Meffiah; and if he was, what were the confequences, what was the object and benefit of his mission?

The general obfervation which has been made upon the apof tolic writings, namely, that the fubject, of which they treated, did not lead them to any direct recital of the Christian history, belongs alfo to the writings of the apoftolic fathers. The epiftle of Barnabas is, in its fubject and general compofition, much like the epiftle to the Hebrews; an allegorical application of divers paffages of the Jewish history, of their law and ritual, to those parts of the Chriftian difpenfation, in which the author perceived a refemblance. The epiftle of Clement was written, for the fole purpose of quieting certain diffenfions that had arisen amongst the members of the church of Corinth; and of reviving, in their minds, that temper and spirit of which their predeceffors in the gofpel had left them an example. The work of Hermas is a vifion; quotes neither the Old Testament nor the New; and merely falls now and then into the language, and the mode of speech, which the author had read in our gofpels. The epiftles of Polycarp and Ignatius had, for their principal object, the order and difcipline of the churches which they addreffed. Yet, under all thefe circumftances of difadvantage, the great points of the Christian history are fully recognized. This hath been fhown its proper place.

a

There is, however, another clafs of writers, to whom the anfwer above given, viz. the unfuitablenefs of any fuch appeals or references as the objection demands: to the fubjects of which the writings treated, does not apply; and that is, the clafs of ancient apologifts, whofe declared defign it was, to defend Chrif tianity, and to give the reafons of their own adherence to it. It is neceffary, therefore, to inquire how the matter of the ob jection ftands in these.

The most ancient apologist, of whofe works we have the smalleft knowledge, is Quadratus, who lived about feventy years af ter the afcenfion, and prefented his apology to the emperor AdFrom a paffage of this work, preferved in Eufebius, it appears that the author did directly and formally appeal to the miracles of Chrift, and in terms as exprefs and confident as we could defire. The paffage (which has been once already stated) is as follows: "The works of our Saviour were always con. fpicuous, for they were real: both they that were healed, and

a P. 72-74.

they that were raised from the dead, were feen, 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; infomuch as that some of them have reached to our times."a Nothing can be more rational or fatisfactory than this.

Juftin Martyr, the next of the Christian apologists whose work is not loft, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty years, has touched upon paffages of Chrift's hiftory in fo many places, that a tolerably complete account of Chrift's life might be collected out of his works. In the following quotation, he afferts the performance of miracles by Chrift, in words as ftrong and pofitive as the language poffeffes: "Chrift healed those who from their birth were blind, and deaf, and lame; caufing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and a third to fee; and having raised the dead, and caufed them to live, he by his works excited attention, and induced the men of that age to know him. Who, however, feeing thefe things done, faid that it was a magical appearance; and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people."b

In his first apology, Juftin exprefsly affigns the reafon for his having recourfe to the argument from prophecy, rather than alleging the miracles of the Chriftian hiftory: which reafon was, that the perfons with whom he contended would afcribe thefe miracles to magic; "left any of our opponents fhould fay, what hinders, but that he who is called Chrift by us, being a man fprung from men, performed the miracles which we attributed to him by magical art." The fuggefting of this reafon. meets, as I apprehend, the very point of the prefent objection.; more efpecially when we find Juftin followed in it, by other writers of that age. Irenæus, who came about forty years after him, notices the fame evafion in the adverfaries of Christianity, and replies to it by the fame argument: "But, if they fhall fay, that the Lord performed thefe things by an illufory appearance, (Pavariadas) leading thefe objectors to the prophecies, we will how from them that all things were thus predicted concerning him, and strictly came to pass.' "d Lactantius, who lived a century lower, delivers the fanie fentiment, upon the fame occafion. "He performed miracies-we might have fuppofed him to have

a. Euf, Hift. 1. iv. c. 3. b Juft. Dial. p. 258. ed. Thirlby.
d Ir.,l. ii. c. 57

CAp. Prim. p. 48 ib.

been a magician, as ye fay, and as the Jews then fuppofed, if all the prophets had not with one spirit foretold, that Christ would perform these very things."a

But to return to the Christian apologists in their order; Tertullian-"That perfon, whom the Jews had vainly imagined, from the meannefs of his appearance, to be a mere man, they afterwards, in confequence of the power he exerted, confidered as a magician, when he, with one word, ejected devils out of the bodies of men, gave fight to the blind, cleanfed the leprous, ftrengthened the nerves of thofe that had the palfy, and laftly, with one command, restored the dead to life; when he, I fay, made the very elements obey him, affuaged the ftorms, walked upon the feas, demonftrating himself to be the word of God."b

Next in the catalogue of profeffed apologifts we may place Origen, who, it is well known, publifhed a formal defence of Christianity, in answer to Celfus, a heathen, who had written a difcourfe against it. I know no expreffions, by which a plainer or more pofitive appeal to the Chriftian miracles could be made, than the expreffions used by Origen: "Undoubtedly we do think him to be the Christ, and the Son of God, becaufe he healed the lame and the blind; and we are the more confirmed in this perfuafion, by what is written in the prophecies, Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf fhall hear, and the lame men fhall leap as an hart. But that he also raised the dead, and that it is not a fiction of thofe who wrote the gospels, is evident from hence, that, if it had been a fiction, there would have been many recorded to be raifed up, and fuch as had been a long time in their graves. But, it not being a fiction, few have been recorded; for inftance, the daughter of the ruler of a fynagogue, of whom I do not know why he faid, She is not dead but fleepeth, expreffing fomething peculiar to her, not common to all dead perfons; and the only fon of a widow, on whom he had compaffion and raised to life, after he had bid the bearer of the corpfe to ftop; and the third, Lazarus, who had been buried four days." This is pofitive to affert the miracles of Chrift, and it is alfo to comment upon them, and that with a confiderable degree of accuracy and candour.

a Lact. v. 3.

Tertull. Apolog, p 20. ed. Priorii Par. 1675,

In another paffage of the fame author,a we meet with the old folution of magic, applied to the miracles of Chrift by the adverfaries of the religion. "Celfus," faith Origen, "well know. ing what great works may be alleged to have been done by Jefus, pretends to grant that the things related of him are true; fuch as healing difeafes, raifing the dead, feeding multitudes with a few loaves, of which large fragments were left." And

then Celfus gives, it seems, an answer to these proofs of our Lord's miffion, which, as Origen understood it, refolved the phenomena into magic; for Origen begins his reply, by observing, "You fee that Celfus, in a manner allows that there is fuch a thing as magic."

" b

It appears alfo from the teftimony of St. Jerome, that Por phyry, the most learned and able of the heathen writers against Christianity, reforted to the fame folution: "Unlefs," fays he, fpeaking to Vigilantius, "according to the manner of the Gentiles, and the profane, of Porphyry and Eunomius, you pretend that thefe are the tricks of demons."

This magic, thefe demons, this illufory appearance, this com parifon with the tricks of jugglers, by which many of that age accounted fo eafily for the Chriftian miracles, and which anfwers the advocates of Chriftianity often thought it neceffary to refute by arguments drawn from other topics, and particularly from prophecy, to which, it feems, thefe folutions did not apply, we now perceive to be grofs fubterfuges. That fuch reafons were ever seriously urged, and seriously received, is only proof what a glofs and varnish fashion can give to any opinion.

It appears, therefore, that the miracles of Chrift, understood, as we understand them, in their literal and hiftorical fenfe, were pofitively and precifely afferted and appealed to by the apologists for Chriftianity; which anfwers the allegation of the objection.

I am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Christian advocates did not infift upon the miracles in argument, fo frequently as I fhould have done. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency, against which the mere produċtion of the facts was not fufficient for the convincing of their adverfaries: I do not know whether they themselves thought

a Or. Con. Celf. lib. ii. fec. 48.

♦ Lard, Jewish and Heath. Test. vol. IL. p. 294, ed. quarto,
Jerome Con. Vigil..

it quite decifive of the controverfy. But fince it is proved, I -conceive with certainty, that the fparingness with which they -appealed to miracles, was owing neither to their ignorance, nor their doubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, an objection, not to the truth of the history, but to the judgment of its defenders.

CHAP. VI.

Want of univerfality in the knowledge and reception of Christianity, and of greater clearness in the evidence.

OF a revelation which came from God, the proof, it has

been faid, would in all ages be fo public and manifest, that no part of the human species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding could fail of being convinced by it.

The advocates of Chriftianity do not pretend that the evidence of their religion poffeffes thefe qualities. They do not deny, that we can conceive it to be within the compafs of divine power, to have communicated to the world a higher degree of affurance, and to have given to his communication a ftronger and more extenfive influence. For any thing we are able to difcern, God could have fo formed men, as to have perceived the truths of religion intuitively; or to have carried on a communication with the other world, whilft they lived in his; or to have feen the individuals of the fpecies, instead of dying, pafs to heaven by a fenfible tranflation. He could have prefented a feparate miracle to each man's fenfes. He could have established a standing miracle. He could have caufed miracles to be wrought in every different age and country. Thefe, and many more methods, which we may imagine, if we once give loose to our imaginations, are, so far as we can judge, all practicable.

The queftion, therefore, is not, whether Christianity poffeffes the highest poffible degree of evidence, but whether the not having more evidence, be a fufficient reafon for rejecting that which we have.

Now there appears to be no fairer method of judging, concerning any difpenfation which is alleged to come from God, when a queftion is made whether fuch a difpenfation could come. from God or not, than by comparing it with other things, which are acknowledged to proceed from the fame council, and to be