names, and the invocation of certain dæmons. Origen remarks on this paffage, that the Author doubtless hints at thofe Chriftians who put to flight evil spirits, and healed those who were poffeffed with them; a fact which had been often seen, and which he himself had seen, as he declares in another part of his difcourfe against Celfus. But at the fame time he affures us, that this miraculous power was exerted by the use of no other name but that of Jefus, to which were added feveral paffages in his hiftory, but nothing like any invocation to Dæmons.

III. Celfus was fo hard fet with the report of our Saviour's miracles, and the confident attestations concerning him, that though he often intimates he did not believe them to be true, yet knowing he might be filenced in fuch an anfwer, provides himself with another retreat, when beaten out of this; namely, that our Saviour was a magician. Thus he compares the feeding of fo many thoufands at two different times with a few loaves and fishes, to the magical feafts of those Egyptian impoftors, who would prefent their fpectators with vifionary entertainments that had in them neither fubftance nor reality: which by the way, is to fuppofe, that a hungry and fainting multitude were filled by an apparition, or ftrengthned and refreshed with fhadows. He knew very well that there were fo many witneffes and actors, if I may call them fuch, in these two miracles, that it was impoffible to refute fuch multitudes, who had doubtlefs fufficiently fpread the fame of them, and was therefore in this place forced to refort to the other folution, that it was done by magic. It was not enough to fay that a miracle

which appeared to fo many thousand eye-witneffes was a forgery of Christ's difciples, and therefore fuppofing them to be eye-witneffes, he endeavours to fhew how they might be deceived.

IV. The uncontroverted heathens, who were preffed by the many authorities that confirmed our Saviour's miracles, as well as the unbelieving Jews, who had actually feen, them, were driven to account for them after the fame manner: For, to work by magic in the heathen way of speaking, was in the language of the Jews to caft out devils by Beelzebub the Prince of the devils. Our Saviour, who knew, that unbelievers in all ages would put this perverfe interpretation on his, miracles, has branded the malignity of those men, who contrary to the dictates of their own hearts started such an unreasonable objection, as a blafphemy against the Holy Ghost, and decla red not only the guilt, but the punishment of fo black a crime. At the fame time he condescended to fhew the vanity and emptinefs of this ob jection against his miracles, by reprefenting that they evidently tended to the deftruction of thofe powers, to whofe affiftance the enemies of his doctrine then aferibed them. An argument, which, if duly weighed, renders the objection fo very frivolous and groundless, that we may venture to call it even blafphemy against common fenfe. Would Magic endeavour to draw off the minds of men from the worship which was paid to stocks and ftones, to give them an abhorrence of those evil spirits who rejoiced in the most cruel facri-. fices, and in offerings of the greatest impurity; : and in fhort to call upon mankind to exert their whole ftrength in the love and adoration of that e

one

one being, from whom they derived their exifténce, and on whom only they were taught to depend every moment for the happiness and continuance of it? Was it the bufinefs of magic to humanize our natures with compaffion, forgiveness, and all the inftances of the most extenfive charity? Would evil fpirits contribute to make men fober, chafte, and temperate, and in a word to produce that reformation, which was wrought in the moral world by those doctrines of our Saviour, that received their Sanction from his miracles? Nor is it poffible to imagine, that evil fpirits would enter into a combination with our Saviour to cut off all their correfpondence and intercourfe with mankind, and to prevent any for the future from addicting themfelves to thofe rites and ceremonies, which had done them fo much honour. We fee the early effect which Chriftianity had on the minds of men in this particular, by that number of books, which were filled with the fecrets of magic, and made a facrifice to Christianity by the converts mentioned in the Acts of the Apoftles. We have likewife an eminent inftance of the inconfiftency of our Religion with magic, in the hiftory of the famous Aquila. This Perfon, who was a kinfman of the Emperor Trajan, and likewife a man of great learning, notwithstanding he had embraced Chrif tianity, could not be brought off from the ftudies of magic, by the repeated admonitions of his fellow-christians: fo that at length they expelled him their fociety, as rather choofing to lole the reputation of fo confiderable a Profelyte, than communicate with one who dealt in fuch dark and infernal practices. Befides we may obferve,

that

that all the favourers of magic were the moft profeft and bitter enemies to the chriftian religion. Not to mention Simon Magus and many others, I fhall only take notice of those two great perfecutors of chriftianity, the Emperors Adrian and Julian the Apoftate, both of them initiated in the myfteries of divination, and skilled in all the depths of magic. I fhall only add, that evil fpirits cannot be fuppofed to have concurred in the eftablishment of a religion which triumphed over them, drove them out of the places they poffeft, and divefted them of their influence on mankind: nor would I mention this particular, though it be unanimously reported by all the ancient chriftian Authors; did it not appear from the authorities above cited, that this was a fact confeft by heathens themselves.

V. We now see what a multitude of Pagan teftimonies may be produced for all thofe remarkable paffages, which might have been expected from them and indeed of feveral, that, I believe, do more than answer your expectation, as they were not fubjects in their own nature fo exposed to public notoriety. It cannot be expected they fhould mention particulars, which were tranfacted amongst the Difciples only, or among fome few even of the Difciples themfelves; fuch as the transfiguration, the agony in the garden, the appearance of Chrift after his refurrection, others of the like nature. It was impoffible for a heathen author to relate these things; becaufe if he had believed them, he would no longer have been a heathen, and by that means his teftimony would not have been thought of fo much vali-~ dity. Befides, his very report of facts fo favou

and

rable

rable to Chriftanity would have prompted men to, fay that he was probably tainted with their doctrine. We have a parallel cafe in Hecatœus, a famous Greek Hiftorian, who had feveral paffages in his book conformable to the hiftory of the Jewish writers, which when quoted by fofephus, as a confirmation of the Jewish hiftory, when his heathen adverfaries could give no other answer to it, they would need fuppofe that Hecateus was a few in his heart, though they had no other reason for it, but because his hiftory gave greater authority to the Jewish than the Egyptian Records.

I. Introduction to a fecond lift of Pagan Author$, who give teftimony of our Saviour.

II. A paffage concerning our Saviour, from a learned

-Athenian.

III. His converfion from Paganifm to Christianity. makes his evidence ftronger than if he had continued a Pagan,

IV. Of another Athenian Philofopher converted to Christianity.

V. Why their converfion, instead of weakening, ftrengthens their evidence in defence of Chriftianity. VI. Their belief in our Saviour's hiftory founded at firft upon the principles of historical faith.