
 ‘We who! once delighted in fornication, now embrace chas- 
 tity only ; we who once used magical arts, have consecrated our, 
 
 selves to the good and unbegotten God; we who loved above all” 
 
 things the gain of money and possessions, now bring all that we 
 have into one common stock, and give a part to those in need ; we 
 - who hated and killed one another, and permitted not the people 
 of other nations, on account of their different customs, to live with 
 us under the same roof, now, since the appearing of Christ, live 
 at the same table, and pray for our enemies, and endeavour to 
 persuade those who unjustly hate us, that they also living after 
 
 the excellent institutions of Christ, may have good hope with us, _ 
 
 to obtain the same blessings from God the Lord of all.’ 
 
 He then® expatiates upon the purity of mind, and the uni- | 
 
 versal kindness‘ that Jesus himself inculcated, reminding his _ 
 royal judges, how ‘ Christians avoid swearing, are careful to pay — 
 tribute®, and custom, and keep the peace® above all men; which — 
 things’ Jesus Christ has taught for the reformation of manners, — 
 
 and the improvement of the human race.’ 
 
 With this conduct‘, he compares ‘ the injustice and impiety of | 
 
 the heathen nations in exposing their infants, in the corruption of 
 
 the youth of both sexes, in the prostitution of wives, and in the | 
 - shocking offerings made to her who is called the mother of the — 
 
 gods.’ 
 * Apol. 1. c. 11. pane Ee Mes ibe. 16. 
 ¢ T6xceA7. © 1b. c. 18. ¥ Fb. c.°20. 
 
 6 1b623. © Bb 612; ao bees a1, Ib. ¢. 36. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 181 
 
 In replying® to the allegation that Christians voluntarily 
 sought death, he says: ‘first, it is false, for they account suicide 
 contrary to the plain will of God; and secondly, the reason why 
 they do not fear death is, that they are guilty of no evil, and 
 consider it better to die, than to live by denying the truth.’ 
 
 The effect produced” on a heathen mind by the constancy of 
 Christians under the severest trials, is well described by Justin, 
 from his own experience before conversion. ‘I saw,’ says he, 
 ‘it could not be that they lived in pleasure.’ 
 
 ‘Our circumeision®,’ he proceeds, addressing the Jew, ‘is not 
 made with iron like yours, but with sharp stones (that is, the 
 preaching of the apostles of him who was the chief corner-stone, 
 cut out without hands) from the worshipping of idols, and from 
 all iniquity ;-our hearts are circumcised from sin” ‘I affirm¢ 
 that the prayers and thanksgivings which are offered up by 
 worthy persons are the only offerings perfect and acceptable to 
 God.’ 
 
 The author of the Cohortatio ad Grecos® condemns the 
 public festivals and games, ‘ where every indulgence in vice is 
 allowed ; flutes excite you in the phrenzied dance, and unguents 
 
 and flowers cover your heads. Thus you banish modesty, tem- . 
 
 perance, and peace.’ These accompaniments‘ of an idolatrous 
 
 system, he contrasts with the power of the Word of God, pene- 
 
 trating the soul. ‘Oh! soothing music to the troubled heart; 
 Oh! refuge from woe; Oh! doctrine that quenches the passions 
 of the mind; which does not, perhaps, make men poets, or phi- 
 
 _ losophers, or orators; but in truth renders mortals immortal, 
 _ makes gods of men, and translates them to heights above Olym- 
 _ pus! Come then, be instructed; be what I am, since I was 
 _what you are. These things have captivated me, both by the 
 divinity of the teaching, and the efficacy of the word. Just as 
 _ the skilful charmer draws from its hole, and then puts to flight 
 _ the dreaded serpent, so the divine Word expels from the depths 
 
 of the soul the most fearful passions, and above all, lust, by which 
 
 _ every evil is generated, hatred, envy, strife, emulations, anger, 
 _and such like; when these are expelled, the soul becomes calm 
 _and serene; and being freed from the pollutions that surround 
 it, returns to its native place, to him who made it.’ 
 
 * Apol. 1. ¢. 4. OY [bee Te ° Dial. cum Tryph.c. 14. 
 © Lbeite 17. © Cohort. ad Gree. ¢. 4. £6, 0.5. 
 
182 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 TATIAN*® ‘What sort of character have your most pre- 
 eminent men borne? Diogenes, who boasted of his abstemious- 
 ness, out of a tub, died of intemperately devouring shell-fish ; 
 Aristippus was a thankless spendthrift; and Aristotle taught 
 that none could be happy unless they were wealthy, comely, 
 strong, and of noble birth. Then there was Heraclitus», who 
 arrogantly said, “I have investigated myself ;” and Zeno with 
 his absurd cycles; and the rash Empedocles, whom the fire 
 of Aitna confuted. Wherefore let not a solemn conclave of 
 philosophers, who are not true philosophers, carry you away 
 against your better judgment; for they dispute among them- 
 selves, and say whatever comes uppermost. But they have other 
 faults of a worse complexion. They hate one another; they 
 contend fiercely together with their rival dogmas; and choose 
 the chief places under the influence of the most insufferable pride, 
 not serving others, but being themselves waited upon.’ 
 
 ‘We’, on the other hand, are peaceable and orderly. The 
 king demands tribute, we pay it; the governor orders us to obey 
 him, we acknowledge our obligations. Man is to be respected 
 
 as man, God as God. It is only when required to deny God, — 
 
 that we disobey and would rather die, than prove false or un- 
 grateful to him. We desire‘ neither power, nor wealth; lewd- 
 ness we abhor. We trade not for gain, to gratify avarice; we 
 fight not for a crown, to gratify ambition; we despise death, we 
 are above disease and sorrow; if I am a slave, I endure servi- 
 tude; if free, I glory not in my birth; I see the same sun 
 shining upon all; the same end happening to all, whatever their 
 station in life may be; nay, I perceive that the rich have 
 many temptations which the poor and the moderate know not of. 
 Ah! why do you watch for fate, to satisfy your avarice? Why, 
 so often seeking are you as often befooled ? Befool the world in 
 return, by rejecting its mad schemes; live to God by knowing 
 him, and casting aside these ancient and inveterate errors.’ 
 
 ‘The soul® dies not if it be instructed in the knowledge of ‘ 
 
 God. The Holy Spirit is not in all men. He only resides in 
 those that live justly; who by embracing him entirely, have 
 even thereby been enabled to announce future events; and all 
 those who obey wisdom attract to them this cognate Spirit, while 
 
 they who are disobedient, seem rather to fight with God than to ~ 
 
 * Orat. ad Gree. c. 2. b [b-e03; © 7b. c. 4. 
 a Jb. e, 10. ~ © 1D Gato. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 1838 
 
 worship him. And such* are you, ye Greeks, polished indeed in 
 language, but in thought foolish. You have served many lords 
 instead of one, and honoured devils as if they were all-powerful, 
 being thereby deceived into the greatest wickedness.’ 
 
 He next? notices the divination of presaging trees, and the 
 flights of birds, which he tells the heathen, ‘ are mere slaves to their 
 desires. Whosoever makes you eager after anything takes care 
 to prophesy accordingly, and he that excites seditions or wars, 
 the same also predicts a sure victory.’ 
 
 ‘And® what is your discipline and your worship? Who 
 must not condemn your solemn rites, your public sports, per- 
 formed at the public cost, and only tending to spur men on to 
 shameful deeds ?’ 
 
 ‘I have often seen, and as often marvelled at and despised 
 the actor in his different characters, now melting away in luxu- 
 rious effeminancy, now rolling his eyes like a madman; one mo- 
 ment a Venus, the next an Apollo, and in a third an accuser of 
 all the gods, criticizing their actions, their murders, their adulte- 
 ries; a very master and teacher of wantonness. Yet this man 
 will be applauded by the multitude ; but by me, he is rejected for 
 his impiety and his lasciviousness. How is it that such things 
 captivate you, and that you insult those who think differently 
 from them? Is it anything very wonderful or worthy that such 
 men do? They utter base things through their nose; they 
 throw themselves into indecent postures; and though your sons 
 and your daughters are among the spectators, exhibit the whole 
 art of adultery, and publish deeds of wickedness which should be 
 left at least under cover of the night. I have seen the gladi- 
 ators" encouraged by the presidents and umpires of the games, 
 not to any illustrious action, but to contention and blows. He who 
 was the best striker was to be crowned; and what is the result of - 
 such popular spectacles? The idle and the poor sell themselves 
 to be-butchered. The rich man can purchase as many assassins 
 -~ as he pleases; some support whole bands; and when these ruf- 
 _ fians go forth to mortal combat, you act as judges, and are only 
 grieved when they do not slay one another. You kill animals, 
 that you may feast upon their bodies; but you buy men, that you 
 may feast your eyes and your mind with human flesh and gore. 
 A robber commits a murder for gain, but you for pleasure.’ 
 
 * Orat. ad Grae. ¢. 14. rebbac, 19. 
 © £6... 23. © 16%¢. 22, 
 
184 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 ‘How? can I admire the fury-stricken Alemxon of your poet 
 
 Euripides ? . Does he not slay his mother? How spend my 
 time like another Aristoxenus upon a Theban Antigenides? We 
 yield to you such worthless themes.’ 
 _ ‘And observe” the conduct of your sages; they bare one 
 shoulder, they cut off their hair, they cultivate beards, they 
 neglect their nails, and declare they need no one’s assistance or 
 sympathy : and yet whilst they are speaking, Proteus-like, they 
 shew their need of a mistress for their wallet, of a tailor for 
 their robe, of a carpenter for their staff, of a cook for their 
 _ belly; and then, as if to establish their independence beyond all 
 dispute, abuse you roundly if you do not give them a penny, 
 Their philosophy is only an art of getting money: they care 
 nothing about wisdom or God.’ 
 
 ‘Whilst® you think you know God, you perceive not what 
 he does in you; gaping at the clouds, you fall into the ditch. 
 Your books are like labyrinths, and as treacherous as the daugh- 
 ters of Danaus: your actions are specious but irrational: you are 
 one thing in public, another in private. How inconsistent’ you 
 are! You charge those who follow the word of God with eating 
 human flesh, forgetting that you yourselves serve up Pelops as 
 a banquet for the gods, in spite of Neptune’s love for him; and 
 make Saturn devour his own sons, and Jupiter his pregnant 
 Metys. You punished Diagoras for ‘revealing your mysteries, 
 and yet you cite his book against us. You preserve the opinions 
 of Apion concerning the Egyptian gods, while you would exter- 
 minate us for saying the same things, as if we were the most 
 impious of mankind. The sepulchre of Olympian Jove is shewn 
 to you; though some of you say that the Cretans lie. Your 
 writings are a war of words, not an illustration of the truth. 
 Nor are your rules of life any better: there are as many codes 
 of morals, as there are kingdoms in the world. Among the 
 
 Persians, a man may marry his mother; while the Greeks do 
 
 not permit such incest: but on the other hand the corruption of 
 youths is condemned by the barbarians, and yet allowed by the 
 Romans.” 
 
 ‘For myself®,’ says Tatian, ‘ when I had gone the round of — 
 
 these things, and had been moreover initiated into the mysteries 
 
 of every religion, and perceived the wickedness of the worship | 
 
 * Orat. ad Grec.c. 22. b 1:0. 25; 57. c: 26. 
 dba 27 * Tbe ao: 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 185 
 
 of all the gods, I wondered where I could find the truth; and 
 after much research I fell in with some foreign writings, more 
 ancient, when compared with the age of any Grecian works, and 
 more divine when compared with their errors. In the perusal 
 of these Scriptures, I could not help giving credence to them, on 
 account of their style which is as devoid of arrogance as it is of 
 artifice, although the subjects treated of are of vast importance. — 
 The whole Creation is explained in language simple and easy to 
 be understood. They are full of knowledge of the future, and 
 of most excellent precepts, and, above all, distinctly teach the 
 unity of the Creator. These* I found to be divine doctrines, 
 able to liberate me from the thraldom of many gods: and now 
 being instructed, and initiated anew, how different is the result? 
 I would now fain be like a child, despoiled of all my pride and 
 folly!’ 
 
 Touching upon the Christian discipline, he says; ‘the poor 
 as well as the rich may learn at our schools, and that era- 
 tuitously ; for whatever proceeds from God is too valuable to be 
 purchased with money. All who are willing to hear, we admit; 
 young and old, women as well as men: we respect age and sex; 
 but lasciviousness is far from us: in this we lie not, God being 
 our witness. We do not select our catechumens by their coun- 
 _tenances or address; all we want is fortitude of mind, which we 
 believe can exist in weak and infirm bodies: but in your schools 
 of philosophy you are either invidious in making distinctions, or 
 careless about character.’ Wherefore® ‘I think it is manifest 
 that our institutions tend to promote temperance and chastity ; 
 yours, sin and madness. For while you blame us for trifling 
 among a set of women and children, see what trifles are most 
 popular with you. Your fine arts are a mockery, and the images 
 of your gods are in higher estimation than the gods they repre- 
 sent, Praxilla who uttered nothing of any value in her songs, 
 and Sappho, that shameless woman, who immortalized her own 
 passions, are honoured in brass by Lysippus. On the contrary, 
 among us all are pure, and we can boast of virgins more chaste 
 than your Delphian prophetess.’ 
 
 Having further exposed the loose characters of their heroines, 
 he urges the heathen® to ‘forsake everything of this kind, and 
 seck that which is more honourable and wise, and instead of 
 
 * Orat. ad Gree. c. 30. PiTb.e. 2: 
 LO. Coos tlhe: SL 
 
186 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 hating Christian institutions, to hate the infamous inventions of 
 a Phileenis or an Elephantis’.’ 
 
 ATHENAGORAS*, after an exposition of divine doctrine, 
 calls attention to morals, and quoting the injunction of Christ, 
 ‘love your enemies,’ thus proceeds; ‘seeing I make my apology 
 before emperors who are philosophers, let me charge any of the 
 
 sophists who pretend to instruct and reform their readers, to ; 
 
 shew such a mild disposition of soul, a heart so free from ran- 
 
 cour and malice, as to return even to their enemies love for 
 
 hatred, blessing for cursing, and prayer for persecution. Do 
 they not ever act the contrary part? Do not they persecute in 
 a revengeful manner those that injure them? Do they not teach 
 the art of logic, rather than a rule of life? But among us you 
 meet with unlettered men, common mechanics and even women, 
 who though in words they may not be able to defend or serve 
 our religion, yet adorn it by a bright example. They study 
 not the refinements of language, but the practice of virtue: in 
 short, they love their neighbours, that is, all men, as them- 
 selves,” 
 
 ‘These’ are a few arguments by which you may judge 
 betwixt us and our adversaries. But the truth is that most of 
 them are persons of the greatest stupidity, being neither philo- 
 sophers nor theologians: they know not themselves the difference 
 between a God and a cloud; and yet they accuse us, only be- 
 cause we do not believe those to be gods whom the generality 
 of states and cities fondly trust in.’ 
 
 ‘ Be pleased’, great sirs, to weigh well each branch of the 
 charges brought against us. And first as to our not offering 
 sacrifices. Surely the great Father and Creator of the universe 
 needs neither blood nor sweet incense, seeing that he is per- 
 fection itself. The best sacrifice we can give him, must be to 
 study to know him. This is our “ reasonable service,” and this he 
 
 requires. Again‘, as to our not praying to statues, or not 
 honouring such gods as the cities and countries about us do, it. 
 
 were wiser for those who charge us with Atheism, to agree 
 among themselves which gods are to be worshipped ; for the day 
 would end ere I had reckoned all the variety of their deities. 
 
 ’ Philenis was a courtesan ; Elephantis a poetess who wrote immodest 
 verses. Vid. Martial, 12 Ep. 48. 
 * ALegat ol Ls we Rag ee ae FS O° DD Cr Lae 
 
ee eo Pe ata ey re EO ae AE ee ih) Ie ee a 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 187 
 
 Look only at the Egyptians: how absurd is it to see them in 
 their temples, beating their breasts, and lamenting their idols as 
 deceased, and then immediately worshipping them as alive and 
 as gods. But really nothing can be thought strange of a people 
 that deify brute beasts, and when they die, bury them in sacred 
 ground, shave themselves for them, and order public fasts. If 
 then we are atheistical, because we differ from the Egyptians, 
 so is the whole world, for no other nations adore such gods as 
 these. But*® suppose our opponents were agreed in an uniformity 
 of worship; shall we fall down and worship dead images and 
 statues ? If God and matter were the same thing, then indeed 
 were we impious in not worshipping wood and stone, gold and 
 silver; but we have learned to distinguish between what is un- 
 created and what is created.’ 
 
 ‘Our accusers? further charge us with feasting on human 
 flesh, and with incest. This is not the first time vice has vilified 
 virtue. Pythagoras with 300 more was burned; Democritus 
 was starved out of Ephesus; Heraclitus the Abderite accused 
 of madness; and Socrates put to death by the Athenians. But 
 as the virtues of these men were not lessened by the false 
 opinions of the vulgar, so neither is the integrity of our lives 
 blemished by the slanders of our enemies; before God we are 
 still innocent. And° how unlikely it is that we who consider 
 ourselves responsible, not only for our actions but for our thoughts 
 to an Omnipresent and Omniscient God, should be guilty of such 
 crimes ? Had we no hopes beyond the present life, it might be; 
 but we look for a happy eternal life hereafter: a life with God, 
 which truth we affirm even at the stake and in the flames. But 
 is it any wonder our accusers should dine us with such crimes 
 when they do not hesitate to impute tlfem to their own gods, 
 and to call their lusts mysteries? If they were in good earnest, 
 and really vexed at incest and concubinage, what would they not 
 say of Jove, or (if this is a lie of Orpheus) how would they not 
 abominate his historian ?’ 
 
 ‘But our Lord and Master gave us an exact and heart- 
 searching divine law; so that? having a good hope of eternal 
 life, we despise all present sensual enjoyments.’ 
 
 _ Lastly®, he defends the Christians against the imputation of 
 
 * Legat. c. 16. EY LDCs ols ¢ Tb. c. 82, 
 @ Lbs ge oa “ED Gaon 
 
188 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 eating human flesh, by an indirect argument (since the heathen 
 would not investigate for themselves), observing, that ‘not even 
 a slave had ever witnessed or confessed under torture, such a 
 thing of their feasts. Besides,’ he adds, ‘consider our general 
 character for humanity : the spectacles}, the theatres, the games, 
 the gladiatorial combats, the fights with wild beasts are hateful 
 to us. We consider them steps to murder. And who that is 
 persuaded of the future resurrection of the body, would make 
 himself a sepulchre of other bodies, which are to be raised ? 
 Those who do not believe in this great doctrine may commit 
 such a crime with impunity, and may eat the flesh of animals 
 gloated with human victims, but not so Christians. Thus® I 
 have shewn to your majesties that we are religious towards God, 
 inoffensive towards men, and pure in our own souls. Moreover, 
 who can put in a fairer claim to your royal favour than they 
 who continually pray for your life and prosperity ?? 
 
 THEOPHILUS, speaking of the knowledge of the true | 
 
 _ God, remarks that as a mirror must be bright, so must the soul 
 of man be-pure. ‘Tell me then, whether you are an adulterer, 
 a fornicator, a thief, contumelious, an evil-speaker, passionate, 
 envious, proud, a striker, covetous, disobedient to parents, a ven- 
 dor of your own children? God does not appear to such as do 
 these things, nor will he until they have cleansed themselves 
 irom every defilement.’ 
 
 ‘By the command® of God we are taught to abstain from 
 the wicked worship of images, and of the elements ; from adul-* 
 tery, murder, and the like; in short, from doing to another what 
 we should not wish another to do to us.’ 
 
 ‘It is worthy of observation 4, that all the prophets have spoken 
 consistently with themselves, and harmoniously with one another ; 
 a strong proof that they were inspired by one and the same 
 spirit. ‘They also were all vexed in their inmost hearts, and be- 
 
 * The subject of amphitheatrical shows, in which either men or animals 
 are destroyed for the public amusement, often occupied the pen and tongue 
 of the apologists. They were viewed as essentially cruel and demoralizing 
 spectacles. What a reflection does this fact cast upon the silent encourage- 
 ment given to such exhibitions in Spain, by those who profess to belong 
 to a church, once, and essentially humane. “On the 4th of July last (being 
 Sunday) the catholic monarch, Queen Isabella with her family and whole 
 court, attended a bull-fight at Madrid!” Vig. ¢ Times,’ of that date, 1852. 
 
 * Legat.c. 37.» Ad Aut. Lib.1.c.2. ¢ Lib. m¢.34.. 4 Ib. C. Bde 
 
~ 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 189 
 
 wailed the sins of the human race.’ These assertions are main- 
 tained by numerous references. 
 
 He says” ‘it is the duty of an historian to affirm only what 
 he has seen with his own eyes, or accurately learned from the 
 testimony of others.’ By this rule he judges the profane writers, 
 _ and finds that whilst the poets have done nothing but seek their 
 own glory, the tragedians and comedians, the historians and phi- 
 sophia, have only uttered wicked and useless sentiments. 
 ‘None” of them either perceived the truth themselves, or excited 
 others to it; their works prove that their glory was but folly 
 and ignorance, Moreover, to say nothing of their disputes and 
 mistakes in doctrines and physics, did not your moralists actually 
 recommend all sorts of uncleanness to be practised, and introduce 
 crimes that are to be abhorred? And° these precepts, together 
 with the inveterate traditions and evil examples of your gods, 
 have so reacted upon you, that you charge us Christians with 
 the very crimes your writers have invented and feigned.’ He 
 instances Plato’s sanction® of a community of wives in his Re- 
 public, and to the permission of incest by Solon and Epicurus. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS®, addressing the Gentiles, 
 contrasts their domestic lasciviousness with the holiness of Chris- 
 tians in private life. He says in reference to the indecency of 
 heathen pictures, ‘We are compelled to prohibit altogether the 
 exercise of this deceitful art.’ Instead of bending to images, he 
 calls upon his hearers to ‘remember what the philosophers them- 
 selves have said; viz. that ‘“‘man was made erect, for the better 
 contemplation of the heavens.” Not indeed to adore the sun, but 
 the Maker of the sun; he who thus truly worships God will be 
 led where no- LemEtean of devils can deceive him.’ 
 
 In answer‘ to the question how far it is reasonable in men to 
 overturn the customs of their ancestors, our author urges upon 
 the heathen to give up at least their old habits of intemperance, 
 and other vices; that as they have followed death, they should 
 now seek life. ‘No shame,’ he adds, ‘nor loss shall deter us from 
 serving you. Openly, like moral gladiators, we strip ourselves 
 for the sake of truth, and lawfully contend, the holy Word being 
 our judge, the Lord of hosts our helper, and immortality our 
 reward. The best praise that can be offered to God is an immor- 
 
 2 Ad Autol. Lib. ur. c. 2. BO 1bs tee fy EDs 6.4. #16. 06: 
 © Hortat.ad Gent.c.4. | ££ Ihc. 10. 
 
190 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 tal man instructed in righteousness, and who has the oracles of 
 truth engraven on his heart.’ 
 
 On the saying® of Zeno that the sight of one Indian martyr 
 burning in the flames, would be conclusive proof of his sincerity, 
 Clemens remarks that ‘Christianity could furnish numerous 
 instances of men who have been not only burned but tortured 
 and beheaded, and even of women who have shed their blood for 
 Christ!.’ 
 
 =x 
 
 ~ 
 
 TERTULLIAN”. ‘It is said that the numbers who are per- 
 suaded to embrace Christianity is no proof that the religion is good 
 - in itself; for how many are prone to evil? Doubtless; yet not 
 even they dare to defend evil as good. Evil doers are anxious 
 for concealment, and when detected, tremble; when accused, 
 deny ; when condemned, grieve; and attribute the sins arising 
 from an evil heart, either to fate, or to the stars. For they 
 would not have that which they acknowledge to be evil, to be- 
 long to themselves. But how different is the conduct of a Chris- 
 tian. No one is ashamed, no one is sorry, except that he was 
 not a Christian long before. If he is pointed out, he glories in 
 the charge; if accused, he makes his defence; if questioned, he 
 confesses even of his own accord; and when condemned returns 
 thanks. What kind of evil then is this, which has none of the 
 natural attributes of evil, fear, shame, subterfuge, repentance, 
 sorrow ? What kind of evil is this, in which the culprit delights ; 
 in which accusation is the completion of his wishes; and punish- 
 ment, his happiness ?’ 5 
 
 ‘In describing® persons, whom before their professions of 
 Christianity they had known to be given up to licentiousness 
 and immorality, our enemies use terms which are those really of 
 approbation ; and thus in the blindness of their hatred bear testi-- 
 mony to the excellence of what they condemn. They say of a 
 female for instance, “how wanton, how gay she used to be!” 
 of a man “ what a libertine, what a profligate he was;” “ now 
 they are both become Christians;” thus’ our name is coupled 
 with reformation.’ 
 
 @ Strom. 
 
 * Cumulative evidence of this kind is greatly in favour of Christianity. 
 There are some inferences which thus become important, though still com- 
 parative, arguments. 
 
 » Apol. c. 1. oat O.1Gr oe 1 Tb. 0: 5. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 191 
 
 Again, he argues that ‘the very fact of Christians being 
 persecuted by such monsters as Nero and Domitian, is a part- 
 proof that our principles are eminently good.’ 
 
 He then proceeds to rebut the charges usually brought for- 
 ward to the disparagement of Christian morality, very much after 
 __Athenagoras’ manner, but with a freer use of irony and retort, 
 
 adding, that ‘the claim of Christ’s divinity is founded upon 
 this, that by knowledge of him a man is formed anew to every- 
 thing.’ 
 
 He next* proposes to state the real mode of worship among 
 Christians. ‘We look up,’ says he, ‘ with hands extended be- 
 - cause they are innocent; with head uncovered, because we have 
 nothing to be ashamed of; and pray without a prompter, because 
 we pray from the heart. We pray for blessings on the emperor 
 and people, in faith. Thus we offer to God the rich and more 
 excellent sacrifice, which he himself has ordained, prayer out of 
 a clean heart, and an innocent mind, and a sanctified spirit. I 
 offer not a grain of frankincense, which is sold for a farthing ; 
 nor the tears of an Arabian tree; nor a few drops of wine; nor 
 the blood of a cast-away ox, that would be glad to die; nor 
 after all other abominations, a defiled conscience, so that it is a 
 wonder when the most reprobate priests are appointed to examine 
 _ your victims, why the enquiry is made into the heart of the sacri- 
 _ fices, rather than into hearts of the sacrificers.’ 
 | After” shewing that Christians are bound to love their ene- 
 mies, and to be loyal to those in authority, and that their service 
 to God is seated in the heart, he condemns the public festivals of 
 the heathen as scenes of excess, His testimony is that ‘they are 
 only an excuse for licentiousness, and occasions of luxury ; 
 tables and couches are placed in the streets; the whole city is 
 _ turned into one tavern; and the troops are permitted to perpe- 
 _ trate any act of violence and outrage; while even the senate and 
 _ the court take advantage of the general license.’ . 
 
 He reminds the heathen® that it is only a god-like sense of 
 duty which keeps Christians in submission to the government. 
 ‘If we wished to avenge ourselves of our persecutors,’ says he, 
 ‘think you that we should lack numbers or forces? If such a 
 multitude as we are should suddenly remove to some remote ex- 
 tremity of the earth, the loss of so many of your citizens would 
 overwhelm the empire with shame; you would be dismayed at 
 
 * Apol. c. 50. Lb. 6.35; ° 1b. c 37. 
 
192 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 the solitude in which you found yourselves, and all things would 
 wear the awful stillness of a dead world. _But® Christians do not 
 leave their field of duty ; nor are they idle in it, as their enemies 
 allege. They are no dwellers in woods, or exiles from ordinary 
 life; and though temperate, they reject none of the gifts of God ; 
 they unite with their fellow-citizens in navigation, in war, in hus- 
 bandry, and in trade; and give the benefits of their arts and 
 labour to the state, with the rest of mankind.’ 
 
 He” acknowledges, however, that ‘some parties among the 
 heathen may have reason to complain of the little support they 
 receive from Christians; such as the vile panderers to every 
 kind of lust, murderers, poisoners, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, 
 and astrologers. But to be fruitless to such as these is surely a 
 great gain! And even if you really did sustain any loss by us, 
 it is counterbalanced by our prayers, and by your having nothing 
 to fear from us.’ 
 
 He concludes® by explaining the principle of Christian mo- 
 rality. ‘It is a religion which governs the thoughts as well as 
 the actions, and presents to its followers the rewards of eternal 
 happiness or misery. Epicurus taught men to despise pain and 
 torture, because it was of short duration; whereas we who are to 
 give an account to an omniscient God, and who know that he will 
 inflict eternal punishment, are justly considered the only persons 
 who uphold innocency of conduct,-as well on the ground of the 
 extent of God’s knowledge, as of the difficulty of escape, and the’ 
 greatness of the punishment, which will be not only of long but 
 of eternal duration.’ 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX*. ‘We were once as you are now; 
 we were equally confident with you that the Christians worship- 
 ped monsters, devoured infants, and committed incest, without 
 
 ever considering that these charges were never proved, and that 
 
 no man, however tempted or tried, was ever found to reveal such 
 atrocities. We ourselves heretofore, when engaged at the bar in _ 
 defence of the really sacrilegious and incestuous, and even of | 
 parricides, were prejudiced enough to think it just for Christians — 
 not to be heard upon their indictment ; nay, sometimes we have 
 shewn ourselves more savage in our pity than in our rage, by 
 torturing confessors in order to save;them, hoping that they would 
 
 * Apol. c. 42. > Tb. c. 48 
 © 1b: 45: 4 Octav. c. 28. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 193 
 
 be induced to deny their religion. What an abuse of torture 
 was this! And if the pain proved too great for some infirm 
 Christian, and he renounced his faith, we immediately acquitted 
 him-; as if by renouncing his Christian name, he cleared himself 
 of every charge. ; a 
 ‘The calumnies* you cast upon a chaste and modest people are 
 such that we should think them incredible, did not. you con- 
 vince us to the contrary by your practice.’ These remarks 
 lead to a description of heathen vices, which, as usual, are attri- 
 buted in a great measure to the licentious example of the gods. 
 ‘It is owr endeavour, on the other hand,’ he says”, concluding 
 this part of his subject, ‘to be as modest in our minds.as in our 
 
 _ countenances. Our meals are always decent and sober; and we 
 
 are equally quiet and inoffensive in the more public assemblies. 
 Christians are faithful adherents to their holy profession, and call 
 themselves brethren because they are children of the same God, 
 and partakers of the same grace and hope. But as for you, you 
 have no such lovely characteristics to discern one another by. 
 Mutual hatred is the most distinguishing mark about you, nor do 
 
 _ you ever call a man a brother, but when you design to assassinate 
 him 3 ? 
 
 He admits® and defends the absence of temples, statues, &c. 
 
 | among Christians, asking: ‘What image can represent God ; 
 _ what building contain him? Is it not more becoming to dedicate 
 _ the mind for a temple, and to consecrate our hearts into altars ? 
 _ Shall I bring such sacrifices and oblations to my God, as he has 
 _ made for my use, and thus turn his bounteous presents back upon 
 his own hands? He who studies innocence, is at his devotions ; 
 _ he who does justly, offers sacrifice; to abstain from injuring an- 
 other, is to please God; and to save a man is to slay the noblest 
 victim. Behold the Christian sacrifices! the Christian rites! 
 _ Among us the best worshipper is the most upright man!’ 
 
 He instances the case of the Jews4, as furnished either by 
 
 the sacred penmen, or by Josephus, to shew that ‘purity and 
 
 _innocency of life are well pleasing to God, and that sin and 
 
 J 
 
 , 
 i 
 
 " 
 a 
 
 4 
 : 
 
 _ obstinacy are the ruin of any people.’ 
 
 Expostulating® yet again with the heathen, he tells them: 
 ‘you prohibit adultery by law, and practise it in secret; you. 
 punish wickedness only in the overt act; we look upon it as 
 
 2 Octav. c. 29. > Tb. c. 31. © 1b. ¢. 82, 
 1 7b ¢, 38, © Tb. c. 34. 
 H. E. le 
 
194 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 criminal even in thought. You dread the inspection of others; 
 we stand in awe of nothing but our own consciences, as becomes 
 Christians. And lastly your prisons are overflowing with crimi- 
 nals; but they are all heathens; not a Christian is there, unless 
 he be an apostate.’ 
 
 ‘How®* fair a spectacle in the sight of God is a Christian 
 entering the lists with affliction, and with noble firmness com- 
 batting menaces and tortures, or with a disdainful smile marching 
 to death through the clamours of the people, and the insults of 
 the executioners! when he bravely maintains his liberty against 
 kings and princes, and submits to God alone, whose servant he is ; 
 when like.a conqueror hé triumphs over the judge that condemns 
 him; for he certainly is victorious, who obtains what he fights 
 for! He fights under the eye of God, and is crowned with 
 length of days. You have exalted some of your Stoical sufferers 
 to the skies; such as Sczevola, who having missed his aim in an 
 attempt to kill the king, voluntarily burned the mistaking hand. 
 Yet how many among us have suffered not only the hand, but the 
 whole body to be consumed without a complaint, when their de- 
 liverance was in their own power! But why should I compare 
 our elders with your Mutius, or Aquilius, or Regulus, when our 
 very children, our sons and daughters, inspired with patience, 
 despise your racks, and wild beasts, and all other instruments of 
 cruelty ? Surely nothing but the strongest reasons could per- 
 suade people to suffer at this rate; and nothing else but Almighty 
 power could support them under their sufferings.’ 
 
 Once” more, respecting various ethical questions of the day : 
 ‘We touch not your food, not because it is essentially worse than 
 any other; but lest you should conclude that we serve those 
 demons to whom it has been offered in sacrifice; or that we are 
 ashamed of our religion. We are not afraid of flowers: we — 
 gather the lily and rose in spring-time; we strew them upon our 
 couches, and wear them on our bosoms; but pardon us for not 
 placing them as chaplets on our heads, for it is our way to take 
 in the scent of an agreeable flower with our noses, and not with 
 our hair. Nor do we crown the dead with garlands; for if they 
 are happy, they feel no want; and if miserable, they are beyond — 
 the refreshment of flowers.’ 
 
 Finally, he says, ‘Let Socrates, the Athenian scoffer, shut 
 himself up in his avowed ignorance; let Archelaus and Carneades — 
 
 @ Octav. c. 86. BDAC. tod 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 195 
 
 and Pyrrho, and all the race of Sceptics doubt on; let Simon- 
 ides procrastinate for ever ; we despise all the haughty tribe of 
 philosophers, whom we know to be mere dogmatizers, and cor- 
 rupters of the truth, and always eloquent against the vices they 
 practise ; we wear not our wisdom in our beards, but in our 
 minds; we talk not great things, but live them.’ 
 
 ORIGEN*, «When false witness was brought against our 
 blessed Saviour, he held his peace, and when he was accused 
 returned no answer, being fully persuaded that the tenor of. his 
 life and conversation among the Jews was the best apology that. 
 could possibly be made in his behalf. He knew both by expe- 
 rience and of his infinite wisdom, that he could not repel their 
 charges by any verbal defence. The spotless Jesus” was scarcely 
 ever free from unjust accusations, so long as the perverse dispo- 
 sitions of men whose minds were corrupt, and lives vicious, 
 remained the same as they have been in all ages of the world. 
 And even now he preserves the same silence, and makes no other 
 answer than the unblemished lives of his sincere followers: they 
 are his most cheerful and successful advocates, and have so loud 
 a voice that they drown the clamours of the most zealous and 
 bigoted adversaries.’ 
 
 ‘I think® I may safely say that a physician cannot recover 
 his patients without the blessing of Almighty God upon the 
 
 _ methods he prescribes; and if any one can cure the more fatal 
 
 distempers of the soul, can suddenly and in a great degree dis- 
 
 _ possess those rooted and dangerous vices, which have long main- 
 
 tained dominion there; can deliver it from its former natural 
 intemperance, injustice, irreverence, and as a proof of skill can 
 instance hundreds of persons whose morals he has been happily 
 
 - instrumental in forming; I presume you will not say that this 
 _ can be done without some unusual interposition of Providence.’ 
 
 _ In further application of this argument to Christianity, it is shewn 
 _ ‘how just and eminent the commendation of the Saviour appears, 
 _ if we compare the course of life which his followers once igno- 
 _ rantly led, with the nature of their subsequent conduct, wherein 
 _ they became illustrious examples of the contrary virtues. Thus it 
 
 will be seen,’ he proceeds, ‘ that Jesus attempted what was vastly 
 beyond the sphere of mere human ability, and that the event also 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. Pref. Sect. 1. 
 
 » Tb. sect. 2. © Lora 26. 
 : Lowe 
 
196 THE ARGUMENT FROM -SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 remarkably answered his design. And®* it is a matter of surprise, 
 that if our Lord’s disciples had not been eye-witnesses of the 
 truth of his resurrection, and had seen nothing but what was 
 common or contemptible in his person, they should not be afraid 
 to follow him in his sufferings, to encounter the greatest hardships 
 and dangers, and to leave their native land in order to publish 
 the doctrines which their crucified and blessed Lord had taught 
 them. For I believe that no unprejudiced person who examines 
 these matters will say that they would ever have undergone the 
 fatigues of itinerant preaching, if they had not been fully per- 
 suaded of the obligation that lay upon them, both from reason 
 and gratitude, not only to conform their own manners to the holy 
 precepts of the Christian religion, but also to do what they could 
 to bring others under the same holy and happy bonds; when as 
 things were at the time, they were sure to incur the displeasure 
 of a heathen world, zealous for its ancient laws and customs, 
 and for the pompous ceremonial of its religious worship.’ Our. 
 author” supports his assertion of the change of character which 
 the apostles underwent, by quoting from Clement, to the effect 
 that the apostles had been wicked to the last degree; also from 
 Luke v. 8; and 1 Tim. v. 15; likewise the case of St Paul, which - 
 Celsus had skipped, and adds°, ‘ Christ chose these men for the 
 sake of the contrast of their former and after lives. So Socrates 
 took Phzedon; and so Polemon, the successor to Xenocrates, had 
 once led an extravagant life. But these are the only cases I 
 know of among the Greeks, of a change of morals; whilst in the 
 schools of Christ, besides the apostles, we see daily a great num~ 
 ber of persons who become virtuous and pious, and join in a 
 blessed chorus, acknowledging with the deepest shame the many 
 false and almost fatal steps which they took.” And again‘, he 
 remarks, ‘ there might have been some ground for the comparison 
 that Celsus makes between Jesus and certain wandering magi- — 
 cians, if there had appeared in the latter the slightest tendency 
 to beget in persons a true fear of God, and so to regulate their 
 actions in prospect of a day of judgment. But they attempt. 
 nothing of the sort, Yea, they themselves are guilty of the most 
 grievous crimes; whereas the Saviour would have his hearers to 
 be convinced by the native beauty of religion, and the holy lives 
 of its teachers, rather than by even the miracles they wrought.’ 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. 8. 27. » UD, 8. 63. 
 ° Tb. s. 64, 4‘ Tb. s. 68. 
 
ee ee 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 197 
 
 Speaking of the expressions made use of by the apostles, he 
 says incidentally, ‘I might challenge my adversary to cite any 
 words of our blessed Saviour’s that were vain, or indicate the 
 least pride or ostentation. How can he be accused of pride who 
 was so meek and lowly of heart, and who deigned to wash his 
 disciples’ feet, becoming a servant? Let Celsus’ Jew” make it 
 appear, if he can, that Jesus was ever guilty of the least impiety ; 
 and let him name any one who ever gave such useful precepts to 
 the world, or so thoroughly reformed the morals of mankind.’ 
 
 ‘The integrity of the evangelists is made clear from a con- 
 
 _ sideration of the dreadful calamities to which they knew their 
 
 religion would expose them; for we cannot conceive that the fol- 
 lowers of our blessed Redeemer would embrace the most painful 
 deaths with undaunted courage and constancy, had they been the - 
 scandalous inventors of the history they transmitted to posterity. 
 But on the other hand, we must suppose them to have been men 
 fully persuaded in their own minds, of the truth and importance 
 of what they published to the world; since their observation and 
 experience taught them, that scorn and infamy were the attend- 
 
 _ ants, and persecution and death the almost certain results of 
 
 professing the name of Jesus.’ 
 
 Moreover® it is observed, that if the disciples had not been 
 men of the greatest candour, but had designed to impose upon 
 our credulity by false narratives, they would certainly have seen 
 the policy of omitting Peter’s denial of his Lord, whose cause he 
 had so resolutely promised to maintain ; nor would they have men- 
 
 _ tioned the offence which some of the disciples took at the mean 
 - eondition our Saviour thought fit to assume. Indeed, had not 
 
 these things, which seem to represent the followers of our blessed 
 Lord to a disadvantage, been set down by the Evangelists in the 
 
 _ Seriptures, how could any infidel have taken occasion to reproach 
 
 Christians with them? In a like strain® he continues; ‘how 
 
 _ easily might the Evangelists have omitted that expression of Jesus 
 in his agony, “If it be possible, let this Cup pass from me;” 
 upon which Celsus had raised the charge of weakness against our 
 
 Lord! It is plain that either they were men of integrity, and 
 
 _ uttered nothing but what they believed to be true; or else, their 
 _ Gospels are full of trifling fictions of their own, and consequently 
 _ they could not be persuaded that our Saviour was God.’ The 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 11. s. 7. b Tb: skos Ou Tb. Ss; 10% 
 © POS BOS. 1 £6, 8 27. 
 
198 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 latter supposition our author has already shewn to be groundless, 
 
 by adducing their voluntary sufferings. He now“ calls on us again 
 to admire the integrity of the Evangelists in noting all the insults 
 our Lord received at his trial; and at the same time, to be filled 
 with sacred awe at the amazing condescension of Jesus in sealing 
 his doctrine with his blood ; adding, as a proof of divine patience, 
 that ‘his conduct after the sentence of condemnation was passed 
 upon him, in not uttering the least complaint or word, seems 
 worthy of the greatest hero in the world.’ 
 
 He then? defies the Epicurean to ‘name a vice that ever 
 stained the life or obscured the fair character of Jesus, remark- 
 
 ing®, that had he not assumed our nature, we should want the. 
 brightest example of submission to the will of God which mortal 
 
 man ever gave.’ 
 
 Of the Apostles -he says® once more; ‘their unparalleled 
 
 sufferings bore testimony to the truth of Christ’s doctrines, for 
 they were the only persons whose bare religion ever brought 
 them into trouble.’ 
 
 Celsus® having reproached the disciples with leaving their 
 Master, when exposed to danger, Origen observes, that ‘his 
 opponent only notices the failings, but not the repentance and 
 subsequent zeal of the Apostles, wherein they surpassed all that 
 
 is related in ancient history concerning the constancy of any — 
 
 of the Grecian heroes.’ 
 
 ‘We’ shall continue,’ he presently observes, ‘ our endeavours 
 to convince the ignorant heathen; for I am sure if we lead persons 
 aside, it is a very happy seducement, since the eternal welfare 
 
 of their better part is honestly aimed at, and effectually consulted _ 
 by us, who are honoured sometimes with being instruments in 
 the hands of Almighty God to reclaim them. By the grace of — 
 God they are prevailed upon to leave their former intemperance, — 
 or at least to make some slow and imperfect advances towards — 
 virtue. They give up their unjust dealings; they renounce their — 
 superstition and folly, and are at least conducted into the high- ~ 
 way of justice, wisdom, and courage; as appears, when they re- _ 
 sign their cowardly and sordid tempers and offer up their lives 
 
 for their most holy religion.’ 
 
 A charge® of sedition is met by shewing that Christians — 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 84. » Ths. 2 © 1b. 8. 420 
 4 bsg. AS. © Ib. s. 46. PbO BSD. 8 Tb. Lib. 111. 8. 8. 
 
: 
 
 j 
 j 
 . 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 199 
 
 keep the gentle laws of Christ, whereby they are taught not to 
 avenge themselves, even when it lies in their power. ‘ We are 
 taught,’ he says*, ‘neither in peace to live carelessly, nor to 
 despond in adversity.’ 
 
 He asks” Celsus how he can believe Herodotus and Pindar 
 to be infallible, and yet not give the least credit to men who 
 are ready to die for their religion: or again, how he can prefer 
 those useless prodigies which are related of Aristseus, to those 
 things related of Jesus, and which are so conducive to good 
 morals and true piety towards God? Wes, on the contrary, give 
 eredit to the writers of the Gospels, because of the piety and 
 candour which shine forth in them, allowing of no suspicion of 
 collusion or deceit. Add to this the simplicity of their style, 
 which renders the power of God more manifest. than it would 
 have been in the use of a studied eloquence, and all the apparatus 
 
 of Grecian Rhetoric.’ 
 
 ‘I am sure® that if Celsus had read the epistles of St Paul 
 with attention, he would have admired them as containing great 
 thoughts in common terms*; not to mention all that is so well 
 written in the Gospels, and parables of Christ.’ 
 
 Our author‘ concedes for the sake of argument that Auscu- 
 lapius cured men, and that the oracle of Apollo prophesied, 
 but he contends that ‘neither the art of curing nor the prophe- 
 tical gift is, essentially and alone, a proof of divine power.’ He 
 affirms that the good and bad alike may heal and predict. 
 ‘Some physicians and some patients are altogether immoral, and 
 some of the Delphic responses have been quite inconsistent with 
 reason. Examples follow; whence it is inferred that ‘since 
 the gifts above-named exhibit nothing inherently divine, why 
 should their patrons be venerated as gods, however skilled they 
 might have been?’ He is arguing here for the obligation of 
 
 morality. 
 
 ‘ But® God who sent Jesus to destroy the works of the devil, 
 caused the Gospel to have most extensive influence in changing 
 
 _ and correcting the morals of men, so that the Churches of his 
 
 people being governed by new laws, should be very different 
 
 ~ from the assemblies of the heathen. The conduct of the masses 
 
 in crowded cities is notorious for injustice and intemperance ; but 
 if the people of God, as taught by Christ, are compared with 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. un. s. 15. D Tb. 8. Boe TBS 8.89. 
 “ Tb. s. 20. © Tb. 8. 21, P10; 83.25% & Tb. s. 29, 
 
 4 
 
— 
 
 200 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 those among whom they dwell, they will appear like lights in 
 the world; yea, the very weakest in our Churches shall excel all 
 those who frequent the Pagan temples.’ He instances the Church ~ 
 of Athens, ‘in which love and good order reign, whilst the’ — 
 political assemblies in that city are always involved in trouble - 
 and confusion.’ <A like remark is extended to the Church at 
 Corinth ; and upon the whole he suggests, that if a contrast were 
 instituted between the officers of state, and those of our religion, 
 it would decidedly turn out in favour of the latter. This? 
 happy condition of things is attributed to the Divine teaching of 
 Christ. | 
 
 Of the more reasonable worship of believers, and their not 
 having temples or statues, he says, ‘these things are the ap- 
 pliances of demons; and Jesus has called us away from what-_ 
 soever merely affects the senses, to a true worship of God, even | 
 by pure morals and prayers.’ 
 
 Celsus® has likened the meetings of Christians to those for 
 the public amusement of the citizens; Origen explains that they 
 are very different in their occupations and objects. ‘We kindle 
 a spirit of piety towards God and of imitation of his virtues, by 
 reading and expounding: we“ especially inform the minds of those 
 who desire to hear about Christ; and when these persons seen 
 sufficiently determined to live uprightly, we admit them into our 
 congregations; but if any cannot renounce the pleasures of the 
 world, they are prohibited.’ 
 
 Celsus® objecting that Christians acknowledge themselves sin- 
 ners, our author admits the charge, and quotes Rom. vii. 9, to prove 
 that we are born of a sinful nature; but adds, ‘far be it from 
 us to teach that the unjust will be received by God, however 
 
 guilty they may feel themselves to be, unless they condemn their 
 
 _ past lives, and walk circumspectly for the future.’ 
 
 He calls‘ attention to the fact that «even Plato did nothing 
 to advance his hearers in sincere piety, whilst on the other hand - 
 those who study the sacred Scriptures in good earnest, and in 
 whom the light burns, fed by that good oil with which the wise 
 virgins are said to have filled their lamps, are replete with a 
 certain divine ardour by the very simplicity of their style. Jesus® 
 himself taught us humility ; he came not to be ministered unto, 
 but to minister. Plato only described this virtue; and the 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. nz. gs. 81. P Ube, Od. ° Ib. s. 50. 4 Jb. gs. 51.. 
 ° Jocg: be. j * Ib. Lib. vi. gs. 5. & Jb.\s. 16. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 201 
 
 Cynics’ vows of poverty were a mere pretence: such men were 
 not happy*. But Christians”, according to the command of Jesus, 
 spend their whole lives in the study of the Scriptures.’ 
 
 ‘The Chaldeans introduced® the wicked art of magic; the 
 Egyptians worshipped animals; the Persians permitted incest: 
 the Indians devour each other; but the Jews never committed 
 any of these crimes.’ . 
 
 He enlarges* with much force upon the utility of our pro- 
 phetic communications; and contrasts® this quality with the im- 
 purity of position and imputation, and with the extravagant 
 wildness of manner and matter, attributed to the Pythia. 
 
 He observes once more; ‘the sweetness of temper and the 
 firmness which Jesus manifested under his sufferings are without 
 a parallel;’ and‘ also ‘that his words are of more vital power 
 than Plato’s.’ | 
 
 Insisting * upon true morality, he recommends us, ‘for the com- 
 prehension of what idolatrous objects truly are, to consider the 
 characters and actions of those who worship them; and how 
 constantly they are invoked for purposes of revenge and lust.” 
 
 Lastly *, reverting to the charge of having no external cere- 
 monies like the Pagans, Origen replies, ‘ Celsus does not reflect 
 that with us the mind of every just man is an altar, from which 
 truly and spiritually sweet incense ascends, even prayers offered 
 from a pure conscience.’ In place of statues, Origen would sub- 
 stitute virtue, justice, temperance, fortitude, wisdom, and examples 
 of piety; and as to temples, ‘we are unwilling,’ says he ‘to 
 build mere inanimate walls; our bodies are the temples of God.’ 
 Speaking: of the Festa of the heathen, he remarks; ‘a true — 
 feast,’ as was said by one of the wise Greeks?, ‘is nothing more | 
 ‘than to do your duty;’ adding in reference to the Sabbath, 
 the days of Preparation, and the Pentecost: ‘to a pure Chris-— 
 tian every day is a Sabbath; he is always preparing himself to 
 live justly and chastely ; he celebrates the Pascha who believes 
 that Christ was slain for us; and whoever can say, “ We are 
 risen with Christ,” keeps the Pentecost. Consider, then, whether 
 if our Christian feasts were compared with those of the heathen, 
 they would not prove to be more holy, being free from every- 
 thing like intemperance and uncleanness,’ 
 
 * Contes Cels Lib. vr 5.28. * > Td. s. 36. © Th. s. 80. 
 * 7b. Lib. vit. s. 55. ©" Ibs. 4. SFO. & GF & Ib. s. 69. 
 » Ib. Lib. vin. 8.17. § Tb. 8.21. ? Thucydides. * Cont. Cels. s, 23. 
 
202 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 CYPRIAN? inveighs against the enormities and sensuality 
 practised by the heathen in private, and against the venality, 
 perjury and injustice” of their courts of law. ‘The excesses® of 
 ambition, the vanity of worldly wealth, and power,’ he says, ‘are 
 pursuits which yield both pain and pleasure.’ It is inferred‘ 
 therefore that ‘piety is the only way to happiness. A man who 
 has raised himself above the world, will not eagerly expect nor 
 importunately seek anything from it. Oh! what a blessed state 
 of repose and safety! How solid is the security derived from 
 Heaven! What a felicity it is to be disengaged from the en- 
 tanglements of this perplexing scene; to be purified from the 
 dross of this sinful world; and to be fitted for immortality, not- 
 withstanding all the attempts of our great adversary to seduce 
 and corrupt us. Nor is there need of cost or labour to attain 
 this highest dignity and happiness of human nature. It is the 
 free gift of God, and is easily obtained. His heavenly grace 
 flows into the soul, as the sun of its own accord enlightens the 
 dark places of the earth; as an overflowing fountain offers its 
 waters to any who will use them; as the refreshing dews descend 
 unasked upon the thirsty meadows.’ In conclusion, our author 
 recommends to his friend, diligence in prayer, and in the perusal 
 of God’s word. ‘Sometimes,’ he reminds him, ‘ you must speak 
 to God, and sometimes he must speak to you. Let him in- 
 struct you by his precepts and inform you by his counsel. Let 
 humility and righteousness adorn you, who are the temple of the 
 Holy Ghost, as becomes the dignity of such a guest. This is a 
 portion no one can impoverish: these are ornaments which 
 neither time nor accident can injure.’ 
 
 ‘He observes®, that gibbets, racks, &c., are tests of sincerity, 
 and such sure witnesses of the truth, that no man will go through 
 them in support of a falsehood.’ Applying this rule, he shews 
 how ‘Christ the Son of God, whom we believe to have been 
 sent to give life to the world, has not only the acknowledg- 
 ment of our lips, but the testimony of our sufferings for the 
 sake of his truth; for this is the sum of the Christian’s hope, that 
 if he is a follower of Christ here, he shall be a partaker with 
 him in his kingdom and glory.’ 
 
 He touches in his bold expostulation with Demetrian‘’, upon 
 the wicked lives of the heathen, and their malice in trying to 
 
 @ Ad Donat. c. 8. > Tb. c 9. a TRL GE a s4: © Zeke ale 
 © De Idol. Van. e. 7. * Ad Demetr.c. 5, 6, 7. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 203 
 
 hinder Christians from worshipping the true God, as a more 
 probable cause of the famine and plague of the year a.v. 253, 
 than the spread of Christianity which had been alleged. 
 
 ARNOBIUS®* allows that ‘if Christians were really the 
 cause of the earth wandering from its laws, of the gods being 
 driven away, and such a host of evils being introduced into the 
 earth, as is laid to their charge, they deserve to be hated.’ 
 But he casts back the accusation upon the heathen themselves, 
 telling them that those are rather guilty of this crime, who while 
 they profess to be worshippers of Deity, are given up to deep- 
 rooted superstitions. 
 
 Alluding” to the exercises of Christian worship, he argues, 
 ‘not that Christ needs our prayers; the benefit is ours; and this » 
 is agreeable to reason. They help us by heavenly contempla- 
 
 tions, to purge ourselves from all crime. And° yet for this rea- 
 
 sonable service we are accounted foolish and _ brutish. But, I 
 pray you, are your Lares or Fauns, your Fates, your Genii, 
 your Pausi or Bellones, worshipped for a better reason? Are 
 these not, to say the least of them, mere servants of our God ; 
 and do you then hold that he is to be rewarded with honours 
 who serves the slave, but he with a cross who serves the. 
 
 master ?’ 
 
 Again“, he acknowledges that the philosophers were wise 
 and erudite, but declares that they knew nothing of religion, 
 and never agreed together. 
 
 He contends® that ‘ God neither needs nor requires sacrifices, 
 
 Is no honour to be paid to the gods then’? some one is ready 
 
 to exclaim. Not in this way, I reply, with meats and drinks 
 which they care not for, or wine, or incense, flowers, or music. 
 All these things® imply a depraved taste, and arise from forget- 
 ting what God really is, and what truly pleases him.’ 
 
 LACTANTIUS" in shewing that the prophets announced 
 one God, confirms their testimony by appealing to their harmony, 
 their candour, their active correction of human depravity, and 
 their sufferings. ; 
 
 Passing* on to the subject of images, he asserts that ‘true 
 
 * Adv. Gent. c. 1. ee ¢ ex nay ge ¢ Ib. c. 8 
 
 @ Tb. Bab: i. c;. 5. °U bs Libs vince x cet 
 & FES Ge Ver h Divin. Instit. Lib. m. ¢, 4. The erie: 
 
204 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 religion is inconsistent with representative figures, on the ground 
 that they are of an earthly nature, and can have nothing hea- 
 venly in them, as their name indicates.’ 
 
 He turns now? to the consideration of ‘false wisdom (false 
 religion having been discussed) which the philosophers professed as 
 a rule of life. Aristippus” thought it lay in bodily pleasure; but 
 he was condemned by both philosophers and people, inasmuch as 
 he seemed thus to lower men to the condition of sheep. The 
 chief good of Hieronymus, was not to be in pain; of Diodorus, 
 to abstain from grief; and of Zeno, to live consistently with nature. 
 Kpicurus affirmed that it was ease; Dinomachus and Callipho 
 approved only of honourable enjoyment; the Peripatetics made 
 it up of a good state of mind, body, and fortune; the Stoics more 
 rationally rested it in virtue; and Eryllus, the disciple of Pyrrho, 
 in knowledge. But we° think the highest wisdom is to know 
 God, not nature; not to follow science or honour, riches or 
 poverty, pain or pleasure; but to do justly, as our sacred 
 writings teach, We abjure® the opinions of Epicurus and Py- 
 thagoras; that there is no Providence, and that our souls mi- 
 grate into the bodies of animals; as also® those of Socrates, who 
 though accounted the wisest of men, confessed that he knew no- 
 thing, and fully to establish his ignorance swore by a goose, and’ 
 devoted a cock to Asculapius’; together with even the more re- 
 fined sentiments of Plato (called by Tully, the god of philosophers) ; 
 _ for he erred in holding all things in common, even wives and chil- 
 dren; or those of Zeno, the head of the Stoics, who accounted pity | 
 but a disease of the mind. Many other strange things might be 
 said of these sages to illustrate their folly; but it is enough to 
 _ know that they were teachers of a justice which they did not 
 _. understand, and of a virtue which they did not practise. Since 
 then there appears to be no human wisdom, let us follow that 
 which is divine, and return thanks to God who has given it to us; 
 and congratulate ourselves upon receiving from a heavenly bene- 
 factor what the greatest minds sought for so many ages, but 
 were unable to discover.’ 
 
 On the other side, in illustration of the moral effect of Chris- 
 tianity, he exclaims”, ‘Produce me a man addicted to anger, to 
 evil-speaking, to any unruly or disorderly behaviour; I will only 
 
 * Epitom. c. 80. > Tb. c. 83. © 16, 6.34: a676. 0. 37; 
 
 © Tb. ¢. 87, * Ib. e 88, & Ib. c. 40. 
 
 " Div. Instit. Lib. m. c. 26. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 205. 
 
 apply to him a few words out of the book of God; and by the 
 charm of them, he shall become as meek and tame as a lamb. 
 Give me an avaricious, covetous person; I will restore him to you 
 open-handed, and open-hearted. Let me see a man impatient of 
 pain, and afraid of death, and I will presently make him perfectly 
 fearless of dangers and torture. Shew me an adulterer, or a 
 lascivious person, and he shall return to you continent, chaste, and 
 sober. Let a man much given to cruelty and bloodshed adopt the 
 Christian faith, and all his rage will be turned to clemency and 
 mildness; in short, let the most unjust, the most thoughtless and 
 grievous sinner fall under the influences of the Gospel, and you 
 shall soon observe him a lover of equity, innocent, and prudent in 
 his whole behaviour. For all his wickedness shall be washed away 
 in a single laver. Such is the force of divine wisdom, that when 
 it is poured into a man it can drive out folly, the origin of every 
 crime, at once by one impulse; and to effect this, there is no 
 need of money, or books, or study. None need be afraid of 
 coming to us; we do not sell our water, we do not bestow our 
 sun at a price. The overflowing fountain of God is open to all, 
 and this celestial light rises upon every one who has eyes. Which 
 of your philosophers was ever willing or able to make such an 
 offer as this? Though they spent their lives in the study of 
 philosophy, they could never make either themselves or any one 
 else better. Their wisdom, at the most, only served to hide, not 
 to destroy vice. But a few precepts of our God so change and 
 entirely renew a man, that you would not know him to be the 
 same person.’ 
 
 Of such a faith ‘The most excruciating tortures? have never 
 done more than draw a recantation from a few Christians, and 
 even they have returned to us with prayers and tears.’ 
 
 In a word, ‘ Justice” is what God desires, and this is the- 
 true sacrifice, this is the true worship. To keep the law of God 
 is more pleasing to him than victims; he is better served by 
 piety than with the blood of beasts*.’ 
 
 ‘Your spectacles* tend to corrupt the mind, and are to be 
 avoided by all those who respect their own peace and hap- 
 piness. We renounce all noxious pleasures, lest we should be 
 seduced by their fatal fascination, and so fall into the snares of 
 death.” 
 
 4 Epitom. c. 54. BGs Cabs e Tb. ov, 65. @ Tb. cy. Ga. 
 
206 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 EUSEBIUS*. ‘The heathen have assimilated themselves 
 to their deities, and become worse and worse; indulging in every 
 excess of crime, and even in crimes against nature’. They who 
 placed their minds under irrational fate, neglected God and 
 virtue.’ ; 
 
 He urges” ‘that no religion ever appointed laws so pure and 
 just for the whole world, as are promulgated by the Christians. 
 So merciful* are they that they have already induced the Scy- 
 thians and Persians and other people to give up their brutal sing, 
 caused the abolition of human sacrifices4, and persuaded men 
 everywhere to become holy*. Whoever,’ he asks’, ‘before in- | 
 duced women and children as well as men, voluntarily to suffer — 
 want, to sleep on the ground, to be obedient and chaste, and to 
 prefer the food of the soul to that of the body? Whoevers 
 taught barbarous men, women, and children, with a multitude of 
 slaves, to despise death, to be persuaded of the immortality of their 
 souls, and of their responsibility to God; so that they must be 
 just and temperate, having suffered, though they knew it before- 
 hand, arming their souls with righteousness as with adamant ? 
 How does this surpass all description of miracles; especially when 
 we consider that the enthusiasm was continued from generation 
 to generation !’ | . 
 
 Again he observes, ‘I need not proceed with the sacred 
 history : those who saw the occurrences of the Gospel, will be 
 the witnesses best qualified for the purpose of setting forth the 
 truth ; those, I mean, who from having seen the acts themselves, 
 did, both by their blood and persons, attest their faith in him, 
 and by his aid filled the whole creation with the righteousness 
 which they preached.’ 
 
 Defending Christians against the imputation of using magic, 
 he contends‘, ‘no one has ever been found, during all this time, 
 a magician and at the same time a disciple of the Saviour; 
 although princes and governors have made the most careful 
 enquiries by means of torture into these matters. Look also at 
 the Acts of the Apostles, where the burning of the magical books 
 is described.’ | 
 
 * Theoph. Lib. 11. ¢. 14. 
 
 * Cicero allows as much, De Nat. Deor. 1. 16. Lee's note, Theophania. 
 » Theoph. Lib. m1. ¢, 6. MDAC. Ge SEB, 16 
 
 eee B71») © Pb, ic, OD By D.-¢, 23. 
 
 aa AP ans * Dbee) 68: rad 0. LAGS yen 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 207 
 
 ‘ And such,’ he argues’, ‘were the disciples; so pure, so noble, 
 so abundant in love; they allowed nothing impure to be con- 
 cealed near them; but, on the contrary, boasted of their change 
 from vice to virtue. Since then the disciples were so, must not 
 the master have first been much more excellent ?’ 
 
 ‘The Greeks” may have a Democritus}, who left his place for 
 the sake of philosophy, or a Crates*, who distributed his posses- ’ 
 sions amongst his fellow-citizens; but we have our tens of thou- 
 sands of such, as any can testify. How many barbarians and 
 Greeks have been raised by the doctrines of the Saviour above 
 all the errors of Polytheism ; and, unlike Plato, who was afraid 
 to speak of God before men, have formed themselves into assem- 
 blies among all nations, men and women, children and slaves, 
 townsmen and villagers !’ 
 
 He notices* the extraordinary unanimity of the evangelists ; 
 and their sincerity as shewn by their suffering bonds, torments, 
 and death in attestation of the fact that they saw Christ give 
 sight to a blind man; a thing which no one had ever heard of 
 before. He refers to* the candour of St. Matthew in stating his 
 former disreputable manner of life, which the other evangelists 
 have not mentioned ; and also® his humility in including himself 
 among the sinners, and reckoning himself? second to his fellow- 
 apostle, whilst the rest of the evangelists reverse the order of the 
 names, —Of St. John‘! he observes, that he does not so much as 
 name himself, or call himself an apostle; and on St. Mark’s 
 Gospel®, that ‘ Peter who employed this evangelist to note down 
 his declarations concerning the life of our Saviour, omits to men- 
 tion any testimony in favour of himself?; such as the word of 
 Christ, ‘Thou art Peter, on this rock will I build my church.” 
 St. Mark, he supposes, did not record this, because Peter did not 
 notice it in his teaching ; but his denial of Christ he preached to 
 all men, and caused it to be recorded against himself. Must we 
 not then confess that these men were distinguished by an evident 
 love of truth, and if so, how could they be deceivers? Their 
 characters were guileless, as their words indicate; and" if their 
 
 @ Theoph. Lib. v. c. 13. » Tb. c. 14, 
 
 * Cicero Tuse. Quest. Lib. v. ¢. 39. * Diog. Laert. Lib. vz. serm. 85, 
 ¢ Theoph. Lib. v. ¢. 27, 28. d Jb. ce. 87, © Tb. c 88. 
 
 * Tb. c. 39. & Ib. c. 40. 
 
 * Estius and Dr Hammond have noticed this instance of Peter’s humility ; 
 see Professor Lee’s note. Theophania. 
 " Theoph. Lib, v. ¢. 48. 
 
208 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 self-abasing accounts are credited by infidels, why must not also 
 their glorious testimonies in other respects be credited also ?” 
 
 After® describing the cruelties connected with idol-worship, 
 and the fallacies of oracles, our author sums up true religion by 
 defining it to be, ‘the reception of God through the dispensation 
 of our Saviour into a soul free from passion, and a life agreeable 
 ‘to his will.’ 
 
 ‘We declare” further, that the honours and worship paid to 
 these (heathen) deities, are accompanied by acts of wantonness 
 and profligacy.’ 
 
 ‘Christians®, like noble martyrs in the cause of true godli- 
 ness, have resolved to welcome death in preference to life. They 
 have mocked at fire, the sword, the cross; at exposure to wild 
 beasts; at drowning in the sea; at the cutting off and searing of | 
 their limbs; at the digging out of their eyes; at mutilations of 
 the body; at famine; at labour in the mines; at captivity : nay, 
 all these sufferings they counted better than any earthly good or 
 pleasure, for the love they bore to their heavenly king. Even 
 women evinced a constancy of spirit not inferior to men, and 
 boldly sustained every variety of suffering.’ 
 
 ATHANASIUSS, having noticed the diversity of opinions 
 among the Pagans, and the cruelty of their worship, turns to 
 their immoralities, and mentions that the Phoenician women for- 
 merly prostituted themselves in the temples, consecrating their 
 gains to the gods. He quotes Romans i. 26, as illustrated by 
 this circumstance. 
 
 MATERNUS® condemns the heathen rites, on account of 
 the licentious conduct they engender. He says, ‘the mysteries 
 of the Gallic priests consist of base and impious acts; and the 
 Assyrians and Africans in their worship of Venus, confess and 
 publish their evil deeds, denying that they are men, and decorat- 
 ing themselves in female dress. But we know that it is only by 
 faith and penitence, we can ever hope to regain that which was 
 lost through the vile persuasion of the devil.’ , 
 
 . And again’; ‘the crowd of wicked heathen have collected 
 all the seeds of impiety from their own gods, and thus confirmed 
 * Prep. Evan.Lib..t. c. 4. > Const. Orat. c. 4. 
 
 ° Euseb. Orat, c. 7. * Cont. Gent. c. 26. 
 * De Error. Prof. Relig. c. 3. Ib. c..18. 
 
| 
 . 
 ; 
 ; 
 
 | 
 
 ee ee ee ee eT 
 
 er a 
 
 ; 
 5 
 = - 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 209 
 
 their innate depravity, by a shew of authority and of divine 
 example.’ 
 
 EPHRAIM+. ‘The glorious One humbled himself to all 
 similitudes. He taught, and did all that he taught, that he might 
 be a mirror to his hearers. He exemplified his own teaching ; 
 he made the path of duty as clear as his doctrines; he lowered 
 himself” to our comprehension, so great was his humility. 
 
 The truth is set as a mirror®; he whose eye is clear, sees 
 the image of truth therein. 
 
 The Scriptures are agreed; men are divided. This strife 
 has originated in an abuse of free-will. The Scripture? has 
 sealed to us, that “ the just in faith, findeth life.” God has fixed 
 
 the truth like a glorious root, and works, like fruit, he has hung 
 upon faith.’ 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN® affirms, that ‘the sentiments 
 of the philosophers were various and discordant; having fol- 
 lowed human theories and left the guidance of God, they erred 
 
 _ and drew other men into error.’ 
 
 He observes’ that ‘ Christians are holier in a time of perse- 
 p 
 
 _ cution than in a time of peace ;? and «J ulian,’ he exclaims’, ‘ may 
 insanely forbid them to study letters ; they care not; they de- 
 _ spise outward eloquence; as they sacrifice their bodies with its 
 _ pleasures, so they yield up their mind with its amenities,’ - 
 
 Our author" charges the generals whom Julian admires, with 
 ‘serving their own ambition; and the philosophers‘, with various 
 weaknesses and follies. Nor does he find that the poetical fables* 
 have induced good morals, chiefly? because of the bad example set 
 by the gods. On the other hand™, the Christian religion teaches 
 charity; forbids covetousness and perjury ; commands” us to bless 
 our enemies, to overcome insolence with kindness, and only to 
 be anxious after virtue.’ 
 
 AUGUSTINE®, speaking of the vices of the Romans, al- 
 ludes to suicide as being prevalent and approved. In his judgment 
 
 ® Ad Scrut. Serm. 80. b 16. 31s o; Lbatee 
 
 * Tb. 68, 80. © Orat. adv. Jul. 4, c. 44, * TUs Gy 89. 
 
 8 Orat. 5. ES TON Gayl. Ib 72, Solo. Ge ETF: 
 ' Tb. c. 120. JONG dacs MAbs Cs 424: 
 
 ° De Civit. Dei, Lib. 1. ¢. 21. 
 H. E. 14 
 
210 THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 
 
 it evinces no magnanimity of soul. Cato* killed himself because 
 he was unable to bear Cesar’s victory ; wherefore J ob far excelled 
 him in patient endurance; and Christians in general surpass Re- — 
 gulus, in that very virtue by which he excelled most. He did not | 
 destroy himself: Christians follow his example, but from a bet- 
 ter motive; they aim only at eternal mansions. 
 
 Our author? next reproaches those who complain of Christi- 
 anity, with desiring nothing but to live in sensual pleasure. He 
 reminds them that Scipio Nasica foretold the calamities that 
 would naturally result from ambition and corruption ; and how, 
 when the Senate proposed to build a theatre in Rome, he endea- 
 voured to persuade his countrymen not to let the luxury of 
 the Greeks creep into their cities. . 
 
 Augustine® further reminds the Romans, that it was at the 
 command of the gods that stage-plays were introduced, in order 
 to assuage a pestilence; adding that they are only scenes of 
 licentiousness and vanity. 
 
 He remarks‘ that the worshippers of the Pagan gods never 
 received any moral instructions from them; but practised all 
 manner of uncleanness in their services. ‘ We ourselves,’ says 
 he, ‘in our youth, once went to view these spectacles, these reli- 
 gious mockeries; there we saw the devotees raging violently ; we 
 heard the pipers, and took delight in the vulgar sports they 
 acted before the gods and goddesses, even before Berecynthia 
 the celestial virgin, mother of all the gods; and that too in the ~ 
 . sight and hearing of a multitude of both sexes. But® in our 
 assemblies there is nothing of this sort; the precepts of the true — 
 God are taught, his miracles related, his gifts acknowledged, 
 and his blessing invoked.’ ; 
 
 He shews‘ that ‘the ambition allowed and recommended by — 
 profane philosophy, is only for a temporal reward. How much | 
 better that which has heaven in prospect, the eternal city. The 
 citizens of this world prefer for their gods wicked and proud 
 spirits, but the godly and holy submit themselves to the God of | 
 gods, and love rather to worship, than to be worshipped. 
 
 Two sorts of affection® have given rise to the earthly and 
 heavenly states: self-love in contempt of God, to the one; love | 
 of God, and contempt of self, to the other: that seeks the glory 
 
 * De Civit. Dei, Lib. 1. ¢. 22. > Lb. e 29% c Tb. '¢. 343 
 4 76. Lib. 1. ¢. 4. © 20.86. ve: f 16. Lib. v. 183 —20. 
 & Jb, Lib. x1v. ¢. 28. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIOR MORALITY. 211 
 of men, this the glory of God; that boasts of ambitious con- 
 querors led by the lust of power, this of serving one another in 
 charity. The philosophers of the earthly city follow the desires 
 of the body or mind, living according to the flesh, and with the 
 people serving the creature more than the Creator: but in the 
 heavenly city, there is no wisdom of man, but only the piety 
 that serves the true God, and anticipates the society of saints 
 and angels.’ | 
 
 After® declining to discuss with the Epicurean, who despises 
 all morality, our author says; ‘True religion cannot be found 
 amidst the confusion of pagan philosophers, the impurity of 
 heretics, or the blindness of Jews: rather? and only, are its 
 foundations laid in that sacred history and prophecy which reveal 
 the method of God’s Providence in the course of time for the 
 salvation of men; and by believing which, and also having the 
 heart purified, we recognize the offices of the Holy Trinity. 
 Therefore* it is that we put away far from us the wicked folly 
 of plays and poets, and employ ourselves in the study of the 
 Sacred Volume, nourishing with its celestial viands our souls, 
 fainting from hunger and tormented by the thirst of a vain 
 curiosity. The beauty and the order of the world is to us the 
 most magnificent theatre.’ 
 
 * De vera Relig. c. 5. ey SLO Cunt, 
 
 14223 
 
CHAPTARs Vie 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SUCCESS 
 OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 “Come then, and added to thy many crowns, 
 Receive yet one, as radiant as the rest, 
 
 Due to thy last and most effectual work, 
 Thy word fulfilled, the conquest of a world fi 
 
 Cowper, Task, B. v1. 
 
 A hive last specific kind of argument to be noticed as advanced 
 by the Apologists, is that of success. The attamment of 
 its object seems, in truth, to be only the natural consequence of 
 any divine operation. It must needs go on overcoming evil, and 
 perfecting good: but in this case there were two considerations 
 tending to make success eminently satisfactory ; first, that it had 
 been foretold, and secondly, that it was unprecedented. | 
 In the one view, the Gospel was seen leaguing itself with the 
 entire system of venerable and venerated prophecies; and in the 
 other, with the series of Mosaic and Christian miracles, itself as 
 great as any: a continuous miracle, offering the advantage of 
 personal evidence, and like the angel of Manoah ‘doing won- 
 drously’ in the very presence of the humblest Christian. Such 
 success was found to be unprecedented under any circumstances. 
 The religions of different countries, including even the Jewish, 
 had scarcely extended beyond their native and original boun- 
 daries; and if so, they had either laid no claim to universality, 
 and existed either by compromise or by crime. Still less had 
 any approach been made to such success, under the actual cir- 
 cumstances of the case. Here was a criterion by which to judge 
 of the superiority of Christianity not only over every other reli- 
 gion, but over any philosophical, political, or ambitious excursion 
 that the world might have witnessed. 
 The circumstances of the case especially dwelt upon by the 
 Apologists were, the incredibly short time the Gospel took to 
 accomplish its end; the extent of the conquest, being nothing 
 less than the known world; against an opposition the most - 
 unanimous, violent and persevering that can well be imagined ;. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 213 
 
 and all this, achieved by means apparently insignificant and 
 inadequate. Particular allusion is made to the means being moral, 
 in opposition to the effects of fraud, eloquence, or physical power. 
 
 Here then was just the complement which Christianity seemed 
 to need, not indeed for its own sake, but for that of its followers. 
 By the time this proof began to ripen, the persecuted Church 
 required all the assistance and all the encouragement and com- 
 fort that could be vouchsafed to her: and who can say what 
 a support it was to the exile in the mines, and to the martyr on 
 the rack, to know that his sufferings but served to further the 
 rapid advancement of Christ’s kingdom, and to fulfil Christ’s 
 predictions ? . 
 
 The whole attainment was too wonderful to be human; and we 
 may reflect in conclusion, that if this argument availed to prove 
 and edify in the times of the Fathers of the Church, how much 
 more should it prove and edify now. Wherefore, this argument 
 seems especially in place as a final chapter; its influence ex- 
 tending and even increasing to our own days. .Fifteen centuries 
 have rolled away, only to leave us additional assurances of the 
 divinity of the Gospel in its peaceful and continued success, when 
 compared with the violent extension of Mahommedanism, the 
 fraudulent spread of Popery, and the various clamorous but tem- 
 porary triumphs of fanaticism or infidelity. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR*. ‘Why should we mention an innu- 
 merable multitude of those who have been converted from a life 
 of incontinence, and learned these (Christ’s) precepts? From? 
 Jerusalem twelve men went forth to the world; they were un- 
 learned, not knowing how to speak ; but by the power of God, 
 they preached to every nation, that they were sent by Christ to 
 teach the Word of God to all the world.’ 
 
 ‘ We have* witnessed the desolation of Judea, and have seen 
 such men as we ourselves, men out of every nation, persuaded 
 by the preaching of the Apostles, and renouncing their previous 
 manner of life, so that Christians more numerous and true, 
 have been made from the Gentiles than from the Jews or Sa- 
 maritans,’ 
 
 ‘With us information may be obtained upon these (religious) 
 - points from those who have not received even the rudiments of 
 learning ; who although unlearned and speaking a strange lan- 
 
 * Apol, 1. ¢. 18, >: Ib. c. 49: bee 6B. * Ib, 0.48. 
 
214 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 guage, have wisdom and faith in their hearts, so as to make it ' 
 evident that these things were not done by human wisdom, but 
 by the power of God.’ 
 
 ‘By how much the more® we are afflicted with torments, by so 
 much the more does the number of the faithful and true worship- 
 pers of God increase through the name of Jesus.’ Our author 
 mentions this in connexion with the fulfilment of prophecy con- 
 cerning the Gentiles. To the same intent” he reminds the Jew 
 that ‘there are some countries in which none of his nation ever 
 dwelt; but there is not so much as one nation of men, whether 
 Greek or barbarian, Scythian or Arabian, amongst whom prayers 
 and thanksgivings are not offered up to the Father through the 
 name of Jesus crucified.’ 
 
 THEOPHILUS: notes as a matter of astonishment that 
 the Hebrew prophets who uttered such divine truths were illi- 
 terate and unskilled men, often being mere shepherds or hus- 
 bandmen. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS¢ ascribes the rapid. success 
 of the Gospel to the superintending providence of God. ‘The 
 divine power shining upon the earth has with a celerity not 
 to be surpassed, and the widest benevolence, filled the earth 
 with the seeds of salvation. Without his care so great a work 
 in so short a time could never have been accomplished. Our 
 Lord who was despised because of his outward condition, is now — 
 adored as the expiator, the Saviour, the gentle one, the Divine 
 Word manifested as truly God, equalled to the Lord of all, 
 proving whence he was, and who he was, and what he taught 
 
 and did.’ 
 
 TERTULLIAN. ‘Some* among you are changed from 
 what they were, and are become Christians, as soon as they 
 learn what our religion really is. They begin to hate what they 
 were, to profess the opinions they hated, and to swell our num- 
 bers. Our enemies exclaim that the whole state is overrun with 
 us: they lament it as a great calamity that Christians are found 
 in the country, in the cities, in the islands; that persons of both ~ 
 sexes, and of all ages, and stations, and dignities, come over to 
 
 * Dial. cum Tryph. c. 10. be fra i Yr & © Ad Autol. Lib. 11. ¢. 35. 
 4 Hortat. c. 12. © Apol. c. 1. 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 215 
 
 that name; but yet not even this fact is sufficient to rouse their 
 minds to imagine there is any latent good in Christianity.’ 
 
 ‘Among* yourselves many have given exhortations to the 
 patient endurance of pain and death, as Cicero in his Tusculan 
 disputations, or as Seneca, Diogenes, Pyrrho, and Callimachus ; 
 yet none of this verbal advice ever gained so many followers as 
 the Christians have obtained by the instructions which their 
 actions have delivered.’ 
 
 He further speaks” of Christians as forming ‘ almost the ma- 
 jority in every state,’ and declares that ‘if the cruel laws against 
 the Christians were enforced, Carthage would be desolated.’ 
 
 In describing*® the diffusion of Christianity throughout the 
 world, he enumerates the countries whither the Gospel had 
 already extended, and includes ‘all the extremities of Spain, and 
 the different nations of Gaul, and parts of Britain inaccessible to 
 the Romans, but subject to Christ.’ 
 
 MINUTIUS FELIX*®. ‘The daily increase of vast num- 
 bers is so far from being a disparagement to our religion, that it 
 is a testimony in its favour; for Christians are faithful adherents 
 to their holy profession, and are continually augmented by hea- 
 then converts.’ 
 
 ORIGEN®, as a preliminary to his proofs of the canonical 
 inspiration, mentions that, ‘no legislator or teacher among the 
 Greeks or barbarians ever begat in nations who followed after 
 them, such a surprising adherence to their own laws as Moses did ; 
 and although philosophers, with some appearance of truth, pub- 
 lished what seemed reasonable and plausible, they never could 
 succeed in persuading a multitude of people of different nations, 
 as the apostles had done. The fact is,’ he explains, ‘ these legis- 
 lators and teachers, however much they desired to disseminate 
 their principles throughout the earth, soon found it impossible, 
 and prudently forebore. But now all Greece and all the circle 
 of the earth contains numbers, who having forsaken the laws and 
 customs of their ancestors, observe the Mosaic law and the disci- 
 pline of Jesus Christ, and that too in spite of the hatred of 
 idolaters, and at the greatest risk of their own lives,’ 
 
 ® Apol. c. 50. > Ad Scap. ¢ 2. ¢. 5. © Adv. Jud. c. 7. 
 4 Octav. ¢. 31. © De Princip. Lib. 1v. s. 1. 
 
216 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Our author is led* by these reflections to notice other remark- 
 able circumstances connected with the spread of Christianity ; 
 ‘that in so short a time and with so many snares laid for them, 
 the Christians, though continually put to death and despoiled of 
 their property, (their indigence therefore shewing that success 
 could not have arisen from any power in the teachers them- 
 selves) have propagated the Gospel throughout the world.’ 
 
 ‘What necessity” is there to produce other prophecies of 
 Christ, whilst there is that song inscribed “ pro dilecto,” wherein 
 his tongue is said to be “the tongue of a ready writer, and his 
 form more lovely than the sons of men, because grace is diffused 
 from his lips?” For this refers to Christ having in so brief a period 
 filled the whole earth with his doctrine, and the true worship of 
 grace. In his days too, righteousness and abundance of peace 
 have appeared, which shall doubtless endure to the consummation, 
 when ‘he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river to the 
 ends of the earth.” ’ 
 
 ‘Nor should the divinity ¢ of the Scriptures be doubted on 
 account of their simplicity, because the weakness of our under- 
 standing cannot enter always into the secret splendour of ideas, 
 concealed in humble and abject speech; for “our treasure is hid 
 in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of 
 God, and not of us.” 2 Cor. iv. 7. If the usual methods of de- 
 monstration had been adopted to convert the human race, the 
 cause might have been misunderstood; but now it is clear to any 
 one using his eyes, that our influence with the multitude was 
 not placed in persuasive words of man’s wisdom, but in the exhi- 
 bition of spirit and power. It is this heavenly wisdom alone that 
 can reveal-to us the mystery hid from the beginning, but now 
 manifested in the writings of the prophets, and in the advent of 
 the Lord.’ 
 
 A comparison having been instituted* between the risks and 
 sufferings of Christians and the calamities to which Socrates, 
 Pythagoras, and other philosophers were exposed, our author re- 
 marks that ‘the Athenians did not persecute for any length of 
 time, as the Romans have done with regard to us, though after 
 all without succeeding in their object.’ 
 
 To Celsus objecting® that Christ was but the head of an up- 
 start sect, called Christians, Origen proceeds to shew the unfair- 
 
 * De Princip. Lib. 1v. s. 2. b Toss. 5. en Cie 5 
 2 Cont. Cels. Lib. 1s. 4. © Jb. s. 26. 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 217 
 
 ness of such a depreciating expression. ‘I answer, says he, 
 ‘that a doctrine so lately introduced as ours, should meet with 
 such wonderful success that in almost every part of the habitable 
 world, a great number, both of Greeks and barbarians, learned 
 and unlearned persons, should readily and triumphantly for- 
 sake the religion in which they were born and bred, and to 
 which they were pre-engaged, by many strong and almost indis- 
 soluble ties, and on a sudden discover such an extraordinary 
 zeal for a new religion as to be willing to sacrifice their reputation, 
 and their fortune, and even their lives for the profession of it, 
 which can hardly be said of any other doctrine, though it have 
 all external advantages to recommend it ; I say, things being thus, 
 we must be strangely blinded by the force of prejudice, if we do 
 not observe a more than ordinary appearance of the providence 
 of God in this sudden, uncommon, and most blessed change. 
 For* when everything looked unfavourably on so daring an 
 undertaking, and threatened that the Gospel should be confined 
 to a very narrow compass; when the Roman emperors in their 
 successive reigns, the governors of provinces, and generals of 
 armies, the magistrates of particular cities, the soldiery, and the 
 common people, in a word, when all persons that were in autho- 
 rity or had any influence or interest, declared open war against 
 the Christian religion ; even then, under all these great outward 
 disadvantages, it bore the sacred and undeniable marks of a 
 divine original, applied itself to the conversion of the most 
 wicked men, forced its way in spite of the united malice and 
 vigorous efforts of earth and hell, gained ground against the 
 stoutest opposition, and being superior to all its enemies, who 
 were neither few nor contemptible, exerted a marvellous power 
 over the minds of men, and turned all Greece and a great part of 
 the barbarian states into trophies of honour, to the memory of 
 its god-like founder. Nor did he (Jesus) act like a tyrant, who 
 by the help of a prevailing party takes occasion to violate the 
 known laws of the land in which he lives; nor like a robber, 
 who comes with armed bands; nor like a wealthy man, who by 
 the help of bribes, induces others to come over to his interests, 
 whether by right or by wrong, and whose proceedings manifestly 
 deserve our censure; but like one, who came to teach an ignorant 
 and degenerate world what views they ought to entertain of God, 
 and how they might regulate their conduct so as to maintain an 
 
 ® Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. 8. 27. 
 
218 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 humble and familiar correspondence with the majesty of Heaven. 
 As to Themistocles and others who gained an unusual reputation, 
 and did great services to their native country, this must be said 
 to draw a shade over their greatest glory, that everything 
 seemed to smile on their just and honourable attempts, and as it 
 were to pave the way to victory. How different the path the 
 Saviour trod to the cross; the most awful tragedy that ever was 
 enacted !’ 
 
 Having" remarked that the base origin of the apostles, often 
 carped at by Celsus, is a proof of the power of God in using 
 them as instruments, Origen proceeds: ‘ We say and know that 
 the divine power of our blessed Saviour has been happily seen 
 and felt through all the habitable world, wherever churches are 
 founded, consisting of persons reclaimed from the most glaring 
 vices. And the name of Jesus at this very day composes the 
 ruffled minds of men, dispossesses demons, and works a gentle and 
 amiable temper in all those who make profession of Christianity 
 from a higher end than worldly interest, and who sincerely believe 
 what it teaches concerning God, Christ, and a future judgment.’ 
 
 He says further, ‘I defy Celsus and all the world to prove 
 that doctrine introduced by one who reclaimed so many persons 
 from every scandalous vice, effectually engaging them to enter 
 upon a virtuous course of life, deserves to be vilified with the 
 title, “the plague of the world.’’’ 
 
 To another cavil, raised on the ground® that Christ did 
 not immediately produce an effect upon the mass of society, our 
 author replies: ‘we can prove that he did; for when he came 
 into the world, justice seemed to regain her native seat, the 
 neighing of war-horses, the clangour of trumpets, the flash of 
 arms, the piercing groans of the sick and wounded, were heard 
 no more; but a wonderful calm succeeded the late confusions.’ 
 This, he considers, was arranged in the providence of God to 
 prepare the way for the success of the Gospel, by subjecting the 
 entire nations to the Roman empire, so that the Apostles might 
 not be hindered in carrying out their orders, ‘ Go, teach all na- 
 tions.’ ‘How,’ he enquires, ‘could this have been practicable, if the 
 people of different countries had lived under princes of their own, 
 without any mutual intercourse, instead of under the single juris- 
 diction of an Augustus, who is well known to have encouraged 
 commerce and prevented war ?’ 
 
 * Cont. Cels. Lib. 1. s. 67. > Td. Lib. m. s, 29. © Ib. s. 80. 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 219 
 
 ‘I cannot conceive®,’ he continues, ‘how our Saviour, if he 
 was only a man, as Celsus supposes, could have been so weak as 
 to imagine that his doctrine would obtain the desired success, and 
 that he should surmount all difficulties and dangers, and prove in 
 the end superior to the united force of the people, the senate, the 
 Emperors of Rome, as well as all foreign potentates. If we do 
 not allow that he had a divine as well as a human nature, how 
 can we account for his making so many and such remarkable 
 converts on a sudden, and when the disadvantages were so great 
 under which he laboured? Had they all been educated men 
 whom he dealt with, I confess the wonder would somewhat abate; 
 but the greater part by far were destitute of reason, and little 
 better than brutes in a human state, and, what is worse, were 
 slaves to their unruly passions, and on that account more difficult 
 to reclaim ; so that we must needs resolve this matter into its 
 being the power and wisdom of God, let the unbelieving Jew and 
 the learned Greek gnash their teeth as they please, and produce 
 what they can to the contrary.’ 
 
 He again” applies this argument by contrasting the paucity 
 of Aisculapius’ followers with the abundance of those who confess 
 Jesus. This affluence and popularity he affirms, would never have 
 taken place, had not some wonderful benefit been derived from 
 this faith. Amongst the disciples of Christianity, he enumerates 
 ‘many who were delivered from weary burdens, from alienation 
 and distraction of mind, and from infirmities which Ausculapius 
 was never able to heal.’ 
 
 ‘It is not® to be wondered at that the discourses of philoso- 
 phers so aptly and ornately composed, had some weight in the 
 correction of a few vicious persons; but when we see that the 
 teaching which Celsus calls spiritless and mean, was endowed 
 with all the efficacy of enchantment, so that multitudes are re- 
 called from vice to virtue, and exhibit such constancy that for the 
 sake of their religion they despise death, do we not well to wonder 
 and ascribe it to a supernatural cause? The success of the first 
 preachers of the Gospel was not due to any force of Attic elo- 
 quence, but to a power of persuasion given them by the Spirit 
 of God. Hence it is they prevailed so promptly everywhere; 
 yea, that the words of God spoken by them, changed those whom 
 nature and custom had led captive in sin, and corrected and con- 
 
 @ Cont. Cels. Lib. 11. s. 79. > 7b. Lib, 11. s. 24. © Ib. s. 68: 
 
220 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 verted to its own will those whom neither man nor law could 
 tame.’ 
 
 ‘Let any one* shew in what other than the Christian way, 
 not merely one here and there, but a great number, can be 
 recalled to a better life; that so we may judge by comparison 
 which is the doctrine that tends most to virtue.’ 
 
 Our author? further observes that though, as Celsus says, 
 the style of the Greeks is more studied than that of the Serip- 
 ture writers, yet that the latter, besides having purposely writ- 
 ten in plain and familiar language, for the sake of the mass of 
 the people, have their words accompanied by a certain power 
 from God, producing effects such as the dogmas of the schools 
 never attained. On this account it is that the disciples of Jesus 
 though rude and unskilled in philosophy, are to be met with in 
 every kingdom of the earth, and that instead of single auditors, 
 as the sophists had, Christian teachers have captivated whole 
 nations to their doctrines and morals.’ 
 
 Finally °, he argues under this head, that ‘it is an evidence of 
 Divine interference that the Jewish republic, city, temple, and 
 sacrifices should cease, just as they could no longer answer their 
 purpose; and that when a new doctrine is issued for the benefit 
 not of a single nation, but of all people, the counsels of men 
 cannot prevail against it; but the more kings and governors 
 and people persecute its followers, the more their numbers in- 
 crease and their cause strengthens.’ 
 
 CYPRIAN* offers a fine illustration of the power of the 
 Gospel over the individual man, in the train of thought that had 
 led to his own conversion and baptism the year before. He re- 
 marks how impossible at first it seemed that he could ever leave 
 those rooted and habitual customs, which time and circumstances 
 had rivetted to the very frame of his being. ‘ Whenever was it 
 known,’ he would ask himself, ‘that a man becomes a learner of 
 frugality, who has been a liver in luxury and riot? How rarely 
 that any one becomes content with plain apparel, who has been 
 used to sparkle in gold, jewels and embroidery How then 
 could his ambition, his intemperance, his pride and anger, his 
 covetousness and cruelty, be restrained and laid aside? Such 
 were his soliloquies ; ‘for,’ says he, ‘I was deeply entangled and 
 
 " Cont. Cels. Lib. 1v. s, 53. > 7b. Lib. vt. s. 2. 
 © Jb. Lib. vu. 8. 26. 4 Ad Donat. c. 8. 
 
/ 
 
 SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL, 222 
 
 ensnared in the errors of my former life, which I deemed it im- 
 possible ever to disengage myself from. Thus I seconded the 
 _ evil propensities of my nature, and by choice added strength to 
 them by indulgence and despair. But when the Spirit of God 
 had descended upon me, things appeared easy which before 
 looked difficult and discouraging. I distinguished thenceforth 
 that earthly principle which being born of the flesh exposed me 
 to sin, and that new principle which I had derived from the 
 Spirit of God, and which had entirely devoted me and bound 
 me to his service.’ This new nature® he ascribes to the power 
 of God’s grace, a fountain ever flowing, whose waters of life no 
 determinate channel restrains, being received into our hearts by 
 faith; ‘Whence,’ he adds, ‘ we having qualified ourselves for the 
 reception of it by proper preparations of prayer and all holy 
 dispositions, derive the power of expelling the deadly poison of 
 sin, and cleansing the stains contracted through its pollution, of 
 composing dissension, and of making the violent and intractable 
 tame and civilized.’ 
 
 ARNOBIUS? offers in proof of the divinity of Christ, that 
 his religion has overcome all decrees, and dissolved the silly and 
 fatal superstitions of the Gentiles. ‘The human race,’ he con- 
 tends®, ‘is so naturally incredulous, that unless the affair is as 
 clear as the sun itself, it will never be received extensively in 
 the world.’ He adds to this, that the early propagation of 
 Christianity incurred such a gratuitous hatred and execration, 
 as can only be endured and explained on the supposition of sin- 
 cerity in its promoters. ‘Why is it, if as you say (he is ad- 
 dressing an imaginary objector), the history of our affairs is false, 
 that in so short a time the whole world is full of this religion ? 
 Who can unite into one, nations separated by winds and climate, 
 so that they give themselves to God, and set no value on their 
 own comfort and lives?’ ‘Are you not,’ he exclaims again® 
 in a like strain, ‘struck with the fact that already throughout 
 all lands in so brief a period of time, this wonderful name has 
 been spread, so that there is now no people, however barbarous 
 or cruel, that has not turned in love to Christ and assumed 
 a tranquil state of mind? Orators of the greatest genius, 
 grammarians, counsellors and physicians, and even professors of 
 
 * Ad Donat. c. 4. b Adv. Gent. Lib. 1. c. 15. 
 © Th; G20. © 1h. Tape tis C8 3% 
 
222 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 philosophy, seek our instructions and despise their own! And 
 although punishments are inflicted, and threatening edicts pub- — 
 lished, the people seem to be more excited by the stimulus of 
 prohibition, and apply themselves to the study of our faith. 
 Could there be so many conversions in the face of such opposition 
 unless the affair was divine?’ 
 
 Once more® he calls attention to ‘ that power which, originat-_ 
 ing in Christ and his Apostles, has spread itself throughout the . 
 whole world, subduing the passions of men, and causing nations 
 dissimilar in their manners to run together in one mind and 
 one faith. For it is well known what is done in India, in Per- 
 sia, in Arabia, in Syria, in Egypt, in Asia Minor, in Greece, and 
 in every isle and province lit by the sun; and lastly at regal 
 Rome itself, where men, though interested in the arts and ancient 
 superstitions of Numa, delayed not to leave the religion of their 
 forefathers, and to unite themselves to the truth.’ 
 
 LACTANTIUS? suggests in proof of the truth of the Christian 
 religion, that ‘it both understands the cunning nature of demons, 
 and subdues them by its spiritual arms. With what terror it 
 fills them, any one may know who would see how they fled, when 
 adjured by Christ, out of the bodies in which they dwelt. How 
 is it,’ he asks, ‘ that they only flee at the name of the true God?’ 
 
 EUSEBIUS*. ‘The things foretold by the prophets in the 
 Hebrew tongue long since, are in our own time being witnessed 
 in operation, and fulfilled ; and if you desire any other proofs of 
 the excellencies of the truth, shewing that it is not of a mortal 
 nature, but is really the Word of God, and that power of God 
 in the Saviour has been revealed not by words only, but by deeds, 
 attend now. What king‘, philosopher, lawgiver, or prophet, ever 
 effected so much that he should be preached throughout the whole 
 earth; and who bade his disciples go and testify of him and suffer 
 for his sake, and with the Word brought the deed to pass ? 
 What prince®, what armies ever, in spite of the constant opposi- 
 tion of all, went and prospered everywhere? Who! ever before 
 had a people after his own name, not in a corner of the world, 
 but among all barbarians and Greeks alike; and® by the doc- 
 
 * Adv. Gent. Lib. 11. ¢. 7. > Div. Instit. Lib. tv. c. 27. 
 
 ‘© Theoph. Lib. m1. ¢. 3. SED. acide erlOr eB, 
 f Ib. ¢. 9. $16. ¢:'10. 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 223 
 
 trines which he taught (being well confirmed by deeds) turned 
 men, yea, even the Egyptians, from idolatry*; and drove out 
 demons, so that the fountain of Castalia became silent, with that of 
 Colophon; the Pythian divinations ceased, the Clarian, the Nemean, 
 and likewise those of Delphos, Miletus, and Lebadia, so much 
 boasted of in ancient times? And where now are Amphilochus 
 and Mopsus, Amphiaraus, and Aisculapius, or the image of Am- 
 mon that was in the desert of Lybia? These? are clear and 
 irresistible proofs confirming the divine power of the Saviour, who 
 is therefore living and operative.’ Our author brings this argu- 
 ment to bear upon his own time more particularly, by designating 
 the churches rebuilt by Constantine under the very eyes of. their 
 destroyers, some of whom had themselves been converted mean- 
 while to the new doctrine. He continually reverts* with surprise 
 to the wide diffusion of Christianity, and to its overcoming every 
 opposition ; ‘for enemies,’ he observes4, ‘have not ceased to con- 
 tend with it from first to last. Yet, nevertheless, places of 
 instruction are everywhere established, and congregations are 
 gathered from among all, ascribing in songs of victory, honour to 
 the life-giving Word of God. Egyptians‘, Scythians, Italians, 
 Moors, Persians, and Hindoos, all and at once, have become wise 
 through the knowledge of God.’ 
 
 ‘If any one will consider? what numbers of Christians and 
 churches, with vast congregations, are said to exist in the East; 
 and how many there are of men and women desiring to come 
 over to holiness in Persia and India, and in like manner in the 
 western parts of the world; that throughout the whole of Spain, 
 and Gaul, and the country of the Moors and Africans, in the 
 islands of the ocean, and in Britain, men subseribe to Christ; if, 
 I say, one will consider these things, he will understand what is 
 the power of that prophetic word which declared, “ many shall 
 come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abra- 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” And? this 
 too has been effected by means of poor and illiterate men; for 
 had Christ brought it about by means of the intellectual, the 
 wise, the rich, the illustrious, we might have supposed the matter 
 to have been human; but he made use of no such disciples: on 
 the contrary, they were poor and despised, men ignorant in speech, 
 
 @ Theoph. Lib. ut. c. 18. PET Gsex Wis C10. 6. 34: 
 81D CARE: IODC) 108 Peo e: 79: 
 & Ib, Lib iv. c 4. Fon eG 
 
oot THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 Scythians in language, and in character humble and mean. Thus 
 by divine power, fishers became preachers.’ 
 
 In allusion® to the conversion of Constantine, our author says: 
 ‘now no more, as in former times, are the babblings of impious 
 men heard in the palace, but priests and pious men worship 
 together, and celebrate the divine Majesty. The Gospel of glad 
 tidings connects the human race with its Almighty King, and the 
 nations of the four quarters of the world are instructed at the 
 same moment in his precepts.’ 
 
 ATHANASIUS? pities ‘the blindness of the heathen in not 
 seeing that the works of him who was lifted up on the cross have 
 filled the whole earth, proving that he is the God and Saviour of 
 all men. To refuse to believe in Christ, because of the scandal 
 of his temporary humiliation, is as if any one should deny that 
 the world is lit by the sun, because it was obscured by a cloud.’ 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN¢® observes, that the multitude of 
 Christians is greatly to be wondered at. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM® shews how much more effect Christ has 
 produced than the philosophers, or Apollonius, and asks what 
 impostor ever had so many churches? He proposes to prove the 
 power of Christ, and therefore his divinity, from the establish- 
 ment and extent of his Church. He contends that it is not the 
 work of a mere man to establish in so short a time, and in so 
 depraved an age, such a religion over the whole earth as can 
 deliver men from many errors and evils. But what he conceives 
 to be ‘the most inexplicable part of the affair is, that Christ has 
 accomplished this without arms, money, or soldiers, but simply 
 by the instrumentality of eleven poor humble peasants, who have 
 been enabled to persuade a multitude of men to change their 
 opinions, not only as to things present, but as to things to come. 
 The laws of countries have been abrogated, the most ancient 
 customs abolished, the most inveterate habits up-rooted, for the 
 purpose of introducing entirely opposite usages and institutions. 
 Men have been led to resign their evil inclinations in favour of a 
 life the most difficult to follow, and from which they were by 
 
 “ Euseb. Orat. c. 10. » Cont. Gentes, c. 1. 
 ° Orat. 4 adv. Jul. e. 738. * Doctr. des Peres, Vol. u. p 1. 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 225 
 
 nature the farthest removed. Jesus Christ withdraws us from 
 sensual pleasures, to mortification; from the love of riches, to 
 that of poverty; from luxury, to temperance; from envy, to 
 charity ; from the broad and easy road, to a strict and narrow 
 way. Moreover this success has been attained in the face of an 
 universal opposition. Christ himself finished his life by the most 
 ignominious of deaths, and his followers have furnished a host of 
 martyrs.’ The facts of Christ’s crucifixion, and the subsequent 
 spread of the Gospel, are contrasted as matters which can neither 
 be denied, nor explained away. ‘Multitudes of men, converted 
 from being ravening wolves, to the gentleness of lambs, and who 
 speak of immortality, of the resurrection, and of the ineffable 
 blessedness of another life, far better than ever the Pagan philo- 
 sophers did, attest the marvellous power actuating them; and 
 this influence is by no means confined to any particular place or 
 city, but has penetrated solitudes, deserts, villages, islands, ports, 
 and the very vessels that traverse the sea. Nor is it attached 
 to any particular rank: kings have submitted their diadem to 
 the faith of the Crucified One, as well as all classes of their 
 subjects. The event also has shewn that it was no transitory 
 authority, which was gained by the Apostles; for even at the 
 present day, notwithstanding the violence and tortures, prejudice 
 and depravity of their enemies, the Gospel continues in full 
 force, whilst the mightiest kings and princes have often lived to 
 see their. own laws abrogated.’ 
 
 AUGUSTINE® argues that ‘the resurrection of the body was 
 once considered incredible; but now the whole world believes 
 that Christ’s body was taken up into heaven. Strange that 
 men, ignorant of all arts, without rhetoric, logic, or grammar, 
 plain fishermen, should be sent by Christ into the sea of this 
 world, only with nets of faith; and still more, that they 
 should draw such innumerable sorts of fishes, and among them 
 many philosophers.’ He considers this to be as antecedently 
 incredible as the resurrection of the body, and yet both are 
 found predicted by Christ. 
 
 After shewing> how unequal the most sublime maxims of 
 philosophy were to persuade the people, and that it is better to 
 have God in the heart than Plato in the mouth, our author 
 remarks that ‘these and greater truths have been propagated 
 
 * De Civ. Dei, Lib. xxi. c. 5. > De Ver. Relig. c. 8. 
 H. E. 15 
 
226 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 over the earth by the Gospel of Jesus Christ; which wonderful 
 conyersion proves him to have had an authority more than 
 human.” He then speaks of the multitudes who have turned 
 to Christ in the islands, in the deserts, in solitudes, having aban- 
 doned the wealth and honours of the world, in the cities, in 
 the towns, in the country, so that at this day almost all men, 
 everywhere declare, with one voice, that they have their hearts 
 lifted up unto the Lord. 
 
 Our investigation is thus brought to a close, and leaves little 
 more to be said but by way of recapitulation or reflection. 
 
 In the course of this Essay it has been my endeavour to 
 suggest what were the evidences adduced by the Apologists in 
 defence of Christianity ; to explain the circumstances, sense and 
 design, with which they were urged; and to illustrate and prove 
 the whole by sufficient, direct citation. 
 
 The result, it must be granted, is to establish both the repu- 
 tation and claims of the foregoing arguments. They are found 
 to be the inventions of wise and good men who have long since 
 gone their way, like Daniel escaped from the lions’ den and 
 the fiery furnace, ‘to stand in their lot at the end of days: as 
 such, they are to be revered for the sake of their authors’ 
 characters. They are found to be the identical addresses which, 
 under God, helped to allay the most furious moral tempest that 
 mankind was ever in; and, after the manner of the Saviour’s 
 words on the sea of Galilee, hushed the winds and the waves 
 into a great calm: as such, they are to be studied for the in- 
 fluence they once exerted in the world. They are found to be 
 methods of conviction at once scriptural and philosophical, ori- 
 cinal and thorough, even (as it may be said of them) to the 
 satisfying of the subject, not by exhausting its materials, but by 
 indicating and occupying its limits: as such, they are to be prized 
 in each succeeding age, for their own intrinsic and enduring 
 worth. Lastly, and just on these accounts, they are found, 
 though the fruits of bygone discussions, to be as unquestionable as 
 ever : as such, they are capable of being advantageously employed 
 by ourselves; an advantage to us above all others, and without 
 which, it is presumed, the present thesis would never have been 
 appointed for our consideration; but of which I feel sure, it has 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 227% 
 
 proved itself possessed in an eminent degree. What other or 
 more weighty considerations than these can be desired to establish 
 the value of any human opinions? And hence arises the reci- 
 procal obligation we are under with regard to them: 
 
 ‘Quisquis magna dedit, voluit sibi magna rependi.’ 
 
 It would seem as if we can scarcely do our duty, with regard to 
 the sacred cause which these pleas were intended to promote, and 
 of which every professing Christian may still be called the 
 modern apologist, in face of the array of sceptical and mythical 
 error, of the superstition, of the folly, of the licentiousness that 
 almost distinguish our age, without casting back an occasional 
 glance over the whole field of controversy. True we have not 
 to encounter the ancient opposition in precise terms. Centuries 
 have rolled away : the immediate conflict has become a matter of 
 history : the weapons, the mode of warfare, the foe, are in some 
 respects changed. But it is equally true, as we have before 
 observed, that this change is a limited one: specific, but not 
 generical: ‘a man’s foes are those of his own household’ still; 
 the weapon, though varied in shape, must yet be of metal; in 
 other words, our difficulties are but new cases of old objections ; 
 our enemies but fresh classes of the ancient schools of infidelity 
 and heresy; our appeals but the arguments revived, of these 
 time-worn apologies. Surely then it will be both wise and pru- 
 dent in us, to mark at least the general plan pursued by these 
 our predecessors in the moral suasion of mankind. I can only 
 notice some of the most prominent features of this plan. 
 
 Observe, that the earliest defenders of Christianity were 
 willing to test the truth of their cause in any and every accre- 
 dited way; by argument or abstract reasoning, more plausible 
 than the speculations of philosophy ; by testimony or external evi- 
 dence, more trustworthy than the traditions of other systems; and 
 by experience or subjective proof, more efficient, ample, and durable 
 than that of any human influence whatsoever ; in short, that 
 they placed Christianity upon a truly rational, a truly historical, 
 a truly moral foundation. Such a religion, they justly concluded, 
 was unique, must be true, must be divine. 
 
 A system that could thus levy tribute upon the whole world of 
 mind and matter, from metaphysics down to modern facts, seemed 
 to speak with an authority which neither scribes nor philoso- 
 hers had ever thought of assuming. Our authors, therefore, 
 
228 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE 
 
 inflamed with Christian zeal, and as men who felt themselves 
 debtors in many ways both to the Greeks and barbarians, to the 
 wise and unwise, did not feel themselves authorized in with- 
 holding anything out of this variety and plenitude, that was at 
 all likely to attract the attention of their fellow-men to the 
 momentous concerns of the soul. A star had led the magi to 
 Bethlehem; other providential tokens might conduct, though by 
 indirect ways, to equally blessed results. 
 
 But observe again, that as the apologists took care to col- 
 lect, so they also were mindful to combine these various argu- 
 ments. They had arranged all the spokes of the wheel pointing 
 to a common centre, they now bound them together with a 
 tire. Union, in the case of the evidences, they conceived to be 
 strength and symmetry, adaptation and use. No doubt they oc- 
 casionally applied themselves, in the heat of their spirit, to some 
 particular train of reasoning, called forth by the stress of the 
 times, just as an experienced pilot inclines the bow of his ship 
 to meet some threatening wave; but, as the same pilot when 
 the storm is over, returns to his true course, so are they seen, 
 while allowing the variation, preserving the rule of combination. 
 Indeed, to such an extent was this habit of presenting the whole 
 forefront at once to the enemy carried out, that with a few ex- 
 ceptions, it would be impossible to distinguish the Apologists one 
 from another by any peculiar mode of ratiocination; and per- 
 haps nothing they did went further towards convincing the world 
 of the divine character of Christianity, than their perpetual 
 exhibition of its comprehensiveness, completeness and perfection. 
 
 Observe, moreover, with reference to the practice of our authors, 
 the one object to which they turned these united appliances, viz. 
 the exaltation of the risen Saviour. Like the great apostle, into 
 whose labours they had entered, and whose spirit they had im- 
 bibed, they preached not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; 
 and were servants to others for his sake. One object, one 
 motive made them more than content to sink their own will and 
 renown in their Master’s, and their own happiness in that of 
 their fellow-creatures. To these ends they welcomed even the 
 stake, the rack, the mine. What an impassable gulf does a 
 principle like this place between the Christian and the heathen. 
 philosopher ; between the self-seeking of the latter, and the 
 self-dedication of the former! Granting that they were both 
 moral (which however is not the case), here is a further difference 
 
SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 229 
 
 in kind, as well as in degree. To compare them, is to bring the 
 cold and inanimate statue into competition with the warm and 
 active hero it represents, the true messenger of God doing more 
 than an angel’s work, ‘ the highest style of man!’ And how can so 
 miraculous a contrast (for it is nothing less) be explained in the 
 case of an uniform series, like that which the Apologists present, 
 but on the supposition of the renewing of the natural mind by 
 the Holy Spirit’s power, even as the subjects of it themselves 
 declared, one and all? Would that such an influential object 
 were always ours, and that we who call ourselves Christians in 
 these peaceful but ensnaring days, bore more constantly in mind 
 the responsibilities incurred, together with the dignity assumed, 
 by reason simply of our name and profession ! 
 
 Once more, it is a point not to be overlooked in the general 
 plan of apologetical defence, that the ante-nicene Fathers of the 
 Church occupied true protestant ground. They clearly shew the 
 practicability, and at the same time the propriety, of proving the 
 truth of Christianity independently, and without the aid of any 
 tradition or unwritten word. ‘The means of becoming acquainted 
 with the will of God, according to the fathers, are Scripture and 
 reason; the latter subordinate to the former!’ It is, probably, 
 the obvious inference from this matter of fact, that has led some 
 of the Romanists, as Perrone, Wiseman, Cardinal de la Luzerne, 
 with others*, to confess that they rely in the first instance for 
 proof of the authority of the Church on Scripture, considered 
 merely as a human document, and sustained by human testimony ; 
 and then employ the authority of the true Church, to determine 
 its interpretation and to establish its inspiration; but, this while 
 it acknowledges the dilemma they are in, only transfers the dif- 
 ficulty from one horn to another. It was a case of not arguing 
 at all before; it is as clearly a case of arguing in a circle now. 
 
 These are but a few hints respecting the scheme of the Apo- 
 logists ; others equally important have, no doubt, suggested them- 
 selves to the reader’s mind, which he can prosecute more at 
 leisure. 
 
 The author has only further to hope, in committing his 
 humble attempt to the public, that with such a directory as is 
 thus placed in their hands, some may be induced to renew their 
 interest in the evidences for the truth of Christianity; and that 
 
 1 Tennemann’s Man. of Phil. p. 212. 
 ? Palmer On Develop. and Conse. ¢. 2, p. 83. 
 
930 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SUCCESS OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 all the people of God who may honour its pages with a perusal, — 
 may feel constrained by the whole survey, to unite and encourage 
 one another in language which David himself meant to be figura- 
 tive and prophetic: ‘ Walk about Zion, go round about her ; tell 
 the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her 
 palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. For _ 
 this God is our God for ever and ever; He will be our guide |. 
 even unto death’. 
 
 APs exis 214, 
 
 THE END. 
 
" 
 ne 
 
 4