MA S TER 
 NEGATIVE 
 NO. 93-81199 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be **used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research.*' If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes In excess of "fair 
 use,'* that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order If, In Its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 JEREMIE, JAMES 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 NO VALID ARGUMENT 
 
 DRAWN FROM 
 
 CAN 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 CAMBRI 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1826 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Restrictions on Use: S 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 239 
 
 L99 Jeremie, Jamos Amiraux 1802-72 
 
 No valid argiicent cun bo drawn from the incre* 
 dulity of the heathen philoabphers cgainct the truth of 
 the Chrictitui rcliprion ... 
 
 Cambridge cEngj 1826 6 ♦ 84 4^ tlj p ( Cambridge 
 (Eng) university. >Jorrician prize oasays 1825) 
 
 Bound with 
 
 nno{^^ 
 
 ther work 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: _3f_^^__ REDUCTION RATIO: //X 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA (UX) IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED:_3-2:^_>i23 INITIALS.'irW^f^,, 
 
 HLMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODDRIDCE. CT 
 
c 
 
 Association tor Information and Image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiliii 
 
 8 
 
 ml 
 
 ft 
 
 9 10 n 
 
 liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil 
 
 iimiiiiiiMi 
 
 12 13 14 
 
 iiliiiiliiiiliiiilim 
 
 15 mm 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 
 
 I IT 
 
 MT 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 TTT 
 
 ■ 5^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ■to 
 
 12° 
 
 U 
 
 2.8 
 
 3.2 
 
 3.6 
 
 |4£ 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 I II I I II 
 5 
 
 W . 4> 
 
 MRNUFRCTURED TO fillM STRNDRRDS 
 BY fiPPLIED IMRGE, INC. 
 
I H 
 
 NO VALID ARGUMENT 
 
 h 
 
 ^1 
 
 CAN BE DRAWN 
 
 FROM THE INCREDULITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS . 
 
 AGAINST THE TRUTH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 
 \l 
 
 -^^4 
 
 An essay, 
 
 which obtained the norrisian medal for the year 1825, 
 in the university of cambridge. 
 
 By JAMES AMIRAUX JEREMIE, B. A. 
 
 FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 
 Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the UnWenity; 
 
 SOLD BY C. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL's CHURCH-YARD, 
 
 AND J. HATCHARD & SON, PICCADILLY, LONDON; J. Sc J. J. DEIGHTON, 
 
 T. STEVENSON, AND R. NEWBY, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 1826 
 
i 
 
 TO 
 
 THE REVEREND 
 
 JOHN BANKS HOLLINGWORTH, D.D, 
 
 NORRISIAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY; 
 
 TttE FOLLOWING ESSAY 
 
 I 
 
 IS 
 
 ; RF^PECTFULLY INSCRIBED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Trinity Coixege, 
 Dec. 21, 1826. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Published in compliance with the Will of Mr. Norris, 
 6y whom the Prize was instituted. 
 
 y ■ ■ l< 
 
 } 
 
 V i 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 - Page 
 
 Antecedent improbability that the Philosophers should - 
 have embraced Christianity shewn, 
 
 I. From a comparison of the Tenets of the Chief Sects 
 with the Doctrines of Revelation 3 
 
 II. From an examination of certain Principles common to 
 all the Sects and unfavourable to Christianity. 
 
 1. General Contempt for all Doctrines originating with 
 the People 13 
 
 2. General Attachment to the Established Religion .... 16 
 S. General Adoption of Opinions hostile to Christianity . 21 
 4. Pride of the Philosophers 28 
 
 III. From Considerations on the influence of those motives 
 which the Philosophers shared with the rest of man- 
 kind. 
 
 1. Dislike to Change of Opinion 29 
 
 2. Fear of Danger 31 
 
 Part I. 
 
 General Causes of the Incredulity of the Philosophers 35 
 
 I. Contempt for the Rank and Acquirements of the 
 Primitive Christians 36 
 
 II. Contempt for the Religious Rites of the Primitive ; 
 Christians 41 
 
 III. Contempt for the Peculiar Doctrines of Christianity . . 47 
 
 IV. Contempt for the Evidence of Miracles and Prophecy 53 
 V. Contempt for the Sufferings and Martyrdoms of the 
 
 early Christians $$ 
 
 VI. Mistakes of the early Christians 59 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Particular Causes of the Incredulity of the Philosophers 
 and Learned Men 62 
 
 Seneca — Pliny the Elder — Plutarch 63 
 
 Tacitus — Pliny the Yoimger — Epictetus — Marcus Antoni- 
 nus— Lucian 68 
 
 Celsus— Porphyry— Julian, &c 72 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The Incredulity of the Philosophers forms an argument in 
 favour of the Truth and Necessity of Christianity 80 
 
 ♦ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 There are certain arguments against the truth of 
 Christianity, which are calculated to operate with 
 considerable force on the best disposed minds, not 
 because they are sound in their premises, and valid 
 m their conclusions, but because all method of 
 refutation must, from the very nature of the sub- 
 ject, be attended with peculiar difficulty. This is 
 particularly the case, when the attack may be 
 conveyed in a brief and pointed remark, which 
 as It requires neither depth of thought, nor extent 
 of research, is easily seized and rapidly commu- 
 nicated:— while the defence involves a long and 
 laborious investigation, embracing not merely an 
 accurate knowledge of historical events, but a 
 comprehensive view of the influence of habits 
 and opinions, of interests and passions, of situa- 
 tion and circumstance, on the character and con-, 
 duct of man. 
 
 Of this nature is the consideration of the 
 neglect which Revelation experienced from a class 
 of persons, who might have been deemed most 
 qualified by the superiority of their intellectual 
 powers and of their moral sentiments, to appreciate 
 
 A 
 
its evideuees, luul discover its excellence. The 
 unfavourable inference \ drawn from this fact, 
 produces an immediate effect, which can be but 
 slowly counteracted by the intricate process of 
 collecting scattered details, and of analyzing com- 
 plex motives. But the prejudices of early educa- 
 tion, — the tone of feeling and the cast of thought 
 which it has left,— have contributed in an emi- 
 nent degree to give undue importance to the 
 objection. The dominion of Greece and Rome 
 has indeed passed away : but the genius of their 
 literature still lives, the lustre of their glory still 
 deludes. The very names of those sages, whose 
 speculations have opened to us the source of the 
 most exquisite pleasures, purifying the taste and 
 elevating the imagination, awaken, as by some 
 magical impression, a train of vivid associations, 
 which beguile the judgement into a false estimate 
 of the tendency of their most attractive theories. 
 Ancient philosophy has been identified with men- 
 tal greatness. Her image seems enthroned on 
 the treasures of genius and learning, and a veil 
 of indescribable majesty is thrown over it, which 
 forbids the intrusion of enquiry. But, if we may 
 extend the figure, in proportion as we examine 
 
 * The objection has been thus briefly stated by Warbur- 
 ton: " If this religion, say the Deists, were accompanied with 
 such illustrations and extraordinary marks of truth as is pre- 
 tended ; how happened it that its truth was not seen by 
 more of the best and wisest of those times ? And, if it were 
 seen (as it certainly was) how could they continue Pagans ?" 
 (Div. Leg. vol. I. p. 443.) It was chiefly urged by Gibbon in 
 the latter part of the fifteenth chapter of his Decline and 
 iFsAl of the Roman Empire. 
 
 r I 
 
 V 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 1 1 
 
 2 
 
 it more closely, ue shall find, that, when divested 
 of its imposing ornaments, it loses much of its 
 apparent beauty, and we shall trace in its form 
 and in its features, not only a want of resem- 
 blance, but a marked expression of hostility, to 
 the prominent characteristics of Christianity. 
 
 These reflections may prepare us for the re- 
 mark—that the whole objection is built upon one 
 assumption, and that assumption is false. It neces- 
 sarily asserts— that it might have been expected 
 that the philosophers would have examined the 
 system, and acknowledged the inspiration of the 
 Christian religion. On the solidity of this foun- 
 dation must rest the inference— that, since some 
 silently rejected, others contemptuously noticed, 
 and others unrelentingly persecuted it, there is 
 no reason for believing it to be so perfect or so 
 well attested as its defenders maintain. We en- 
 tirely deny the premises. We contend that this 
 expectation could not have been formed by any 
 person, who was truly acquainted with the genius 
 and principles of heathen philosophy. It will be 
 requisite, therefore, before we enter more imme- 
 diately upon the actual causes which account for 
 the incredulity of the philosophers, to shew that 
 there is antecedently a strong improbability that 
 they should have embraced the Christian faith. 
 
 Let us present to our minds the state of the 
 principal sects,— the Stoics, the Epicureans, the 
 Academics, —and it will be difficult to answer the 
 questions :— which was most likely to receive the 
 new religion? where shall we look for congenial 
 motives and correspondent views? where shall 
 
 A2 
 
we discover an appropriateness of character and 
 a consonance of doctrine ? 
 
 Shall we seek this unison in Stoicism *? But, 
 favourable as that system unquestionably proved 
 to the exertion of high qualities, it was widely 
 discordant from Christianity in its tenets and in 
 its spirit. Christianity requires a conviction of 
 our insufficiency^— a sense of our fallen nature ; 
 but Stoicism enjoins a persuasion of our capabi- 
 litie^it rests on the excellence of the human 
 hearty and the infallibility of the human judge- 
 ment '. Christianity breathes a deep tone of hu- 
 mility, and pours its blessings on the 'poor in 
 spirit;' but Stoicism demands an exalted profes- 
 sion of pride, and lavishes its encomiums on that 
 unnatural inflexibility, which, rising above all 
 earthly controul, would refuse to bend even before 
 
 ' The Stoics are here placed first, as being the sect often 
 supposed to be the least removed from the spirit of Christ- 
 ianity. « Stoici nostro dogmati in plerisque concordant," is 
 the assertion of St. Jerome (In Esaiam Comm. ii.) Josephus 
 with more propriety has compared them to the Pharisees 
 (In Vit). 
 
 * See the presumptuous assertions of Chrysippus in Plu- 
 tarch. De Comm. Not. adv. Stoic, and in Stob. Eclog. Eth. lib. ii. 
 Seneca is not less extravagant, e.g. "Jupiter quo antecedit 
 virum bonum ? diutius bonus est." (Ep. Ixxiii.) " Est aliquid, 
 quo sapiens antecedat Deum: ille naturae beneficio non timet, 
 suo sapiens. Ecce res magna, habere imbecillitatem hominis, 
 securitatem Dei." (Ep. liii.) " Hoc est summum bonum, quod 
 si occupas, incipis Deorum esse socius, non supplex." (Ep. 
 xxxi.) See also Ep. lix. Ixxxvii. and particularly Ep. Ixxiii. 
 Epictet. Dissert. I. cap. 12. Lipsius, the devoted admirer of 
 the Stoics, is unable to follow them to these lengths. (Manud. 
 ad Stoic. Phil. lib. iii.) 
 
 1 'I r 
 
 i 
 
 the powers of the invisible world ^ Christianity, 
 founded on universal charity, inculcates the full 
 exercise of the benevolent aflections ; but Stoi- 
 cism finds its perfection in the indulgence of an 
 apathy, which, by stifling emotions that spring 
 from our original constitution, would corrupt and 
 destroy every social virtue;— a wise man, in its 
 language, is unmoved by the misfortunes of his 
 country, the death of his children, or the slavery 
 of his friends ». The Christian trusts in a spiri- 
 tual God, whom ' heaven, and the heaven of hea- 
 vens' cannot contain ; but the Stoic believes in 
 a deity of circumscribed power and restricted will, 
 unable to change the qualities of matter, and 
 chained down by an over-ruling fete". The 
 Christian ' rejoices in hope :' but the Stoic looks 
 forward to annihilation,— with him the existence 
 of the soul may possibly be extended to a long 
 period, but is unsusceptible of eternal duration ° 
 The Christian expects, that when all the follies 
 and all the crimes of this life shall have closed, a 
 day of solemn retribution will arise : but the Stoic 
 rejects all theories of rewards and punishments as 
 
 « See, for instance, the picture of Cato as drawn bv 
 Lucan. ■' 
 
 ' See Ep. kxiv. 96. De Clement, cap. 4, 5. Cic. pro Mu- 
 rena. The different views of mercy taken by the Stoic and by 
 the Christian, have been marked by Clemens Alexandrinus 
 (Strom, iv.) and by other Fathers. 
 
 ' Senec. de Provid. cap. 5. Conf. Lucan. ii. 
 
 ^ Cic. Tuscul. i. 32. Diog. Laert. in Zenon. (lib. viii. u6 
 157.) See also a fragment of Arius Didymus in Eusebius 
 (Praep. Evang. xv. 20.) Gataker. Annot. in Marc. Anton. 
 
the puerile inventions of the poet to dehght the 
 romantic, or of the legislator to alarm the igno- 
 rant^ Lastly, the Christian, in evil days, and 
 among evil men, though his ' bones be broken' 
 with affliction, and his ' eyes be weary with look- 
 ing upward/ is still patiently resigned to the will 
 of the Supreme Intelligence in his language and 
 in his life : but the Stoic^ even in maintaining his 
 noted paradox — that pain is no evil, — ever justi- 
 fies and often recommends a violent departure 
 from this world of pain^. — Now, we ask, was 
 this rigid despiser of future hopes as of present 
 cares, with whom forgiveness was synonymous 
 with meanness, and pity with imbecility, likely to 
 be impressed with a favourable disposition towards 
 that religion, which professed 'to bring immor- 
 tality to light;' which spoke of the ' tender mer- 
 cies' of the heavenly Father; which described its 
 Founder as 'a man of sorrows,' who lamented over 
 the fallen Jerusalem, and prayed earnestly in his 
 
 • Epictet. ap. Arrian. lib. iii. cap. 13. Senec. ad Marciam, 
 cap. 19* 
 
 ^ Epictet. lib. i. Dissert, cap. 24. Diog. Laert. in Zenon. 
 Senec. Ep. xxvi. Ixix. In his treatise de Ira (lib. iii. cap. 15.) 
 he thus pursues the subject in a train of cold declamation : 
 "Quocunque respexeris, ibi malorum finis est. Vides ilium 
 praecipitem locum? iliac ad libertatem descenditur. Vides 
 iilud mare, illud flumen, ilium puteum ? libertas illic in imo 
 sedet. Vides illam arborem brevem, retorridam, infelicem? 
 pendet inde libertas. Vides jugulum tuum, guttur tuum, cor 
 tuum? efFugia servitutis sunt. Nimis tibi operosos exitus 
 monstramus, et multum animi ac roboris exigentes. Qusris, 
 quod sit ad libertatem iter? quaelibet in corpore tuo vena/' 
 (0pp. T.I. p. 119.) 
 
 \ 
 
 \{ 
 
 agony, and poured out his soul in death ? ' Jesus 
 wept'— is an expression which alone would raise 
 the sneer of the heartless sage: — 'he was made 
 in the likeness of men*— would excite his unqua- 
 lified indignation. 
 
 It would be unnecessary to prove, what few 
 can be inclined to deny, that it would have met 
 with no promising reception from Epicurism— 
 tliat demoralizing system, which referred all hu- 
 man actions to pleasure, as the great end of 
 life'%- which sunk its deities in supine indolence, 
 
 ^^ See the letter of Epicurus to Menaeceus in Diog. Laert. 
 lib. X. Cic. de Fin. lib. i. cap. 21. W^e do not deny that Epi- 
 curus himself condemned these violent delights which disturb 
 the gentle stream of a happy life (Senec. Ep. Ixvi. &c.); 
 nor do we deny that his main principle has been, with a 
 slight variation, the ground of many systems of ethics, which 
 were not designed to loosen the bonds of moral obligation, 
 —indeed we know not if it has been sufficiently observed 
 that it may be traced in the reasonings of Socrates in the 
 Protagoras of Plato: — but we assert that, whatever may 
 have been the intention of Epicurus, his tenets, by resolving 
 all duties into nice calculations of the proportions of pains and 
 pleasures, furnished apologies for sloth and profligacy, and 
 opened a wide field for misrepresentations and mistakes! We 
 speak not conjecturally : we appeal to facts. A long list of 
 writers found it difficult to apprehend, or easy to pervert, his 
 system. Among these are Cicero, Plutarch, Athengeus, Boe- 
 thius, Maximus Tyrius, Sidonius Apollinaris, and many others, 
 quoted by Gassendi, in his elaborate defence of Epicurus! 
 Allowing that all these authors gave a wrong statement, 
 can it be pretended that the theory was clearly laid down ? 
 Bayle himself confesses : « quant a la doctrine touchant le 
 souverain bien ou le bonheur, elle etoit fort propre a etre 
 mal interpretee, et il en resulta de mauvais effets qui decri- 
 erent sa secte." (Diet. Hist.) The abandoned Piso became 
 an Epicurean—" captus uno verbo voluptatis" (Cic. Or. post 
 
 red.) 
 
8 
 
 and represented them as utterly regardless of the 
 afiairs of men"; which taught that the rude 
 dash of chance formed those exquisite images in 
 the material world, which baffle the highest 
 efforts of labour and of conception '\ Would the 
 Epicurean, the undissembling egotist, relinquish 
 his seats of voluptuous ease, — while ' the harp and 
 the viol, the tabret and pipe were in his feasts,* 
 while all the objects that solicit the passions were 
 around him in rich profusion,— to follow a race of 
 reputed enthusiasts, who 'reasoned of righteous- 
 ness, temperance, and judgment to come,* amid 
 ' weariness and painfulness, in watchings* often, 
 in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold 
 
 red.) Nor was he singular. Seneca expressly says, " Vitiis 
 dediti luxuriam suam in philosophise sinu abscondunt, et eo 
 concurrunt, ubi audiunt laudari voluptatem." (De Vit. Beat, 
 cap. 12.) We may be perhaps here allowed to idvert to a 
 sentence of Bayle which may be the cause of error. He says 
 without further remark « je me souviens d' avoir lu dans 
 Origene queles sectateurs d* Epicure s'abstenoient de Tadul- 
 tere autant que les Stoiciens, quoique qu'il le fissent par un 
 different motif." Now we too remember the passage to which 
 this ingenious writer alludes, but we also remember that the 
 different motive was one, which entirely destroyed the merit 
 of their conduct, and which it was hardly consistent with per- 
 fect fairness to suppress— it was the fear of that punishment 
 which usuaUy fell upon those who were detected in the com- 
 mission of that crime. 
 
 " Lucret. I. 58. Cicero asserts that Epicurus was induced 
 to admit the existence of the Deit , merely through the fear 
 of public odium. "Re tollit, oratione relinquitDeos" (DeNat. 
 Deor. lib. i. cap. 44.) See Budaeus in Comp. Hist. Philos. 
 
 . " ^'2?- Wt. in vit. Epic. Lucret. lib. i. &c. Plutarch, 
 de Plac. Phil. lib. i. cap. 25, 
 
 \ 
 
 ( 
 
 and nakedness?' Would he not rather picture to 
 himself the gigantic spirit of superstition, fling- 
 ing even from the heights of heaven its porten- 
 tous shadow over a terrified world " ? Or, if his 
 imagination varied the scene, would he not still 
 have rejoiced in trampling under foot the fears of 
 groveling superstition, and looked down with 
 pity, from his eminence of wisdom, on the 
 wretched mortals that appeared wanderin- be- 
 low through the mists of prejudice and error", 
 and in the vale of obscurity and want? And if 
 this disciple of a numerous sect, which degraded 
 every high motive and paralyzed every noble 
 energy", heard, by accident, the discourses of 
 the Christian preacher on the universal care of 
 the Deity, on his unbounded affection for man- 
 kind displayed in the sufferings and death of 
 His Son, on the promised influence of His Spi- 
 rit in purifying and converting the heart,— would 
 he not have whispered to himself with a smile of 
 indifference — 
 
 " Scilicet is Superis labor est, ea cura auietos 
 Sollicitat ! " ^ 
 
 Thus, both these sects, though at variance with 
 
 " Lucret. lib. i. S3. 
 '* Lucret. lib. xi. 7. 
 
 '* The image of Epicurism may be likened to the stetue 
 on the monument of Sardanapalus, which held its hand over 
 its head, in the act of snapping the fingers, with the inscrip. 
 Uon: ""Eirftf, irrw, ■^aT^e, wc TaKXa tokVow ovk a^,a" (See 
 Valckenaer. Ann. ad Herodot. III. xlvi. 7.) It was a sharp 
 saying of Hierocles the Stoic, " -mo^i r^^o,, nip^, l^^. 
 oiK liiTi irp6vo,a, oiii ■Kop„,,, Joy/xa. (See it as corrected by 
 Bentley in Not. to Hor. A. P. 11.) 
 

 11 
 
 each other, would probably join in opposing Christ- 
 ianity. For, though the Epicureans reduced man 
 below the level of humanity, while the Stoics 
 exalted him above it, — though with the former 
 he aspired to divine perfection, with the latter, 
 he sunk into brutal debasement, — yet both con- 
 sidered him as fully able to derive by his unas- 
 sisted efforts that enjoyment, whether corporeal 
 or intellectual, which formed the final object of 
 existence. The reasoning of both, therefore; how- 
 ever different, is raised on one common founda- 
 tion,-a foundation which Christianity entirely 
 overthrows,— our self-sufficiency in obtaining ab- 
 solute happiness, either by the effect of mental 
 resources, or the operation of external causes. 
 
 It cannot be supposed that the Christian reli- 
 gion would find more general acceptance among 
 the Academics, captious disputants, who clung to 
 a system of universal scepticism, spreading dark- 
 ness over the face of all thine-s^^ — who doubted 
 the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, 
 and the excellence of virtue. Their professed 
 despair of ever discovering the truth " would be 
 
 **^ " Quae lucem eriperet, et quasi noctem quandam rebus 
 effunderet." (Cic. de N. Deor. I. §. 3.) 
 
 *' See Cicero in Academ. Quaest. in De Nat. Deor. I. 
 and in Tusc. v. — A difference indeed existed between 
 Arcesilaus and Cameades: one denied that truth existed, 
 the other that it was discoverable : — ^the former rejected, the 
 latter retained probability as the determining principle of our 
 actions. Yet Carneades frequently sunk into entire doubt, 
 (St. August, lib. iii. c Academic.) They would both pro- 
 bably have compared truth, as Plato compared the soul, to 
 the marine Glaucus, whose body was so bruised by rocks, so 
 
 worn 
 
 f 
 
 but an ill preparation for the reception of it from 
 a class of untutored preachers. In their eager- 
 ness to display the resources of sophistical dex- 
 terity, they might indeed ask with the careless 
 Pilate— -What is truth ^«?''— but when a Christ- 
 ian would begin to address to them 'the sure 
 word,' however luminous might be his statements, 
 and however forcible his exhortations, their an- 
 swer would be,— that nothing was certain but 
 our uncertainty '^ that both sides of a subject 
 admitted equal proofs '°, and that, if there were 
 any thing on which we were more especially 
 ignorant, it was on religious topics : 
 
 ''"Awavres eafiev tt/oo? rd Gel' dfUXrepoi 
 
 h.OVK lajULCV 0VC6V 
 
 worn out by waves, and so covered with shells and weeds 
 that its original form could no longer be distinguished! 
 Rep. X. 
 
 »« "What is truth.? said jesting Pilate, and would not 
 stay for an answer." Lord Bacon's Essays, p. i. 
 
 '^ Cic. Acad. Quaest. 1. I. cap. 4. Diog. Laert. in Socrat. 
 §.32. 
 
 ^ Cic. Acad. Quaest. I. cap. 12. See the anecdote of Car- 
 neades related in Lactantius, lib. v. cap. 14— See also Senec. 
 Ep. Ixxxv. where he pursues the subject in a train of lively 
 ridicule. 
 
 21 Anaxandrides. See Grotius in Prolegomen. ad Stob. 
 where numerous quotations from the Greek poets, &c. are 
 collected which manifest that scepticism on reUgious points 
 was far from being confined to the Academics. E.g. " QeS,, 
 
 votil'(pv Ka\ aifiovy ^tjT€i hi fAti' I TTXeTov ydp oJBcV dWo rod (tjTeTu 
 ^X^*^-" (Philemon.) " Quod supra nos, nihil ad nos"— was the 
 noted sentiment of Socrates. Arcesilaus was fond of quoting 
 the verse of Hesiod: " Kp6xl,auTe<: ydp ^^ovm 0€o\ voov dyQp^^ 
 •^oiiTu" (See Euseb. Pra;p. Evang. lib.xiv- cap. 4.) Huet in 
 
 his 
 
Ifis 
 
 They would describe man, in the language of 
 Plato, as confined in the depths of some vast 
 cavern, with his back to the light, and unable 
 to turn his head to the source from which it 
 flowed, — but deceived by phantoms and shadows, 
 and incapable of elevating his thoughts to the 
 Great Being, or the Chief Good ". The Christ- 
 ian would feel the difficulty of arguing against 
 one, who denied every principle of reasoning, 
 and the Academic, would still end his days with 
 the gloomy exclamation, that in anxiety he had 
 lived, in uncertainty he died. 
 
 " Anxius vixi, dubius morior^." 
 
 It would be unnecessary to shew how incompa- 
 tible Christianity would have been with the other 
 sects" — ^the abandoned Cynics, the contemptu- 
 ous Pythagoreans, or even the later disciples of 
 the Eclectic school, — that incongruous mass of 
 Egyptian, Oriental, and Platonic tenets, which 
 
 his " Traite Philosophique de la Foiblesse de TEsprit humain," 
 has laboured to prove that the custom of doubting on all sub- 
 jects was adopted by a long chain of ancient philosophers: 
 he has not, however, supported his assertions by necessary 
 references, and it is but just to add, that after some investiga- 
 tion, we have been induced to suspect, that many of them are 
 built on a very slight and precarious, if any, foundation. 
 
 " See the beginning of the 7th Book of Plato's Republic. 
 
 ® This was said, though probably without authority, to 
 Iiave been the dying exclamation of Aristotle — a philosopher 
 but little inclined to scepticism. 
 
 " We have not particularly noticed the Sceptics, because 
 we consider them as agreeing in substance with the Acade^ 
 mics. See Sext. Empir. Hyp. Pyrrh. lib. i. cap. 33. 
 
 k 
 
 f 
 
 13 
 
 attempted to revive the decayed systems of Poly- 
 theism, by collecting the dispersed limbs of ancient 
 philosophy, and resorting to the powers of alle- 
 gory to unite its heterogeneous elements, — which 
 combined absurd claims to supernatural agency 
 with the miserable attempts of industrious fraud. 
 Having thus taken a rapid view of the distin- 
 guishing features of the principal sects, as they 
 were most likely to be unfavourable to Christian- 
 ity, we shall touch upon some motives, which were 
 common to all, and, in a succeeding part, we 
 shall observe what influence these motives really 
 possessed. 
 
 Cause I. 
 
 General contempt for all doctrines onginating tvith 
 
 the people. 
 
 There was nothing, for which Ancient Philoso- 
 phy entertained more undisguised contempt, than 
 the name and opinion of the vulgar* — "''O^^/xos 
 ovSev ov^* cLKovwv, ovff opwv^J' The term alone 
 seemed to imply a revolting mixture of all that 
 was mean and detestable : malice, envy, turbu- 
 
 * " 'lo-^upoV oyXofi eVrli/, ovk e^et ^i vovv" — was a maxim 
 which the philosophers would probably have opposed to any 
 argument drawn from the diffusion of doctrines which they dis- 
 liked. " O^eVf o/uai of? dcfxt': ear), Ovpa^ S' iirWeade fie/3ti\oi^;' 
 
 seems to have been a verse adopted by all " OJ ydp wXijdoi! 
 
 ex^i <rvv€Tt]v Kpia-iv, ovre hiKaiav, | Ovre KaXijv k. t. \." Cleanth. 
 ap. Clem. Alexandr. Strom, p. 554. 
 
 ^ Sapph. ap. Athen. 
 
14 
 
 11 
 
 ience, and treachery, were passions to which they 
 were supposed to be natural slaves ; truth, judge- 
 ment, discrimination, reason^ — were qualities to 
 which they were denied the remotest claim. 
 Their souls were deemed worthless * — unsuscepti- 
 ble of moral or intellectual improvement. Their 
 praise was called censure, and their censure, 
 praise ^ They were mere herds, led along by 
 every crafty impostor. Or, they were mere 
 machines, moved by every idle impulse. The 
 whole race of philosophers, as Seneca relates — 
 the Peripatetics, the Academics, the Stoics, and 
 the Cynics— joined in full concurrence with the 
 declaration of Epicurus— that his object was by 
 no means to please the people, for "'what he 
 approved, they rejected, and what he rejected, 
 they approved ^" Philosophy, says Cicero, is 
 abhorrent from the multitude I The fear of 
 
 » " Non est consilium in vulgo, non ratio, non discrimen, 
 &c/' Cic. pro Plane. 
 
 ♦ See Brocklesby's Gospel Theism. Book iv. 
 
 • When a person said to Antisthenes the Cynic, " troWo) 
 ff€ alvovai, his only answer was "ti yap kokov verroirjKa;" 
 (Diog. Laert. lib. vi.) When Asopodorus heard a musician 
 praised by the people, he exclaimed, " A^Xoi/ on fxe^^a kokov 
 yiyovev, »«? ovk av aXAwc iv toT<! TroXAoTv evhoKifxrj<TavTo<:" (Athen. 
 I. 14.) So also Phocion, perceiving that the multitude ap- 
 plauded as he spoke, turned to his friends and asked, ov ^riTrou 
 uaicou Tt AcVttJi/ ifxavrov \c\fida ;— See Gataker. Annot. in Marc. 
 Antonin. 
 
 ^ " Idem hoc omnes tibi ex omni domo conclamabunt Peri- 
 patetici, Academici, Stoici, Cynici. Quis enim placere potest 
 populo, cui placet virtus ?" Ep. xxix. 
 
 7 See Lactant. Inst. III. 25. p. 325. The passage which 
 he quotes, occurs in Tuscul. Disp. i. c 1. — Plato had said 
 
 that 
 
 i 
 
 ^ m 
 
 15 
 
 being' identified with it might have been pre- 
 viously considered sufficient to deter, (as St. Au- 
 gustine' assures us was the fact,) the followers 
 of Plato from embracing Christianity. To be 
 confounded with the populace, was in their opi- 
 nion, to suffer the judgement of the wise to be 
 regulated by the notions of the senseless, and to 
 contract corruption by an assimilation with the 
 corrupt ^ But Christianity, if we may be allowed 
 the expression, is a popular religion. Popular 
 in its nature and object; popular in its descrip- 
 tions of the physical world, and in its notices of 
 metaphysical points; lastly, popular in the cha- 
 racter of its Author, and of its historians, and of 
 its early propagators. It presented no subtle 
 definitions of the Deity, no refined explanations 
 of the union of intelligence and matter, no stu- 
 died observance of rhetorical figures, or of logi- 
 cal arrangements — but it arose for all, but its 
 rays, like the light of the sun, shone upon the 
 wise, and upon the unwise, upon the powerful, 
 and upon the weak, diffusing at once illumina- 
 tion and warmth. But, was it to be expected 
 that it would have been hailed by those privi- 
 leged sages, who thought themselves already the 
 sole guardians of a sacred flame, which revealed 
 not its glory to the irreverent crowd ? 
 
 that the multitude necessarily blamed those who philoso- 
 phized. 
 
 » De Civ. Dei, 1. 13. c. l6. 
 
 ^ " Nihil est turpius quam sapientis vitam ab insipientium 
 sermone pendere." Cic. de Fin. lib. ii. 
 
IG 
 
 Cause II. 
 
 General attachment to the Established Religion. 
 
 If there was one practical point, in which 
 the sects of philosophers might be said to be 
 united, it was in sanctioning the worship of Poly- 
 theism'. Some thought it the bond of due sub- 
 jection, others the stimulus of heroic virtue, all 
 decided that it was eminently useful*. The 
 Father of Moral Philosophy^ inculcated and 
 observed a strict compliance with the religious 
 rites, which the constitution of his country had 
 established. He consulted oracles ; he composed 
 hymns ; he sacrificed in public and in private ; 
 and, with his dying breath, he seems ^ to have 
 
 * ** ABavdrov^i /ucv irpdara deov^, vofit^a «<r Siokcitoi, | ti^o. 
 Pyth. Aur. Carm. See particularly the speech of Mecaenaa to 
 Augustus preserved by Dion Cassius (p. 56l.) 
 
 , « "Efficiunt animoshumiles formidine Divum, | Depressos- 
 que premunt ad terrain." Lucr. vi. 51. " Hand scio an, pietate 
 adversus Deos sublata, fides etiam et societas humani generis, 
 et una excellentissiraa 'virtus, justitia tollatur." Cic de Nat. 
 Deor. I. 1. cii. Compare Harusp. Resp. p.l89.— "pietate ac 
 religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium 
 numine omnia regi gubemarique perspeximus, omnes gentes 
 nationesque superavimus,"— with Polyb. Ub. vi. p. 692.—" fiefi-^ 
 artiv U fAoi ZoK€T Ziaipopdv ex^iv to 'FtofAaiav voXircvfia irpoi: to 
 fi€\rio¥ €V T^ wept 6emv SiaAjjx/rCi- koi fiot ZokcT ro wapd to?? 
 aWoi^ dv6pawoi^ owetli^ofjievov, tovto (Tvvex^tv rd Tatfiattav vpay^ 
 
 ^ Xen. Mem. lib. x. cap. 1. §• 23, &c. 
 * We only use the expression " seems," because we have 
 often thought that he merely meant by the sacrifice of a cock 
 
 to 
 
 17 
 
 enjoined the full performance of every prescribed 
 duty : though he had intimated to his friends 
 that the authorized religion was founded on de- 
 ception, and tended to immorality^. Nor was 
 his disciple Plato more scrupulous ^ Even in 
 forming the imaginary model of a perfect republic, 
 he confirmed the worship of the gods and demons 
 of the populace I He not only refers to the 
 Delphic Apollo as the author of the best religious 
 establishments ^ but he censures those, who 
 would persuade youth of the folly of believing 
 in the received deities ^ All attempt to destroy 
 Polytheism was considered as a trial, frauffht 
 with danger and alarm : it was shaking the 
 foundations of piety, — it was disturbing the 
 grounds of general order, — it was overthrowing 
 the pillars of the social economy to be crushed 
 in their ruins '\ The Philosophers, disciplined in 
 deceit, were content to prostrate themselves before 
 
 to ^sculapius, what Seneca intimated by a libation to Jupiter 
 the deliverer, viz. his cure and release from the troubles of 
 this world. (See however Wyttenbach's note on Plato's Phaedo. 
 §. 153.) Besides, the last words of Socrates may have been 
 uttered during the delirium occasioned by the hemlock. (See 
 Jortin's Remarks on Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 63.) 
 
 ^ See, for instance, Plato's Euthyphron; where Socrates 
 exclaims, when Eutyphron appeals to some fact in heathen 
 mythology, "Ivtrxepm wm<: dwohexofxat/'-^Senecai seems to 
 have adopted the same principle on religious rites: "qua 
 omnia sapiens servabit, tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam 
 Diis grata." (Ap. S. Aug. De Civ. Dei vi. 10.) Comp. Cic. De 
 Nat. Deor. i. 3. De Leg. lib. ii. and De Divin. lib. ii. cap. 72. 
 
 ** De Leg. viii. &c. 7 De Leg. vi. » De Rep. iv. 
 
 ^ De Leg. x. ^ See Liv. lib. xxv. cap. 1. and lib. xxxix. 
 cap. 16. 
 
18 
 
 the gods of ancient idolatry ", and to join in the 
 pomp and circumstance of its mockery. Indeed 
 the religious system was so blended with the 
 political^ that separation might almost have been 
 deemed impossible. Among the Romans", the 
 Sibylline books were only consulted at the con- 
 venience of the Senate, and the whole art of 
 augury was under its immediate controul. The 
 sceptic, in the disguise of a soothsayer, might 
 smile when he met his associates in artifice^', 
 yet he knew too well the powerful instrument, 
 with which he directed the passions of mankind, 
 bending and turning them to his own purposes, 
 to reveal by any indiscreet levity the secrets of 
 superstition. — "Can you imagine that I am so 
 infatuated as to believe these absurdities?" might 
 be the unguarded language of Cicero's private cor- 
 respondence or philosophical works ; but in public 
 he declaimed with vehemence against the sacrilege 
 of Verres ^*. Clodius himself is inflamed with zeal 
 
 ^* " 01 niv (f>t\oa-o(povvT€^ fACrd rovv aefivov^ iv (piXoaoiplai 
 A070U? KaTaTTtTrTova-iu ctti rd ethmXa Kot rov^ Zai/xova^." (Orig. C 
 
 Cels. lib. V. p. 260. ed. Spencer.) He also observes that the 
 same men, who had spoken of the sovereign good, and rea- 
 soned on the divine nature, came to the Piraeeus to assist at the 
 shews, and to adore Diana. 
 
 ^ On the laws against the introduction of new deities, 
 «ee Tertull. Apolog. and Euseb. Ecd. Hist. ii. 2. 
 
 ^ See Cic. Nat. Deor. i. 26. Divin. ii. 24. It is a remark- 
 able circumstance that the augurs, of whatever crime they 
 might be guilty, could not be deprived of their office, because 
 the secrets of the Roman Empire were confided to them. 
 (Plutarch. Q. Rom. 97.) 
 
 ^ Cassius also, though an Epicurean, addresses his soldiers 
 
 I 
 
 19 
 
 against the progress of irreligion '^ ;— the sceptic 
 Polybius emphatically deprecates its portentous 
 effects ^^- — and the abandoned Sallust assumes the 
 aspect of the gravest citizen, when he reasons 
 on this fearful subject. Hence the activity with 
 which the Senate burnt certain books of Numa^^^ 
 which referred the origin of religion to impos- 
 ture; hence the facility with which even the 
 Epicureans, as we are assured by Epictetus^^ 
 suffered themselves to be elected priests of gods 
 whom they denied, and interpreters of oracles 
 which they ridiculed ; hence too the intolerance 
 which was shewn to the religion of the Egyptian, 
 which assumed exclusive rites, and built ''its suc- 
 cess on the destruction of others, 
 
 in the language of a believer in divine providence. See Appian, 
 Bell. Civil, lib. iv. 
 
 '' Cic. Orat. de Har. resp. §. 5.~See Montesquieu in his 
 dissertation '^sur la Politique des Romains dans la Religion," 
 in which a short, but luminous view of this subject may be 
 found. It contains perhaps some assertions not sufficiently 
 qualified.—" Toutes des theologies y etoient egalement bonnes : 
 les heresies, les guerres, et les disputes de Religion y etoient 
 inconnues : pourvu qu'on allat adorer an temple, chaque citoyen 
 ^toit grand Pontiffe dans sa famille." Compare this sentence 
 with the spirit evinced in the following words: "separatim 
 nemo habessit Deos : neve novos, sive advenas nisi publice ad- 
 scitos, privatim colunto." Cic. lib. ii. cap. 8. de Legib. p. 203. 
 ed. Creuzer. 
 
 ^« See especially Hb. vi. cap. 54, 55.— Strabo also looks 
 upon the fictions of superstition as the effectual instruments 
 with which the legislator infused fear into the minds of the 
 multitude. (Georg. lib. i.) 
 
 ^' Lactant. Div. Inst. lib. i. cap. 22.-~Val. Max. lib. i. cap. 1. 
 *« Epictet Dissertat. lib. ii. cap. 20. p. 299. ed. Upton. 
 Corap. Diog. Laert. lib. x. §.10. 
 
 B 2. 
 
20 
 
 ^^quum solos credat habeiidos 
 
 1* 19 t* 
 
 Esse Deos, quos ipse colli . 
 
 This course found a ready justification in the 
 prevalent maxim, which Varro'° openly acknow- 
 ledged, that it was expedient that the people 
 should be ignorant of many truths, and should 
 believe in many falsehoods. St. Augustine adds 
 that this declaration contained the whole secret 
 of their government '\— " If they will be deceived, 
 let them be deceived,'*— seems to. have been the 
 short, but detestable, principle of the wary poli- 
 tician. 
 
 We shall mark in a subsequent part of this 
 Essay, how strongly this cause operated on the 
 philosophers who lived during the early progress 
 of Christianity ; — all we maintain at present is, 
 that, to a person who was unacquainted with the 
 fact, it must have seemed highly probable that 
 Christianity, which could admit no intercommunity 
 with other religions, would have met with the 
 same fate as the worship of the Egyptians, with 
 whom the Jews were frequently confounded", 
 
 " Juven. Sat. xv. 38. 
 
 » " Multa esse vera, quae non mod6 vulgo scire non sit 
 utile, sed etiam tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare . populum 
 expediat." (S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 31.) Varro boasts 
 in high terms of his defence of idolatry. (Id. lib. vi. cap. 2.) 
 
 21 " Totum consilium prodidit velut sapientium, pc^* quos civi- 
 tates et populi regerentur." (S. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 35.) 
 See also Warburton's Div. Leg. Vol. I. p. 324.— The later 
 Platonists defended Polytheism : " The sovereign of the uni- 
 verse," says Plotinus, "shews his greatness chiefly by the 
 multitude of the gods." (Ennead II. lib. ix. cap. 90 On this 
 subject see Themist. in Orat. 7- ad Valent. 
 
 « See the singular letter of Adrian to Servianus, preserved 
 
 by 
 
 21 
 
 and that it would have been especially rejected 
 by the philosophic sects, who concurred in sup- 
 porting Polytheism. 
 
 Cause III. 
 
 General adoption of opinions, hostile to the doctrines 
 
 of Christianity, 
 
 It is a fact, which will hardly be believed by 
 those, who are accustomed to regard ancient 
 philosophy as a center of perfection, beautiful in 
 its theory, and admirable in its influence,— that it 
 is essentially different from the Christian scheme \ 
 Its foundation is different,— its mode is different,— 
 its object is different. Philosophy is founded on 
 pride, Christianity on humility ; the former directs 
 our views entirely to this life, the latter leads 
 them to a future life : the former takes self-glory 
 for its end, but the latter points to the glory 
 of God. But, that we may establish the point 
 with greater clearness and certainty,— we shall 
 notice as briefly as possible, the opinions of 
 ancient philosophers on the fundamental articles 
 of doctrine and morality. On the nature of God- 
 by Vopiscus in his life of Satuminus. (Hist. Aug. Script, 
 p. 245.) m which the Emperor confounds the Egyptians with 
 the Jews, and the Jews with the Christians, and represents 
 them aU as worshippers of Serapis. 
 
 ' On the vanity of ancient philosophy, see the lively trea- 
 tise of Hermias, Irris. Gentil. Philos. 
 
22 
 
 their notions, — replete with incongruity and error, 
 — were entirely repugnant to the tenets of Christ- 
 ianity. Anaximander thought that the gods were 
 subject to the changes of mortality, — that they 
 were born, and that they perished at intervals of 
 time : Anaximenes imagined that the Air was the 
 Deity, who had been produced, and who continued 
 in perpetual motion : Alcmaeon of Crotona deified 
 the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars : Empedocles 
 believed that the four elements were divine: 
 Plato looks upon the Laws, the World, the Sky, 
 and the Soul as forming the Deity : Xenophon 
 calls the Sun God, and the Soul God : Speusippus 
 calls him a Vital Force, which rules the universe : 
 Aristotle at one time defines the Deity to be the 
 World, at another, to be a Fire which shines 
 in the heavens : Parmenides dreamt that God was 
 m kind of luminous circle surrounding the sky ' : 
 others^ — but why should we proceed ? — why should 
 we collect the reveries of Xenocrates, the con-, 
 tradictions of Heraclides, the subtilties of Chry- 
 sippus, and wander through dreary paths of 
 interminable error, where the mind is bewildered 
 and lost. 
 
 CC 
 
 velut ignot^ captus regione viarum 
 
 Noctivagum qui carpit iter?" 
 
 We shall only remark that the opinion of 
 
 ' See the opinions stated in Cicer. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. 
 cap. 10. 1 1. ed. Davis. As, however, they are urged by the Epi- 
 curean disputer, we are willing to allow that his fidelity may 
 fioraetimes be questionable. Comp. the work De Placit. Philos. 
 attributed to Plutarch, and Stob. Eclog. Phys. lib. i. 28. 
 
 I 
 
 • 'I A 
 
 I 
 
 Anaxagoras, which made the nearest approxi- 
 mation to the Christian doctrine, seems to have 
 excited contempt, rather than admiration, and is 
 dismissed by the Epicurean disputer, in the cele- 
 brated dialogue on the Nature of the Gods, with 
 this hasty expression: *'Aperta, simplexque mens, 
 nulla re adjuncta, quae sentire possit, fugere in- 
 telligentiae nostras vim et notionem videtur^" 
 On the nature of the soul they were equally at 
 variance, and equally in error. Anaximander held 
 it to be a compound of earth and water; Zeno, 
 a quintessence of the four elements; Xeno- 
 crates, a moving number ; Crates and Dicsearchus, 
 nothing*. Of its immortality nearly all betray 
 doubt. ^^ Whole hosts'* exclaims its defender, 
 *" come to contradict the belief of a future life ^" 
 The language of Socrates himself is full of un- 
 certainty^: the expressions of Cicero are tin^-ed 
 with despondency \ The rest would occasionally 
 indulge in pleasing speculation on a subject, which 
 they moulded into agreement with their pride, 
 but their real sentiments would generally accord 
 with the melancholy lines of the poet : 
 
 tc 
 
 Nobis, quum seniel occidit brevis lux, 
 Nox est perpetua una dormienda ^." 
 
 3 See Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 10. See also Bayle's 
 Diet. Art. Anaxag. 
 
 * See Glanvill's Scepsis Scientifica. chap. iv. p. 13. 
 
 * " Catervae veniunt contradicentium." Cic. Tusc. 
 ® Plat. Phsed.— Apolog. Socrat. 
 
 7 Ep. ad Divers, lib. vi. Ep. 3. &c. 
 « CatuU. V. 
 
5&T 
 
 2b 
 
 But, however they might embrace the doctrine 
 of immortality, they wholly rejected the suppo- 
 sition of future punishments \ They looked upon 
 them as absurd fables— only fitted to alarm and 
 restrain a childish multitude. Caesar, in full se- 
 nate, avowed his incredulity '**. The politic Cicero 
 himself, in a public assembly, declared that the 
 descriptions of torments after death were uni- 
 versally understood to be false". The general 
 prevalence of this opinion in the philosophic 
 schools originated in their received mode of rea- 
 soning—that as God was incapable of feeling 
 resentment, he was incapable of inflicting pain.— 
 " Hoc commune est omnium philosophorum, non 
 eorum modo, qui Deum nihil habere ipsum nego- 
 tii dicunt, et nihil exhibere alteri; sed eorum 
 etiam, qui Deum semper agere aliquid et moliri 
 volunt, — nunquam nee irasci Deum nee nocere "." 
 There was another point, on which their agree- 
 
 ^ Cicero, even when defending the truth of augury, says : 
 « quis hippocentaurum fuisse aut chimaeram putat ? quaeve 
 anus tam excors inveniri potest, quae ilia, quae quondam crede- 
 bantur, apud inferos portenta extimescat?" (De Nat. Deor. 
 lib. ii. cap. 2.) The lines of Juvenal are well known : " Esse 
 aliquos manes et subterranea regna,... | Nee pueri credunt, nisi 
 qui nondum aere lavantur." (Sat. ii. 149.) 
 
 10 Cic. Or. iv. in Catal. §. 4. Sallust. Bell. Catilin. 
 
 » « Quid tandem illi mali mors attulit ? nisi forte ineptiis ac 
 fabulis ducimur, ut existiraemus ilium, apud inferos inipio- 
 rum supplicia perferre— Quae si falsa sunt, id quod omnes in- 
 telUguni: quid ei tandflin JiMud mors eripuit praeter sensu» 
 doloris?" Or. pro Cluent. 
 
 ^» Cic. Off. hb. iii^ Warburton s Div. Leg. Book iii. §. 4. 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 
 
 ment seems to be equally certain, and that point 
 is directly contrary to the Christian doctrine— 
 the eternity of the universe. It was unanimously 
 deemed an absurdity to assert, — that something 
 could be produced out of nothing,— and hence 
 they arrived at a conclusion, nearly allied to 
 atheism, that matter was uncreated". If we 
 pass with equal rapidity to their moral senti- 
 ments, we shall find them no less incompatible 
 with the precepts of Christianity. Prayer, for 
 the attainment of virtue, was almost reputed use- 
 less;^*— the love of the Deity was a principle 
 
 " " Gigni I De nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti." 
 
 (Pers. Sat. iii. 84.) was the fundamental principle of ancient 
 physics. It is accordingly laid down by Lucretius in the begin- 
 ning of his poem, and defended by numerous arguments, which, 
 however true in some measure, when applied to the known 
 powers of nature, were carried to lengths never contemplated 
 by the early theistical atomists, and made the means of dis- 
 proving the creation of the universe ; and, by a natural result, 
 the existence of the Deity. See Cudworth, Intell. Syst. lib. i. 
 cap. i. ed. Mosheim, and Gassend. Anim. ad lib. x. Diog. 
 Laert. de Physiologia Epicuri. 
 
 »♦ Comp. Juv. X. 363. Hor. lib. i. Ep. 18. The necessity 
 of repentance seems to have been unknown. See for instance 
 the dying scenes of Socrates, and the exhortations of Epicte- 
 tus. Hence the exclamation of Juvenal: "quis I peccandi 
 finem posuit sibi?" (Sat. xiii.) We must indeed be careful 
 not to form a judgement of the state of morality among the 
 heathen philosophers merely from the works of Juvenal, and 
 other later writers. The thirteenth Satire exhibits in striking 
 colours the progress of Christian sentiments. They gave a 
 tinge to the expressions of the philosophers, who were per- 
 haps themselves not conscious of the fact. Yet even then we 
 find such sentences as the following: "Mi/kcV evoyXei roU deoU 
 olKodev, rjv €0€\riK ovvdf^tvot o-tofeo-^au^^ouToc yap tk cKao-To? 
 eavT(f rou roiovrov {rou evhaifiovoK /3iov) ra^ia^, dyaOof: ctuai 
 
26 
 
 nearly unknown '';— the very foundations of mo- 
 rality were disturbed or overthrown : Theodorus, 
 Aristippus, Pyrrho, and many other philosophers, 
 thought that nothing was in itself honest or dis- 
 honest, but that it was made so by the laws 
 and institutions of man '\ On the summum bo- 
 num, Varro computed nearly three hundred opi- 
 nions". On particular subjects, they recommend 
 as virtues '^ the very traits, which ChrisUanity 
 has denounced as vices. Democritus judged it 
 to be the part of indolence not to revenge an 
 injury ;— Aristotle censures meekness as tending 
 to inspire a forgiveness of insults ;— Plato not 
 merely approves, but in some degree, enjoins 
 falsehood, at convenient times '^— Had we not 
 resolved to confine ourselves within the most 
 narrow circle, which the scope of the subject 
 would allow, we might quote innumerable pas- 
 sages, which evince their disregard for temper- 
 ance, and for mental purity '^ We might here 
 
 Pov\6tJ.€vo^r Synes. de Provid. See also JuUan. in Const. 
 
 Or 2. 
 
 w See Burke on the Sublime and Beautiful. P. II. Sect. v. 
 
 »« Diog. Laert. ix. 101, &c. Sext. Emp. Pyrr. Hyp. 
 
 lib. iii. cap. 24. 
 
 »7 S. August, de Civ. Dei, lib. xix. 
 
 w Aristippus thought a wise man might commit theft, 
 adultery, and sacrilege, e. .a.pi (Diog. Laert. in Vit.) Zeno 
 admitted a community of women. (Diog. Laert. lib. vn. cap. 
 38. Plut. de Stoic. Repugn.) 
 
 « In Rep. lib. iv. p. 149.— Pisander, Diphilus and Menander, 
 adopt the same language See Stob. Florileg I. xii^ De Mendac. 
 
 30 For proofs of this assertion see Athen. lib. xui. p. b05. 
 Orig. in Cels. p. 177. Comp. Dem. Or. c Neaeram. Cic. pro 
 C«l. p. 37. Leland on the Christian Revelation. 
 
 I 
 
 ^ mf 
 
 F 
 
 27 
 
 trace that revolting detail of errors and crimes^ — 
 that hideous picture of the state of man, when 
 his 'foolish heart is darkened' — which has been 
 drawn by Diogenes Laertius, by Athenseus, or 
 by Sextus Empiricus ^^: — but the necessity of has- 
 tening to the main point of the question, con- 
 strains us to ask, on these grounds only, was it 
 likely that the philosophers, with all their pre- 
 conceived notions, would have joyfully embraced 
 Christianity? To tell them that they were the 
 corrupted descendants of one man, redeemed by 
 the sacrifice of God in the flesh — an event signi- 
 fied by prophecies which they knew not, by 
 types which they understood not, by miracles 
 which they believed not,— to tell them, in short, 
 that they were justified by faith, and saved by 
 repentance — would most probably be regarded as 
 the language of confident folly, which they would 
 neither hear, nor allow. 
 
 Such are the chief causes, on which we rest 
 the improbability of their adoption of revelation ; 
 — we shall add a few common principles, which, 
 antecedently considered, seem highly unfavour- 
 able to any contrary supposition. 
 
 " Lactantius describes a philosopher in his time as " ita 
 vitiosus; ut continentiae magister, non minus avaritiS, quam 
 libidinibus arderet; in victu tam sumptuosus, ut in schola 
 virtutis assertor, parsimoniae, paupertatisque laudator, in pa- 
 latio pejus ccenaret, quam domi: tamen vitia sua capillis et 
 pallio et (quod maximum est velamentum) divitiis praetege- 
 bat, &c." (Div. Inst. lib. v. §. 2.) Need we add that this 
 philosopher attacked Christianity } Compare the above-men- 
 work, lib. iii. cap. 15. 
 
28 
 
 39 
 
 1. Need we urge the operation of Philo- 
 sophical Pride? 
 
 They were all, as Tertullian emphatically 
 calls them,— ''creatures of glory"." Pride was 
 visible even through the rent mantle of the 
 Cynic*'. Hence their undisguised contempt for 
 any sect but their own. Epicurus looked upon no 
 one as learned or as wise", but himself and his 
 disciples'^: Heraclitus exclaimed that he was ex- 
 cellent in wisdom, — that it was not for him to build 
 altars to others, but for others to build altars to 
 him *^ Pythagoras entertained the highest opinion 
 of his followers, the lowest of all other men : 
 
 « " Philosophus, gloriae animal." De Anim. Opp. p. 264. 
 They might all apply to themselves the observation which 
 Antisthenes made, in speaking of Plato, that he resembled the 
 haughty steed as he prances with gaudy trappings. 
 
 » Socrates said, on seeing Antisthenes in his tattered gar- 
 ment, "opw trov Sia roZ rpifiavo^ rtiv Kcvo^o^iav." (Diog. Laert. 
 lib. ii. §. S6.) When Diogenes trampled on the precious robes 
 of Plato and exclaimed, " warw t6v IWdrwvm rv<pov" the an- 
 swer was most just : " cVcpw 7c ti;>«.."— Aristocles, as quoted 
 by Eusebius, (Prap. Hb. xiv. cap. 17.) says of Pyrrho; " AuVck 
 UrovTOv ro¥ rv(pov w^pi/SaXofAevo^, arv<pov eavrov cko'Aci, ic.t.X." 
 Respecting what has been called "pannosa superbia," see 
 Burton's Anat of Melanch. Book i. §. 2. Gatak. in M. Anton. 
 
 lib. xii. 
 
 «* The extreme pride of the Epicureans has been frequently 
 
 marked by Cicero, e. g. in De Nat. Deor. Ub. i. cap. 8. and 
 De Finib. lib. i. cap. 21. They sacrificed on the birth-day 
 of Epicurus, and carried his image on a ring. (Plin. lib. xxxv. 
 cap. 2.) Lucretius always speaks of him in the most extrava- 
 gant terms. See the beginning of his first, third, and sixth 
 
 books. 
 
 2* Plutarch, lib. c. Epic 
 
 5W A similar instance of extreme presumption was given by 
 Plotinus. Amelius having requested him to assist in a sacri- 
 fice 
 
 (C r 
 
 i 
 
 k 
 
 Tov^ /mev €Taipov9 rjyev iaov^ fxaKapeao't Oioicn 
 Toi/s o a\\oi;9 riyelro ovt eu Xoytj), ovt ev apiOfA^ '^/' 
 
 Would they receive a religion ** of which humility, 
 in the language of one of its teachers, was the 
 first, second, and third requisite ''/ — Would they, 
 who thought it condescension to teach, stoop to 
 learn, and to learn too from ''unlearned and 
 ignorant men'°?" — Might not any man of ordi- 
 nary discernment have entertained the expecta- 
 tion that the Christian preacher would be 
 forced to exclaim, — " Quid causae est cur Christ- 
 ian! esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter 
 venit, et vos superbi estis^^?" 
 
 2. Need we urge the natural effects of^Dislike 
 to Change of Opinion? 
 
 fice to the gods, he answered " ckcivov^ leT wpo^ ifjie epx€(r6at, 
 ovK ejjLe TTpo^ cKeivov^. (Porphyr. Vit. Plotin.) 
 
 ^ lamblich. lib. i. cap. 35. The law of the Pythago- 
 reans was " ixdvoi^ TO?? IlvBa'^opeioi^ rijv ^e^idv c/A/^aAAeiv/'— - 
 parents alone being excepted. See Vossius de Philos. Sect, 
 lib. vi. p. 39. 
 
 ^ The principle to which Martial alludes, is inherent in 
 human nature: ''Aurum et opes et rura frequens donabit 
 amicus, | Qui velit ingenio cedere rarus erit." See a strong illus- 
 tration of this fact in ^neas Sylvius. (Hist. Europ. cap. 18.) 
 quoted by Bayle Diet. Hist. Art. Capistran. — Plato probably 
 knew from experience, on vararov dirohvcTai rov Ttj^ kcvo' 
 oof la? ^irmva 6 aocpm. Cicero owns its influence in numerous 
 passages, e. g. " Nullam virtus aliam mercedem laborum, 
 periculorumque desiderat, praeter hanc laudis, et gloriae : qua 
 detracta, quid est, quod in hoc tam exiguo vitae curriculo, et 
 tam brevi, tantis nos in laboribus exerceamus }" (Pro Arch.) 
 
 ** Aug. Ep. 118. ad Diosc. ^ Acts iv. IS. 
 
 ^^ Aug. 10. de Civ. Dei, cap. 29. 
 
30 
 
 An ingenious French writer" has justly ob- 
 served, that when philosophers adopt a prejudice, 
 they are more obstinately attached to it than the 
 people themselves,— for they are attached both 
 to the prejudice, and to the false reasoning by 
 which it is supported'". It may naturally be 
 expected that they, who have systematized a 
 greater number of wrong principles than the 
 unlettered man, whose notions are crude and 
 scanty, is competent to form, will "find propor- 
 tionately greater difficulty in preparing themselves 
 
 » " Quand les phUosophes s'ent^tent une fois d'nn prejugfe, 
 ils sont plus incurables que le peuple mSme; parce qu'ils s'ente- 
 tent egalement et du prejuge et des fajisses raisons dont lis le 
 soutiennent." Fontenelle. Hist, des Oracles. See Warburt. D.v. 
 Leg. iii. p. 390. Some just remarks on the subject occur m 
 Mallebranche Ub. ii. cap. 4.— The expressions of J. J. Rousseau 
 are very remarkable: "La Philosophie bravera toujours la 
 raison, la verite, et le temps meme, parce qu'eUe a sa source 
 dans I'orguea humain plus fort que toutes ces choses. Obser^'- 
 sur la reponse du Koi Stanislas au discours couronne par 
 VAcad. de Dijon. Not. E. 
 
 33 It must not be supposed that the most sceptical are 
 always the least superstitious. It may seem paradoxical to 
 Msert the contrary, but it is an undoubted fact. "11 ny a 
 rien de si commun que de voir des incredules entetes de 1 
 Astrologie judiciare, et persuades que les Magiciens font des 
 choses qui sont au dessus de I'ordre de la nature. (Le C ere 
 £ 1 In'creduUte. Part. L chap.l.) Tiberius, who was "area 
 deos et religiones negligenUor" was also " add.ctus maAema- 
 tic»." (Sueton. Tib. 69.) Sylla plundred temples and prc^ 
 faned the sacred groves, and yet observed dreams and omens, 
 ml in vit.) The character of Louis XL is a singular com- 
 ^;^d of imiiety and bigotry. (See Bayl. Diet. T.n.) The 
 tagenious author of Scepsis Scientifica was a believer in 
 witchcraft.-" Philosophi, credula natio." Sen. Nat. Qusst. 
 lib. vi. 26. 
 
 31 
 
 for the reception of new doctrines. And we 
 may add that the glare of falsehood^ varying as 
 it were and heightening the delights of the imagi- 
 nation, will frequently possess more attractions 
 than the steady light of unassuming truth ^*. 
 There is a certain intensity of pleasure in wander- 
 ing even by the dim rays of conjecture through 
 the obscure regions of doubt, where the mind 
 dwells on those romantic feelings, which are 
 intimately blended with our noblest aspirations. 
 Hence we may trace that reluctance with which 
 we part with speculations which reason assures 
 us are but visionary. And indeed each of the 
 sages of antiquity might perhaps have expressed his 
 character in the words in which a modern philo- 
 sopher has drawn his own — a character in which 
 coldness of heart is contrasted with warmth of 
 imagination, and timidity of conduct with boldnesa 
 of theory, — ^^Frigidi sum cordis, timidus, et cerebri 
 calidi, addictus cogitationi perpetuas, multa ac 
 maxima et etiam quae esse non possunt revol- 
 
 vens 
 
 35 »> 
 
 3. Lastly, need we urge the influence of 
 natural Aversion to Danger? 
 
 ^ This natural feeling has been observed by the great 
 Bacon : " This same truth is a naked and open daylight, that 
 doth not shew the masques, and mummeries, and triumphs of 
 the world half so stately and daintily as candlelights.... A 
 mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure, &c. (Essays.) Man 
 is an imaginative being. Few there are, who regret not the 
 visions of early youth — fictions gone by, which elevated their 
 minds to rapture. " But lost to me, for ever lost, those joys | 
 which reason scatters, and which time destroys," &c. is a com- 
 plaint which is not confined to the poet. 
 
 ^ Hier. Cardani de propria vita liber, cap. 13. 
 
tij/c 
 
 111 
 
 nil 
 
 Many 
 
 men 
 
 3«^ — by no means destitute of 
 
 amiable qualities,— are led by their general mild- 
 ness of temper to "shiver and shrink at sight of 
 toil and hazard." They bear a strong resem- 
 blance to the sketch, which Juvenal has left us, 
 of Crispus, the gentle and the pleasing, who was 
 formed to conciliate the affection of the virtuous, 
 and to extort respect even from the vicious, — 
 but, who, endowed with no energy of spirit, 
 yielded without a struggle to the tide of circum- 
 stances in whatever direction it might chance to 
 flow, 
 
 '' - ■nunquam direxit brachia contra 
 Torrentem, nee civis erat, qui libera posset ^^ ^^ 
 Verba animi proferre, et vitam impendere vero ." 
 
 Such were probably a great number of the philo- 
 sophers,— a name, which Tacitus informs us, wa» 
 assumed by many as a specious pretext for sloth 
 and indolence ^\ The cup of Socrates was present 
 to their minds '^ and each of them might have 
 
 38 Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel seem to 
 have been men of this kind. Such also was Erasmus. He 
 acknowledges in Ep. 583. : " Quid ego potuissem opitulari 
 Luthero si me periculo comitem fecissem, nisi ut pro uno 
 perirent duo?— Multa quidem praeclare et docuit et monuit, 
 atque utinam sua bona malis intolerabilibus non vitiasset! 
 Quod si omnia pie scripsisset, non tamen erat animus ob veri- 
 tatem capite periclitari. Non omnes ad martyrium satis 
 habent roboris. Vereor ne si quid incident tumuMs, Petrum 
 sim imitaturus."— (Jortin's Discourses on the Truth of the 
 Christian Religion.—) Father Paul gave as his reason for ad- 
 hering to the church of Rome, " Deus non dedit mihi spiritum 
 Lutheri." (Burnet's Life of Bedell.) 
 
 37 Sat. iv. 89. " Hist. lib. iv. 
 
 3» Aristotle fled from Athens in consequence of an accusa- 
 tion 
 
 I 
 
 33 
 
 said to the Christian defenders what Favorinus 
 ingenuously answered to his friends, when they 
 exhorted him to a more courageous adherence to 
 truth. — "Would you wish me to dispute against 
 the master of fifty legions *°?''_Even the Stoics 
 who denied that pain was an evil, acknowledged 
 that it was 'Miarsh and unpleasant *^" and few, 
 very few, would be anxious to embrace opinions, 
 which would expose them to the sword, and fire, 
 and the cross, to wild beasts and chains and 
 mines, to drowning and famine and the horrors 
 of the rack. 
 
 tion of impiety. (Diog. Laert. lib. v. §. 5.) "Aristote se retira 
 tout doucement a Chalcis, dans I'Isle d'Eubee, et plaida sa cause 
 de loin par ecrit" (Bayle Diet. Hist) His words, according to 
 Ongen, were "'Airito/jLcv dno rwu 'AOtjviov, tua fitj wpoipaa-iv 
 doi^ev 'AdrjvaioiK tou heuTcpov ayoq duaXa/^elv vapairXtjatov tw 
 Kara iMKparov koI a/a fxtj Zevrepov ek (piXotroipiav da-efiti^uaiv" 
 (Cont. Cels. See also JElian. lib. iii. cap. 36.) — Timon, as quoted 
 by Sextus Empiricus, gives the same reasMi for the flight 
 of Protagoras: '^ocppa fxrj ovroav \ 'ZtoKpariKov vivwv y^vypdv 
 TTOToV, ai^a ^i/'iy." Cicero was unwilling to reveal his real 
 opinions : " qui requirunt quid quaque de re ipsi sentiamus, 
 curiosius id faciunt quam necesse est." (De Nat. Deor. lib. i. 
 §.5.) "Metuebant enim malum, si contra publicam persuasionem 
 faterentur, quod erat verum." (Lactant. de Fals. Relig. lib. i. 
 cap. 19.) 
 
 ^ See the anecdote in Spartian. vit. Adr. (Hist. Aug. 
 Scrip, p. 8.) 
 
 *' "Non negamus rem incommodam esse, verberari, et 
 impelli, et aliquo membro carere; sed omnia ista negamus 
 injurias esse." (Senec. de Constant. Sapient, cap. I6.) Even 
 among the Stoics there were some, who, after having main- 
 tained, in a state of health, that pain was no evil, changed 
 their opinion when under sufferings : e. g. Heracleotes. See 
 Cic. lib. V. de Fin. cap. 31. Tuscul. H. cap. 25. Diog. 
 Laert. VH. ^. I66. 
 
 c 
 
84 
 
 Having tlius endeavoured to shew, by a rapid 
 view of ancient philosophy, — that it contained 
 numberless parts essentially hostile to Christianity, 
 and, therefore, it was highly probable that the 
 Apostles would have met with no promising re- 
 ception even in the city of philosophers, which 
 Plotinus desired *' ; — we . proceed to point out 
 more distinctly the several causes which conspired 
 to produce its actual rejection. — After having 
 established their general application, we shall 
 examine the particular case of the principal philo- 
 sophers, who neglected Christianity, and we shall 
 be led^ by an examination of their writings, and 
 of their lives, to remark the operation of those 
 reasons, which we have already suggested. 
 
 ^ *' Plotinus, as Porphyry relates, desired the Emperor 
 Gallienus to rebuild a ruined city in Campania, and to give 
 it to the philosophers, proposing to dwell there himself with 
 his disciple?, and to establish Plato's republic." (Jortin's Rem. 
 on Eccles. Hist. Vol I. p. 376.) 
 
 I 
 
 35 
 
 PART I. 
 
 GENERAL CAUSES OF THE INCREDULITY OF THE 
 
 PHILOSOPHERS. 
 
 MiNucius Felix has drawn with considerable 
 skill the general character of a heathen philosopher 
 in the person of Caecilius. His manner and his 
 language are intended to convey a just idea of the 
 usual treatment which the Christians experienced 
 from the learned. Having viewed it, therefore, in 
 this light, we have been enabled to reduce the 
 whole question, which forms the subject of the 
 present Essay, into a certain number of heads, to 
 which we have found that all the principal causes 
 may be referred. We have endeavoured to sup- 
 port each proposition either by the express asser- 
 tions of the philosophers, who opposed Christ- 
 ianity, or by the unvaried testimony of the ancient 
 Apologists ; and, by thus adopting a method, we 
 believe, not hitherto pursued, we have perhaps 
 avoided some of the errors which too frequently 
 arise from a dependence upon the opinions and 
 the statements of modern collectors. 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 37 
 
 I 
 
 Cause I. 
 
 Contempt for the rank and acquirements of the 
 primitive Christians. 
 
 The aversion which philosophers entertained and 
 avowed for the people has been already traced. 
 From this source we may derive the contempt 
 which they express for the situation of the early 
 Christians. Caecilius exclaims, '' It is a matter of 
 regret and indignation that certain ignorant men, 
 unacquainted with literature^ and unskilled in 
 arts, should presume to speak with confidence of 
 those momentous points, on which even philoso- 
 phy is still undecided \" The indications of this 
 spirit may be remarked in the writings of those 
 philosophers who have not noticed Christianity, as 
 well as of those who have mentioned it with ridi- 
 cule. " The favour of the people is acquired by 
 evil means/* is the common expression of Se- 
 neca' ;'* — '^ the worst speaker has always the most 
 admirers^'* was the maxim of Pliny; — "in the 
 
 * "Indignandum omnibus, indolescendumque est, auderc 
 quosdam, et hoc studiorum rudes, literarum profanos, et ex- 
 pertes artium etiam sordidarum, certum aliquid de summa rerum 
 ac majestate decernere, de qua tot omnibus seculis sectarum 
 plurimarum usque adhuc ipsa philosophia deliberat."0 ct. 
 cap. 5. Again, "Satis est pro pedibus aspicere maxirae indoctis, 
 impolitis, rudibus, agrestibus, quibus non est datum intelligere 
 ci villa, multo magis denegatum est disserere divina." cap. 12. 
 
 2 " Malis artibus popularis favor quaeritur.*' Senec Ep. 29* 
 •' " Scito eum pessime dicere, qui laudabitur maxime." 
 Plin. lib. ii. Ep. 14. 
 
 populace is neither judgement nor truth *;" is the 
 language of Tacitus. Now, just as these opinions 
 may be supposed to be in a restricted sense, thev 
 manifest, if we mistake not, that peculiar train of 
 thought which led the sages of Greece and Rome 
 to despise what they had not examined. Celsus 
 pretends^ "that no man of sense embraced the 
 Christian doctrine, for the ignorant crowd that 
 followed it was sufficient to cause its rejection." 
 This remarkable sentence, though we remember 
 not to have seen it urged, will almost alone account 
 for the incredulity of the learned. In the same strain 
 of impious raillery, he objects— that the Christians 
 were sprung from barbarians, (meaning the Jews,) 
 and he contends that the tenor of their preaching 
 was, " let no one that is instructed, no one that 
 is wise, no one that is intelligent, come to us, — 
 for these things are reckoned evil, — but if any 
 person is illiterate, if any is senseless, if any is 
 childishly foolish, let him approach with confi- 
 dence.'' For, he adds, '' by acknowledging, that 
 such persons are worthy of the favour of God, 
 they openly shew that they have the power and 
 the will to persuade only the weak-minded, the 
 ignoble, the unintelligent, — slaves, and women 
 and infants'.'' In this string of virulent false- 
 
 * " Plebi non judicium, non Veritas." Tac. Ann. lib. vii. 
 Porphyry expresses the greatest contempt for the vulgar: 
 '* OuT€ Tou avfX(pepovTo^, ovre rod jS/oy, ovre rov koivov awe- 
 roK 6 TToAi/'c- ovre edwv fpavXwv kui daremv Kpiaiv momcQai Ivvd- 
 uci/fK." De Abstin. lib. i. 
 
 * Orig. c. Cels. lib. iii. p. 155. ed. Spencer. 
 
 * Orig. c. Cels. p. 137. 
 
38 
 
 39 
 
 hoods it may be discerned that the great cause of 
 offence, to those, whom 'knowledge had puffed 
 up/ was, that '^not many wise men after the 
 flesh, not many mighty, not many noble," were 
 ''called/* Julian gives as a reason for his aver- 
 sion from the prophets — "that they had not puri- 
 fied their minds by the knowledge of the circle 
 of sciences ^" and, in another place, he exults 
 in the facility with which ''one Grecian could 
 subdue ten GalilaBan8^*' In the Philopatris they 
 are described as "a company of disaffected mendi- 
 cants ^/' JElius Aristides speaks of the impious 
 people in Palestine, by whom he probably means 
 the Christians, with whom he compares those, 
 who " never adorned the language, greatly pleas- 
 ing themselves in disparaging the art of rheto- 
 ric ^^" Libanius, even under Christian emperors, 
 still brought forward the charge, then entirely in- 
 applicable, " that they were obscure and ignorant 
 mechanics"/* The Christian advocates confirm 
 
 ' " "Oti rrjv iavrwv ylrv^rjv ov •napi'^ov dtroKadapai rok 
 €7ki/kAiW fiadiifiaai." (Frag. Ep. T. I p. 541.) The want of 
 distinguished men among the Christians in the times of Tibe- 
 rius and Claudius, is a point which he urges with exultation. 
 (Cyril, c. Julian, lib. vi. p. 206.) 
 
 * "Ti yap M^V^j ^* TaXi\aiov<i ZeKa /una ■yjB\p 'EaAi/i/iki; Karup- 
 
 ydauTo ;" (Jul. ap. Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 92.) 
 
 9 See Ludan's Works, to which it is generally, though 
 improperly, joined. See however similar expressions of dis- 
 dain in his account of the death of Peregrinus. 
 
 ^^ Orat. Platon. ii. T. II. p. 309. Dion Chrysostom probably 
 alludes to the Christians, where he exclaims': " Tiva^ ydp olroi 
 ou hia/3tl3\tiicaaiv ol ttavra oia/?a\o'i/TCc; ov 1,(DKpdrtjv\ o\) FIu^o- 
 'fopav; Ol) FlAaTwi/a ;" (Corinth. Or. :>7. p. 4-63.) 
 
 " Pro Tempi. Gentil. non Exscidend. ad Theodos. M. 
 
 Imp. 
 
 the truth of this argument. Origen expressly 
 declares that the objection of the Greek philoso- 
 phers was, '^that no wise or instructed man was 
 a disciple of Jesus, but sailors and the poorest 
 publicans ^^*' "You despise us as an ignorant 
 class/' is the language, not of Arnobius alone *', 
 but of all the apologists ^\ 
 
 Imp. Orat. He speaks of those " who have left the tongs and 
 the hammer and the anvil, and pretend to talk of the hea- 
 vens," p. 19. See Lardn. Testim. Vol. IV. p. 147- 
 
 ^* Orig. Philocal. cap. 18. p. 48. 
 
 *• " Despuitis nos ut rudes." Disp. adv. Gent. lib. iii. 
 p. 109. Also " Nos hebetes, stolidi, fatui^ obtusi, pronuncia- 
 mur et bruti." lib. i. p. 15. See also pp. 45. 51. and 66. — G. 
 Elmenhorst Observ. in Amob. p. 24. 
 
 ** So Tertull. in Apolog. cap. 49. " In philosophia et poe- 
 tis summae scientiae et insignia ingenia: illi prudentes, nos 
 inepti : illi honorandi, vos irridendi." See also Lactant. lib. iv. 
 cap. 13. lib.v. cap. 2. — Jerom. Comm. ad Gal. — August, de Civ. 
 Dei, lib. 22. — Without dwelling on similar assertions, which 
 may be found in Theoph-lus, Theodoret, &c. we may sum the 
 unjust invectives, to which the Christians were exposed, by 
 presenting the epithets which St. Chrysostom declares to have 
 been usually applied to them : " aypoiKoi, dpiudeh, d^pdyLfxaroi^ 
 davv6TOt, a'0ai/e?<r, 7rei/»/T6c, eureXe??, &C." (Hom. in 1 Cor.) 
 Even under Arcadius, Fraiutus declared that he could not 
 brook to follow the multitude, in abandoning the heathen 
 worship, " ovK dve^erai toTc dTro tov 7r\ridov<; dKoXovdtjaai," 
 Zosim. Hist. p. 798. The Pagans were equally violent against 
 the style of the Sacred Writings, see Arnob. lib.i. p. 34. Lac- 
 tantius (Div. Inst, lib.v. cap. 1.) considers this as one great 
 cause of the rejection of Christianity : " Haec imprimis causa 
 est, cur apud sapientes et doctos et principes lUjiis seculi, 
 scriptura sancta fide careat, quod prophetae communi ac sim- 
 plici sermone, ut ad populum, sunt locuti, &c." See also lib. 
 vi. cap. 21. Comp. Theodoret. ad Graec. Serm. V. Tatian. 
 c. Grace, in init. Orig. c. Cels. lib. vi. in init. &c. 
 
40 
 
 Before we conclude this cause, it may be 
 proper to observe, that the contempt, expressed 
 against the early disciples, also arose from the 
 circumstance, that Christianity was confounded 
 with Judaism. 
 
 Innumerable instances of the abhorrence with 
 which the Romans spoke of the Jews, may be 
 found in Horace, Martial, Josephus, and Philo ; 
 and of the general ignorance of their history and 
 religion in Justin, Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, 
 Diogenes Laertius, and Plutarch". Some asserted 
 that they came from Egypt, others, from Crete, 
 others, from India ; some thought that the object 
 of their worship was the clouds, others that it 
 was Bacchus, others that it was Serapis. Celsus, 
 who seems to have had some knowledge of the 
 Sacred Scriptures, still contends that the whole 
 
 " The ignorance of the Romans and other nations respect- 
 ing the Jews is evident from Justin. Hist lib. xxxvi. cap. 2. — 
 Tacit. Hist. lib. v.— Diodor. Sicul. Frag. ap. Phot.— Diog. 
 Laert lib.i. — Plutarch. Sympos. lib.iv. QuaestS — The con- 
 tempt of the Romans for the Jews is apparent in Joseph, c. 
 Appion. — Martial, lib. iv. Ep. 4. lib. ii. Ep. 95. — Phil, in 
 
 L^gat M. Jacquelot in his " Dissertations sur V Existence 
 
 de Dieu," p. 490. conjectures that Juvenal confounds the 
 Christians with the Jews in the well known description of 
 the latter: " Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti;| 
 Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos." (Sat. xiv.) This, 
 he urges, cannot be applied to the Jews, since the place of 
 their assemblies was no secret at Rome, and it is not reason- 
 able to suppose, that they could be in the habit of shewing* 
 80 much incivility to their conquerors, as not to point out the 
 way to their fountains. It is more probable, he thinks, that 
 an allusion is here made to the Christians, who were accused of 
 private assemblies, and of directing those only who were will- 
 ing to profess their faith to the fountain or water of baptism. 
 
 41 
 
 dispute between the Jews and the Christians was 
 perfectly trifling and unimportant ^^. The Jew- 
 ish nation he calls "fugitives from Egypt, who 
 had never performed any achievement worth men- 
 tioning, and who were reckoned of no considera- 
 tion"/' 
 
 Such is the first cause, to which we trace the 
 incredulity of philosophers, — their previous con- 
 tempt for men of the people, — men but little 
 versed in literary and scientific pursuits, — men 
 sprung from a nation which they regarded as 
 the vilest and the worst. — We proceed to remark 
 how easy was the transition from a want of respect 
 for their situation in life, to a want of acquaint- 
 ance with their occupations and worship. 
 
 Cause II. 
 
 Contempt for the religious rites of the primitive 
 
 Christians, 
 
 CiECiLius is introduced as speaking with the 
 utmost contempt of the worship of one " who was 
 punished as a malefactor in an ignominious man- 
 ner \" Indeed ''Christ crucified" was nearly 
 
 *** He says it was no more than, as the proverb is, — the 
 noted contention about the shadow of the ass. Orig. c. Cels. 
 lib. iii. p. 112. 
 
 '7 Orig. c. Cels. lib. iv. p. 181. 
 
 ^ Octav. cap. 9. Comp. Lactant iv. cap. I6. — Lucian's 
 account of Peregrinus. — Arnob. lib. i. p. 20. with the note of 
 Elmenhorstiu!?. — Orig. c Cels. lib. vi. &c. 
 
!i 
 
 42 
 
 to all the Greeks but ''foolishness/' and the 
 philosophic Justin confesses that this was one 
 point which raised his objections, previously to 
 his conversion. The character of our Redeemer 
 was a constant source of blasphemy. The wor- 
 ship of the early Christians, and particularly their 
 private assemblies', were exposed to the raiser- 
 able fictions of ignorance and prejudice and 
 profligacy. No one, who possesses even a su- 
 perficial knowledge of that period, when low 
 bufibonry was substituted for argument, and 
 monstrous calumnies were accepted as evidence, 
 will deny the truth of our assertions : we will not 
 pollute our pages with a repetition of profane 
 scurrilities, from which the unperverted mind 
 must turn with shuddering and disgust. It is suf- 
 ficient to mention that Atheism ', — Infanticide ^ — 
 the utmost absurdity of worship ^ — the deepest 
 depravity of morals ^ — were among the reports 
 which were spread abroad against a class of 
 persons, whose very names had been but imper- 
 
 ' The Christians are called by CsBcilius, — " Latebrosa et 
 lucifugax natio," cap. 13. Comp. Orig. c. Cels. Tertull. Apol. 
 cap. 39.— Private nocturnal meetings were contrary to the 
 laws of the twelve Tables. 
 
 ^ Besides Minucius Felix, (cap. 8.) see Tertull. in Apol. 
 cap. 6. — Athenagoras p. 4. — Lact. lib. v. cap. 9^ &c. It is 
 one of the objections of Julian. — " AJpe roik ^AOeov:," — re- 
 sounded in the amphitheatres. 
 
 * Min. Fel. cap. 8, 9. on which see the note of Davies. — 
 Tertull. Apol. cap. 7- and Just. Mart, in Dialog, cum 
 Tryh. &c. 
 
 ' See Min. Fel. cap. 8. Tertull. Apol. cap. If). &c. On 
 other absurd accusations, sec F. Balduin. Dissert, de Min. Fel. 
 
 • Min. Fel. cap. 9 — Athenag. Apol. 
 
 43 
 
 fectly learnt'. And, strange as it may now be 
 thought, these were objections which were 
 seriously proposed by men, who pretended to be 
 exempt from vulgar credulity, and seriously an- 
 swered by those who suffered under the effects of 
 their palpable injustice. We intend not to enquire 
 at present into the origin of these contemptible 
 falsehoods, which were probably but gross per- 
 versions of scriptural facts, or of heretical conceits, 
 but we merely refer to the Ecclesiastical History 
 of Eusebius, where a proof of their extensive 
 prevalence may be found in the admirable relation 
 of the martyrdom at Lyons. All we insist upon 
 is, — that these reports argue the extreme ignorance 
 of the learned on the subject of the Christian 
 rites, and explain in a great degree, the reason 
 of their undissembled aversion. What Justin 
 Martyr^ says of Crescens the philosopher, is ap- 
 plicable to almost every member of the ancient 
 school : — he spoke of things which he understood 
 not, and acted more shamefully even than the 
 ignorant, who seldom presume to decide on 
 matters with which they are unacquainted. — It 
 may also be observed that we may here easily 
 trace the operation of those opinions respecting 
 the established religion, to which we have before 
 adverted. The entire hostility of Christianity to 
 Polytheism excited their immediate alarm, and 
 their determined resistance. The grandeur of 
 Pagan pomp, — 'with gorgeous tapestry of pictured 
 joys,' — still attracted their dazzled minds. To 
 
 7 They called them Chrestiani instead of Christiani. 
 * Pro Christ. Apol. i. p. 47. 
 
44 
 
 45 
 
 adore one pure and spiritual God was, in their 
 opinion, impiety and rebellion. It was ' to be 
 rent from the constitutions of their ancestors;' 
 it was to embrace the practice of barbarians; 
 it was to trample upon regulations which had 
 gained the concurrent approbation of the legis- 
 lator^ the magistrate, and the philosopher. When 
 Caecilius exclaims : — " How much better it is to 
 receive the religion of our forefathers ! to observe 
 those customs, venerable by the stamp of an- 
 tiquity, which we have learnt to treat with 
 reverential awe,"— he delivers the sentiments of 
 alP. Symmachus, a person remarkable for his 
 attainments and for his rank,_boldly acknow- 
 ledges to Emperors, who were then Christians, 
 that his object had been to maintain the religion 
 of the state, — the religion which they should 
 leave to their posterity as they had received it 
 from their ancestors. The Pagan continually 
 charged the Christian with the ruin brought 
 upon a city once devoted to the gods, and then 
 only great and flourishing. Christianity, in their 
 language, had chased away the protecting Genii 
 of the Roman people '**, and let loose upon them 
 the horrors of carnage and desolation. Blight 
 and famine and storms and pestilence were the 
 punishments of their apostacy ". From their seats 
 
 • Min. Felix. Oct. cap. v. p. 58. Comp. Amob. lib. ii. 
 Euseb. in vit. Constant, lib. ii. cap. 5. 
 
 I'* See Symmach. pro Sacr. Patr. ap. Prudent. 
 
 " Arnob. lib. i. in init. — Tertull. Apol. cap. 40. — Aug. de 
 Civ. Dei, lib. ii. cap. 2. — M. Aurel. Anton. Imp. in Praescript. 
 ad Asiatic, ap. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. p. 4. cap. 13.— Cyprian, c. 
 Demetrian. 
 
 above their fathers were represented as looking 
 down upon the ** land of their birth and of their 
 triumphs, — whose glory had now gone down into 
 darkness. The baffled politician, who viewed 
 with anxiety and dismay, the symptoms of ap- 
 proaching dissolution spreading with dreadful 
 rapidity through all the members of a mighty 
 empire, joined the exasperated fanatic in the cry 
 of ferocity, — '' Christianos ad Leonem." In vain 
 did the unoffending follower of a purer worship 
 disclaim all participation in these evils, — ^the 
 necessary effects of a weak government; — ^the 
 barbarian had advanced in savage exultation to 
 their confines ^^ the day of vengeance was fast 
 coming ; — and their oracles were silent **, and the 
 altar of victory was inauspiciously removed. The 
 philosopher cared not to attend to the spirited 
 declamations of the apologists against the extrava- 
 gance of rites, which he himself internally ridi- 
 culed, but he urged with vehemence and alarm, 
 that the temples were ''the soul of the country/' 
 their overthrow was its destruction". — ''They 
 know," says Lactantius^^ of the learned in his 
 time, "they know the vanity of the heathen 
 creed; nevertheless with strange perverseness, 
 they persevere in maintaining those very institu- 
 tions which they condemn. Cicero was aware 
 
 ^^ Symmach. pro Sacr. Patr. 
 
 ^^ Aug. Retract, lib. ii. cap. 43. 
 
 ^* See Ambros. Ep. — Prudent, c. Symmach. — Dr. Ireland's 
 Paganism and Christianity compared, Chap. ii. 
 
 ^* Libanius in his oration, " For the Temples," addressed 
 to the Christian Emperor Theodosius. 
 
 ^^ Div. Inst. lib. ii. cap. 3. 
 
46 
 
 that the popular notions were false, and yet, 
 after having urged a variety of arguments tending 
 to the overthrow of religions, he adds, — ' that such 
 disputes were not to be held before the people, 
 lest they should destroy the existing systems"' — 
 The same observations are repeated by all the 
 defenders of a religion, which, however holy, 
 was not national, and therefore not tolerated *\ 
 Athenagoras loudly complains, that while all the 
 nations, who composed the Roman empire in the 
 time of the emperors Aurelius Antoninus and 
 Commodus, were restrained by no law from the 
 peaceful exercise of their religion, the Christians 
 were plundered and persecuted under the sanction 
 of the law*^ The philosophers continued to 
 enjoin a strict observance of prescribed cere- 
 monies. " It is incumbent on every man to perform 
 libations and sacrifices, and other rites accord- 
 ing to the customs of his country ;" — are the 
 words of Epictetus himself ^^ Plotinus approves 
 of the Egyptian priests, who represented inys- 
 • teries by animals, and Porphyry supposes them 
 to be images of the deity. It sccras as if Ihcy 
 all had taken and reverenced the Athenian oath : 
 
 " *lepa TO, iraTpia ri/iiriaw/' — PHny, TacitUS, MufCUS 
 
 Antoninus, — all were unanimous in upholding the 
 ancient establishment. It was "the pious faith 
 of their forefathers,'*— it was ''of divine dignity," 
 
 »7 See, as a proof, Euseb. Eccl. Hilt vil 2. Tbit the 
 Romant wtrr. unwilling to receive Aff«^ notiooiAl religions 
 h evldont from August, de Cons. Evang. lib.t. csp. 12.— Amob. 
 lib. iii. cap^ 1 1- — Vmd. c Sym. lib. ii. 
 
 " Apol. in init. " Enchir. xxxvtil 
 
 I 
 
 47 
 
 it was "the pure worship of the Divinity." Its 
 very absurdities were fondly defended ; '' Let se- 
 riousness be blended with mirth ;" — was a maxim 
 as pleasing to the sage, as to the populace. Indeed 
 it has not been observed without reason by the 
 acute Warburton, that ''there was nothing the 
 philosophers^ especially the Platonists and Pytha- 
 goreans, had more at heart than the support of 
 sinking Paganism. This service they performed 
 in various ways and manners ; some by allegoriz- 
 ing their theology, some by spiritualizing their 
 philosophy, and some» as lamblicuu and Philoslra- 
 tus, by writing Che lives of their heroes to oppose 
 to that of Christ; others again, as Porphyry, 
 with this view, collected their oracles, or a« Me- 
 lanthius, Menander, Hicesius^ and Sotadcs, wrote 
 descriptive encomiums on their mysteries 
 
 n »» 
 
 Cause III. 
 
 Contempt for the peculiar doctrwei of Ckriuiamt^, 
 
 VVe have before remarked, ttiat the leading doc* 
 trineik of Revelation are by no means ^}imilar to 
 the peculiar tenets of the philosophers ; we pro- 
 ceed to shew that they were the actual causes of 
 the fact, — ^that the new sect was "every where 
 $(poken against \'' Among the objections which 
 MinuciuA Pelix introduces Cscilius as producing, 
 the principal seem to be, as might have been ex- 
 
 ^ Div. Leg. Book II. Sect. iv. Works. Vol 1.. p. 311. 
 ' Acl^ xviii. ^'i. 
 
48 
 
 49 
 
 peeled, the unity of the Deity, and His condescen- 
 sion in inquiring into all our thoughts, and being 
 present in all our ways, — marks, in the caviller*s 
 opinion, of a restless and troublesome curiosity. — 
 ''He cannot attend to individuals, if he is occu- 
 pied with the whole; he cannot govern the 
 whole, if he is distracted by the care of indivi- 
 duals \" Such is his reasoning. If we turn to 
 real enemies, we see Celsus express the strong- 
 est contempt for the real doctrines of the Gospel. 
 He ridicules the miraculous conception^; he ridi- 
 cules the notion of faith *, and considers it as a 
 prolific source of deception ; he ridicules the 
 admonition of the Apostle against the wisdom 
 of this world*. Affecting to undervalue the pre- 
 cepts of Christian morality, he compares them 
 with the language of Plato on ethical subjects. 
 Julian, in his Caesars, directs his unjust raillery 
 against the doctrine of repentance, as opening 
 an asylum to the perpetrators of the darkest 
 crimes ^ He also sneers at the expression, that 
 
 « Oct. cap. 10. Comp. Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. 
 » Orig. c. Cels. lib. i. p. 30. See also lib. i. p. 25. 
 
 • Id. lib. i. p. 8. So also Julian (in Greg. Naiianz. Or. 
 1. c. Jul.) ridicules the Christians for their constant use of 
 
 the word '* iriVrevcov." 
 
 • Id. lib. i. p. 2. 
 
 • He introduces Constantius as exclaiming : ""OffTK (pdo- 
 p€W, oa-TiK fjitaKpovo^t o«rT« cvajrjv kqi fih€\vp6<:, Irw 6appu¥, 
 avodiavbo yap avrov toutw tw vSoti Xovaa^, auriKa Kadapov. Kau 
 iraXiv €vo^o<: to?* awTOW ytvrirai, Seuffoj to ffrrjdtK irXrj^avri Ka\ 
 Ttjv KetpaXrju -nnrd^avrt, xaOapm ytyv€<r6at" Compare the rea- 
 sons given by Zosimus for Constantine's Conversion. (Hist, 
 lib. ii. p- 454.) 
 
 f 
 
 k . 
 
 ■I 
 If! 
 
 ( 
 
 the way of life is easy to the * poor in spirit.' 
 But he is in the highest degree shocked at the 
 idea of a ^jealous God,' who could not be wor- 
 shipped in communion with the deities of the 
 
 Pantheon — ^'"^^ere tovtov t6v Xtjpovy Kal /iajJ TJ/Xi- 
 KavTf/v etj} vfms aifTovs cXkctc l3\a<7(prfiuLiav ." But 
 
 the most fertile source of derision, as. Origen 
 informs us, was the doctrine of the resurrec- 
 tion of the body^. It was deemed the height 
 of absurdity to assert, that 'Uhe stars and the 
 heavens, which are constantly the same, shall fall 
 away and perish, but that man, weak man, who 
 is now born, now sinking to the earth, shall live for 
 gyg|.9 »» cc uj carnis restitutio negetur, de una om- 
 nium philosophorum schola sumitur ^^/' St. Paul 
 has recorded an objection, which was perpetually 
 repeated, '* how are the dead raised up, and with 
 what body do they come"?" The philosopher 
 regarded the body as the clog, the prison, the 
 sepulchre of the soul, in which it was sunk and 
 confined, and fretted anxiously to obtain its re- 
 lease^'. He looked upon the body as so impure 
 
 7 Jul. ap. Cyril, lib. v. 
 
 ^ It is according to Origen: " ^Ava-Ttjptov yeXtofAevov viro 
 rtav dfriaTwv.'* (lib. i.) St. Augustine says expressly, " In 
 nulla re tam vehementer, tarn pertinaciter, tarn obnixe et con- 
 tentiose contradicitur fidei Christianae, sicut de carnis resur- 
 rectione:" In Psal. Ixxxiii. Oper. Tom. IV. p. 713. 
 
 ® "Anceps malum et gemina dementia! coelo et astris, 
 quae sic relinquimus, ut invenimus, interitum denunciare : sibi 
 mortuis, extinctis, qui sicut nascimur, et interimur, aeternita- 
 tem repromittere." Min. Fel. cap. 11. 
 . ^ Tertull. " " 1 Cor. xv. 35. 
 
 ^2 Plut. Phaed.— Cic. de Senect. — Senec. Ep. Ixv. &c- 
 
 D 
 
and worthless, that Celsus regarded the hope of 
 its resurrection, as a hope fitter for worms than 
 for men, and hence he terms it ^'a resurrection 
 to another sleep "," and denies that the Deity had 
 either the will or the ability to produce such an 
 effect. Indeed, the prevalence of these opinions 
 may be traced to a very early period ^\ jEschy- 
 lus describes Apollo as exclaiming in the Eu- 
 menides ; 
 
 eweiSdv aJfi dvaairaari kovi^ 
 
 ^.-, tf iff/ 15 »» 
 
 ATra^ 0apovTo^, ovtk €(tt avaeraaK . 
 
 Pliny the Elder thought that two things, among 
 others, were out of the power of the Deity :— 
 " Mortales ©ternitate donare, aut revocare de- 
 functos''." It cannot, therefore, be a matter of 
 surprise, that when St. Paul preached before the 
 learned sects at Athens, the resurrection of the 
 dead, 'some mocked,* and others deferred the 
 enquiry ". In fact, we find, that even Synesius, 
 the Christian Platonist, rejected this particular 
 doctrine, and that Tertullian once felt inclined 
 to treat it with levity '^ that Justin Martyr, 
 
 " Or. c. Cels. lib. v. p. 210. 
 
 »* The doctrine of the resurrection of the body may be 
 deemed peculiar to revealed religion. It appears indeed to 
 have been taught by Zoroaster, but he is supposed by some 
 to have received it from the Jews, among whom he was edu- 
 cated. (See Dr. Hyde's Work De Relig. Vet. Persarum.) Chry- 
 sippus was perhaps the only one among the Greeks who en- 
 tertained any idea favourable to it. (See Lactant. Just. lib. vu 
 cap. 23. Chapman's Euseb. p. 430. and Pearson on the Creed.) 
 
 1* Eumen. v. 648. '"^ Hist. Nat. lib. ii. cap. 7- 
 
 17 Actsxvii. 32. ^^ Apol. cap. 18. 
 
 11 
 
 51 
 
 Tatian, and particularly Athenagoras^^ employed 
 the whole strength of their reasoning to prove this 
 contested point. It were needless to specify other 
 instances: it must be sufficiently evident, with- 
 out the induction of individual examples, to all 
 who are acquainted with the tenets of ancient 
 philosophers, that they would have turned with 
 mixed contempt and abhorrence from the great 
 characteristics of the Christian faith. And here 
 it may not be improper to obviate the objection, 
 that if the morality of the new religion, were as 
 perfect as it is pretended, it would have extorted 
 immediate assent. The argument, however spe- 
 cious, is not true. As it requires a considerable 
 proficiency ^^ in the fine arts to admire and appre- 
 ciate their nicest beauties, so, in the science of 
 morals, the mind must have acquired a proper 
 tone of feeling, and an enlarged power of rea- 
 soning, before it is susceptible of perceiving the 
 beauty of superior excellence. A philosopher 
 would not immediately allow that humility under 
 affronts, forgiveness of injuries, passiveness and 
 submission under evil, were qualities preferable 
 to a quick susceptibility of insult, a resolute dis- 
 play of inflexibility, an insurmountable spirit of 
 independence. The former seem, at first sight, 
 the marks of tameness : the latter, of greatness : 
 the former had met with no admirers, the latter 
 
 *^ See his Treatise on the Resurrection. 
 
 ^ For instance, it is said by Quintilian to require some 
 experience in oratory, to appreciate Cicero ; and Sir Joshua 
 Reynolds observes, that Raphael's superior excellence does not 
 litrike the examiner at first. 
 
 d2 
 
53 
 
 had been eulogized in the glowing descriptions 
 of orators, historians, and poets. The former 
 was thought to preserve security, the latter, to 
 destroy it". A proper sense of the inferiority of 
 the latter character to the first, must arise from 
 a comprehensive view of the different efifects 
 which would attend their universal adoption. It 
 may be necessary also to remark that the Pagan 
 philosophers might have been deterred in some 
 respects, from cordially embracing, or even calmly 
 examining, the Christian scheme, by the force of 
 evil habits, to which it was hostile, and the vio- 
 lence of evil passions, against which it directed 
 its unqualified condemnation. Epictetus, for in- 
 stance, never speaks with severity against lust : 
 and even Lipsius^ the warm admirer of the 
 Stoics, hardly frees Seneca from the charges of 
 obsequiousness and covetousness. We deny not, 
 that many accusations may be the execrable in- 
 ventions of malignity : but we must remember 
 the express declaration of Quintilian, that in his 
 time the deepest vices were concealed under the 
 cloak of philosophy; that several of its fol- 
 lowers, though severe in their mien, and peculiar 
 in their dress, were infamous in their lives '^ It 
 
 « The Christians were said to be " Infructuosi in negotiis." 
 Tertull. Apol. xlii. See the answers of Octavius in M in. Felix. 
 and also Lact. lib. v. cap. 9- 
 
 M See his learned Manud. ad Stoic. Philos. 
 
 S3 « Nostristemporibus sub hoc nomine maxima in plerisque 
 vitia latuerunt. Non enim virtute ac studiis, ut haberentur 
 philosophi, laborabant ; sed vultum, et tristitiam, et dissentien- 
 tern a ceteris habitum pessimis moribus praetendebant." lib. i. 
 r> 3 We know too, that those who, in the days of Juvenal, 
 P* looked 
 
 'Ml 
 
 53 
 
 must be allowed too, that even in many of their 
 writings, may be traced a peculiar train of 
 thought on moral subjects, by no means favour- 
 able to an immediate reception of Christianity, 
 and almost sufficient to warrant the honest exulta- 
 tion of the advocate of revelation : '' We despise 
 the haughty looks of philosophers, whom we have 
 known to be corrupters, adulterers, and tyrants, 
 ever eloquent against the very vices in which 
 they indulge. We wear not our wisdom in our 
 garb, but in our minds. It is not our language, 
 but our life, which is great. Our boast is, that 
 we have obtained that which they sought with 
 intense study, and could not find".'* 
 
 Cause IV. 
 
 Contempt for Miracles and Prophecy, 
 
 It cannot be denied that the argument for the 
 truth of Christianity, which is derived from its 
 miracles, was seldom urged with as much force, 
 as its importance deserves, by the early Christian 
 Apologists. But it is certain that this circum- 
 
 looked like Curii, and lived like Bacchanals, filled their studies 
 with the images of Chrysippus, Aristotle, and Cleanthes. 
 (Sat. ii.) 
 
 ** " Philosophorum supercilia contemnimus, quos corrup- 
 tores et adulteros novimus et tjrrannos et semper adversus 
 sua vitia facundos. Nos non habitu sapientiam, sed mente 
 praeferimus; non loquimur magna, sed vivimus: gloriamur 
 nos consecutos, quod illi summa intentione quaesiverunt, nee 
 invenire potuerunt." Min. Fel. cap. 38. 
 
54 
 
 stance was owing to the general contempt which 
 the appeal experienced. By some all extraordi- 
 nary effects were immediately explained on the 
 principle of supernatural powers', imparted hy 
 evil spiriU ; by others on that of joggling artifice, 
 frequently practised by expert impostors ^ Celsus 
 ascribed the Christian miracles expressly to 
 magic', and asserted that he had seen some 
 presbyters of the Church, who had books written 
 in a barbarous language, and containing the 
 names of demons and other charms'. Hierocles 
 is forced to resort to the same expedient ^ Por- 
 phyry also attributes them to the agency of 
 demons ^ Julian, without denying their exist- 
 ence, expresses a very mean opinion of their 
 importance^. Marcus Antoninus, though he 
 makes no direct mention of them, declares that 
 he had learnt from Diognetus,— '' not to believe 
 the reports of wonder-workers, or magicians con- 
 cerning incantations and the averting of demons 
 
 » Hence the Christians are called by Suetonius "genus 
 hominum superstitionis maleficae." (In Neron. cap. l6.) On 
 the prevalent belief in magic, see particularly TertuUian's 
 Apol. cap. 23. Arnob. p. 25. on which see the note of Desid. 
 Heraldus. We have in a former part of this Essay observed, 
 that the philosophers were not exempt from credulity. 
 
 « See Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. cap. 2, &c. 
 
 » He also seems at one time to attribute them to artifice. 
 See Or. c. Cels. lib. iii. and vi. and to magic in lib. ii. §. 48. 
 
 * Or. c. Cels. lib. vi. §. 40. 
 
 » Euseb. c. Hier. ad calc. Demonst. Evang— Lardner's 
 Testim. Vol. III. p. 228. 
 
 » Hieron. adv. Vigilant. Tom. IV. Part II. p. 286. 
 
 7 Cyril, cont. Jul. lib. vi. 
 
 it 
 
 55 
 
 and such like impostures^." The later philoso- 
 phers constantly alledged the miracles of Apol- 
 lonius Tyanaeus^. — ^^ Nihil aliud Dorainum, quam 
 alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiuntur. 
 Apollonium siquidem suum nobis, et Apuleium, 
 aliosque magicae artis homines in medium pro- 
 ferunt, quorum majora contendunt extitisse mi- 
 
 racula^^" 
 
 Nor had the philosophers more regard to 
 prophecy. They well knew the falsehood of 
 oracles; — they were aware that they were only 
 the instruments of policy, with which ambition 
 contrived to work upon ignorance, — they were, 
 therefore, but little anxious to inquire into records, 
 whose authority they rejected, whose style was 
 foreign from their usual language, and whose 
 matter referred to events which they cared not 
 to examine. Porphyry endeavoured to shew that 
 Daniel only related facts which had already hap- 
 pened ^\ It would be consistent with our plan 
 to dwell upon this cause,— which has been ex- 
 plained by Grotius, Le Clerc, Cudworth, Huet, 
 and Jortin: and to the attentive reader, by the 
 very persons, who would change it into an ob- 
 jection, — ^by Gibbon, by Voltaire, and by Bayle. 
 
 ® ** Ilapa Aio7i/»/TOu, to dKevoa-irovZov koi to aTria-TrfTiKov 
 TOK VTTO Twv T€paTevoiJ.evu)v Ka\ yotjrwvj irepi CTrtoBwi/ kui •jrepi 
 Zaifjiovuiv dwowofxirrifi koi rav toiovtoov Xeyofievoi*!, k. t. \." Part I. 
 
 ed. Gatak. 
 
 ® Particularly Hierocles. See the Life of ApoUonius by 
 Philostratus. Lactant. Inst. lib. v. cap. 3. 
 
 ^0 Marcellin. ad August. Ep. IS. Tom. II. 
 
 '^ Hieron. Pr. ad Explan. in Daniel. Tom. III. 107. 1. 
 
56 
 
 57 
 
 Cause V. 
 
 Contempt for the sufferings and martyrdoms of the 
 
 early Christians, 
 
 C^ciLius^ exclaims, in the spirit of the sneering 
 philosophers, "O wonderful infatuation and in- 
 conceivable audacity ! — the Christians despise the 
 certain torments of the present life, while they 
 fear the uncertain punishments of a future one." 
 Indeed their extraordinary courage, though it 
 naturally excited their surprise, generally pro- 
 duced rather pity than admiration. Even the 
 Stoics, the stern teachers of fortitude and patience, 
 expressed their censure of the Christian Martyr- 
 doms. Did they expose themselves to all that 
 the most ingenious cruelty can invent? — ^the cold 
 philosopher turned away with disdain, and smiled 
 at their " incorrigible stubbornness." Pliny \ who 
 could discover no crime in the new sect, even 
 by the application of the rack, still thought that 
 their inflexible pertinacity ought to be punished. 
 Marcus Antoninus^ also looks upon their resig- 
 nation and sufferings as the effect of ^'mere 
 obstinacy ;" Epictetus attributes them to the in- 
 fluence of '' mere habit*." Galen observes with 
 perfect indiff'erence that it was a proverbial ex- 
 
 * Min. Fel. cap. 8. p. 72. ed. Davis. 
 
 » Plin. lib. X. ad Trag. Ep. 97- This notion was increasing 
 by confounding the Christians with the Jews, whose obstinate 
 adherence to their faith has been noted by Tacitus, (Hist, 
 cap. 5.) ' Marc. Anton, lib. xi. §. 3. 
 
 * Epictet. lib. iv. cap. 7. and lib. viii. cap. 45. 
 
 t 
 
 '* 
 
 pression^ — ^'it were as easy to persuade those 
 who follow Moses and Christ to change their 
 opinion^.'* Porphyry seems to allude to them, 
 when he speaks in his book on abstinence from 
 animal food, of certain persons, ^^who, having em- 
 braced rules different from their former method 
 of living, will endure to be torn limb from limb, 
 rather than return to their ancient course V' Julian 
 saw them without emotion, when '^ they trampled 
 on burning coals as on dirt ;" — when " they looked 
 upon waves as upon meadows, and ran to the 
 sword as to a diadem ^." The anonymous philo- 
 sopher, whose writings against Christianity are 
 mentioned by Lactantius, appears also to have 
 ascribed this extraordinary contempt of death to 
 *' perverse obstinacy ^." Obstinacy ! to prefer tlie 
 cause of truth to the enjoyment of life, to refuse 
 participation in a worship which they believed 
 to be impious, to despise the shadows of a tran- 
 sitory world, and to look forward to their eternal 
 abodes! Who can read their manly remonstran- 
 ces, — who can picture to himself the scenes that 
 daily passed before the eyes of the learned, — 
 when the faithful yielded with meek passiveness 
 to the demoniac ferocity of their enemies, and 
 'held up shaking hands in the fire,' without 
 feeling the mixed emotions of pity and of admira- 
 tion,— of pity, for those minds which were 'spoilt 
 by vain philosophy,' and of admiration for the 
 spirit of Christianity, that walketh unhurt through 
 
 * De Pulsuum Different, lib. iii. p. 34. 
 
 • De Abstinent, ab Esu Anim. lib. i. cap. 2. p. 3. 
 
 ^ S. Chrys. Tom. V. p. 533. ' Lact. Inst. lib. v. cap. 2. 
 

 the flames of persecution ? '^ Call us/' exckims 
 Tertullian with the vehemence and fervour which 
 characterize his style^ ^^call us all the names 
 you can derive from your instruments of tor- 
 ture ; yet know, that the pile, which begirds us, 
 is our apparel of victory, our robe of glory, 
 our chariot of triumph ^." " Mangled and reeking 
 in our own blood, we still cry, we cry aloud, — we 
 worship God through Christ." It is, however, some 
 consolation to reflect these martyrdoms converted 
 at least ^°, one philosopher into the noblest de- 
 fender of the Christian faith. " Even I/' says the 
 excellent Justin, " who was devotedly attached to 
 the principles of Plato, — when I heard the accu- 
 sations against the Christians, and saw the fearless 
 manner in which they resigned themselves to 
 death, and to whatever suflFerings are reckoned 
 most dreadful, — felt a conviction that it was 
 impossible these men should be addicted to vice 
 and profligacy. For who, that indulged in in- 
 temperate pleasure, and who, that was guilty of 
 the cannibalism (of which they were charged,) 
 would gladly embrace death, and submit to the 
 privation of all which was looked upon as desir- 
 able? Would not such a man, far from volun- 
 tarily placing himself into the hands of the 
 
 ^ " Licet nunc sarmenticios et semiaxios appelletis, quia ad 
 stipitem dimidii axis revincti samientorum ambitu exurimur. 
 Hie est habitus victorise nostrae, haec palnjata vestis, tali cumi 
 triumphamus." Apol. sub fine. 
 
 10 <'Dicimus, et palam dicimus, et vobis torquentibus, 
 lacerati et cruenti vociferamur, Deum colimus per Christum." 
 Ap. cap. 21. 
 
 Ill 
 
 i 
 
 59 
 
 executioner, use every eftbrt to preserve his life, 
 and to escape from the vigilance of the magis- 
 trate*'?" 
 
 > 
 
 Cause VI. 
 
 Mistakes of the early Christians, 
 
 We cannot conclude this enumeration of the 
 causes which co-operated in preventing the cordial 
 reception of Christianity by the philosophers, 
 without adverting as briefly as possible to one 
 circumstance, which must have produced some 
 degree of prejudice, and perhaps of hostility. 
 The impartial enquirer, while he separates the 
 faults of persons from those of systems, will con- 
 fess the possibility of the former with as much 
 sincerity as he will deny the existence of the 
 latter. We own, therefore, that the Christians 
 may sometimes have injured their cause^ by their 
 
 mistakes on the subjects of natural philosophy ; 
 
 by their occasional exercise of inconclusive rea- 
 soning, and puerile illustrations; — by their fre- 
 
 " ** Ka\ yap avTO<i eyto Tfi<! Uxdravo^ yaipmv lildytxaai, lia- 
 fiaWofxevov*! CLKovoiv Xptariavov^, opdov he dcpofiov^ wpo<i ffdvarov, 
 Ka\ wavra rot (aAAa) vofAi^ofjieva <po(3epd<, ivcvoovv dhvvaTOv elvai 
 €v KaKia, Ka\ (piKrfiovia, virdp^eiu avTow. ti? yap (piXrjlovo^, ^ 
 dKpdrr]':, Ka\ dvOptawivcov trapKuu /Sopdv dyadov tjyovfxivo^, hu- 
 vairo dv ddvarov dtrird^eadai, owm^i twi/ avrov dyaOav a-rcptjOf}' 
 a\\* ovK CK iravTo^ ^^v (m^'") a^i rtjv evddhe fiiortjv, Ka\ A.a»»- 
 ddvew TOU9 dp-^ovra^ CTretpdro' ov^ on (ye) eavrdu KartiyyeWe 
 (povevdvifTotxevov \" Apol. i. 0pp. p. 50. 
 
60 
 
 61 
 
 quent adoption of a harsh and neglected style ^; 
 — ^by their dangerous practice of resorting to a 
 too refined and symbolical interpretation of 
 Scripture; — by their credulous reliance on nar- 
 ratives palpably false*, and on writings mani- 
 festly spurious; — and by their unwarranted 
 notions on various points, such as the unlawful- 
 ness of second marriages, of music, of oaths, and 
 of interest for money. These, and other errors 
 which have been traced with great acuteness by 
 Daille in his celebrated work on the Use of the 
 Fathers ^ probably influenced the minds of some, 
 
 * It is but just however to remark, that the faults of the 
 Fathers have been exaggerated by those who have compared 
 their works in point of style, with the productions of the 
 Augustan age. Baillet has remarked: " Nos critiques de- 
 goutes devroient considerer que les Ecrivains Ecclesiastiqucs 
 n'auroient pas pu se garantir quand ils I'auroient voulu de 
 la decadence de la belle Latinite, qui etoit universelle dans 
 I'Empire, lorsqu'il a plu a Dieu de les faire naitre dans 
 FEglise. Et s'ils n'ont le gout entierement deprave, il doivent 
 reconnoitre que les Ecrivains Chretiens n'ont ete inferieurs 
 ^ aucun des Auteurs Paiens de leur tems, meme pour la beaute 
 du stile et de I'expression. Le stile de Tertullien, de Saint 
 Cyprien, de Minutius Felix, de Lactance, de Saint Jerome, de 
 Saint Sulpice Severe, &c. vaut bien sans doute celui d' Ap- 
 pulee, d' Aule-Gelle, de Capitolin, de Lampridius, de Spar- 
 tien, de Macrobe," &c. (Jugemens des Savans, Tom. I. p. 84.) 
 
 * Lest, however, we should deny their general claims to 
 credit on this account, we should bear in mind, that *'the 
 most learned and virtuous divine of the barbarous ages, is the 
 venerable Bede ; and the honestest as well as most discerning 
 historian of those, or perhaps of any age, is Matthew Paris : 
 yet their propensity to recount the wonderful exceeds all 
 imagination." (Warburton's Julian. Introd. p. 10.) 
 
 * " Du Vrai Usage des Peres" — their moral sentiments 
 
 were 
 
 f 
 
 > 
 
 who were inclined to make hasty enquiries. But 
 it should be remembered, that these were the 
 faults of honest, and sometimes of great men; 
 and that, though in connection with the custom 
 of confounding the Orthodox with the Heretics, 
 they may have impeded in some respects the 
 progress of Christianity, they cannot be regarded 
 as one of its chief obstacles. The letter of Pliny 
 alone is sufficient to shew, that on the suppo- 
 sition of every virtue, an ancient philosopher could 
 still persecute, and we know that modern philoso- 
 phers have been found, who admired his measures. 
 
 were also subjected to a kind of scrutiny, which would be 
 unfair, even when applied to modern works, by Barbeyrac 
 in his " Traite de la Morale des Peres." 
 
62 
 
 PART II. 
 
 PARTICULAR CAUSES OF THE INCREDULITY OF 
 THE PRINCIPAL PHILOSOPHERS. 
 
 We have now adduced what we believe to have 
 been the principal causes of the rejection of 
 Christianity by the learned: — we have shewn 
 the prevalent contempt for the situation of the 
 early Christians: for their worship; for their 
 doctrines; for their appeal to miracles and pro- 
 phecies; and for their suflFerings : — we have also 
 pointed out where the reason must be drawn from 
 another quarter — from the indiscreet conduct of 
 the converts themselves. The whole may be 
 comprised in two words, ignorance and preju- 
 dice: — the former frequently prevented any ex- 
 amination, — the latter rendered it partial and 
 unfair: the former accounts for their neglect, 
 the latter for their hatred : both satisfactorily 
 remove the arguments which may arise from 
 their incredulity. 
 
 Having thus taken a general view of the 
 subject, it will be sufficient to sketch in that 
 concise manner which the limits of this Essay 
 require, some of the chief reasons which seem 
 to have influenced the principal philosophers, 
 considered individually, who lived during the 
 
 ( 
 
 i 
 
 63 
 
 first progress of Christianity. We have been 
 led to attempt this plan, because the objection, 
 which is founded on their conduct, has been 
 urged by the historian of the Decline and Fall 
 of Rome, with that splendour of style, and keen- 
 ness of insinuation, which induce the necessity 
 of a more direct and specific reply than the able 
 writers, who have examined the general accuracy 
 of his statements, have undertaken to make. 
 
 The principal writers of eminence \ who, 
 living in the early ages of Christianity, pass it 
 over in silence, are Seneca, Pliny the elder, 
 and Plutarch; — those who speak of it with con- 
 tempt, are Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Epictetus, 
 Marcus Antoninus, and Lucian ; — those who 
 expressly attack it, are Celsus, Porphyry, and 
 Julian. 
 
 I. Seneca.— The character of Seneca^ has 
 been generally considered as liable to suspicion. 
 Dion Cassius asserts that his life was at variance 
 with his precepts'. We are far from wishing 
 
 ^ We have not confined this enquiry to thbse who were, 
 strictly- speaking, philosophers, but chiefly to those learned 
 men, whose neglect has been noted by Gibbon. 
 
 2 From his works alone an unfavourable picture of his 
 character may be formed. His adulation to the abandoned 
 Polybius Vhen alive, whom he bitterly insults when dead: 
 his alternate praise and ridicule of Epicurus, &c. have been 
 marked by Gataker in his edition to Marc. Antonin. (Praeloq.) 
 It is evident from his manner of regulating the conduct of 
 Nero, described in Tacit. Ann. xiv. that he felt no scruples 
 in attempting the expulsion of one vice by the substitution of 
 another. 
 
 ' '* TldvTa evavTiwrara, oi? e^t\o<r6^€i iromv li'^i'^xBtf" 
 lib. vi. in Jo. Xiphilin. Excerptis. 
 
64 
 
 to collect the calumnies which the malevolence 
 of his enemies may have cast against his repu- 
 tation : yet we may be allowed to express a 
 doubt whether the Christian religion, inculcating 
 the denial of the pomps and vanities of this world, 
 and revealing itself to "babes," — to the '"poor 
 in spirit," and to the illiterate in human sciences, 
 would have been found particularly attractive 
 by a proud Stoic, who, as he surveyed his 
 magnificent seats*, recollected that, whilst the 
 Christians divided among themselves the value 
 of their property, he possessed a fortune of no 
 less than two millions. St. Augustine, adverting 
 to the fact of his silence, remarks, — that prudence 
 prevented him from speaking well, and conscience 
 from speaking ill of the new sect*. It is per- 
 haps more probable, that, as the persecution 
 began but a year before his death, he was wholly 
 unacquainted with the nature of their religion. 
 Lest, however, this argument should be deemed 
 insufficient, we will point out certain opinions, col- 
 lected from his writings, which, being directly 
 hostile to the precepts of Christianity, may be 
 regarded as in themselves explanatory of his 
 incredulity. He speaks doubtfully of a particular 
 Providence^; — and of the existence of a Future 
 State ^; — he decidedly rejects the doctrine of 
 
 * Compare the speech of Seneca in Tacit. (Ann. xiv. 
 cap. 53.) and his Letters, with the testimony of Dion Cassius 
 and Juvenal (Sat. x. l6.) 
 
 * S. Aug. De Civ. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 2. 
 
 ® Ep. 95, where he says, the gods are " interdum curiosi 
 singulorum." Oper. Tom. 11. p. 470. 
 7 Ep. r02. Consol. ad Marc. xix. 
 
 65 
 
 ( 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 Punishments^; — and asserts that no man in his 
 senses fears the gods^; — he seems to adopt the 
 hypothesis, that God was unable to change the 
 nature of matter ^^ ; — he often looks upon Prayer 
 as unnecessary ", and exalts a wise man to a 
 kind of superiority over the Deity " ; — he condemns 
 all feelings of sympathy ", and justifies drunken- 
 ness" and suicide;" — he maintains the duty of 
 conforming to the established rites ^^ and explains 
 Polytheism as being the theory of one God under 
 different names '^ — lastly, he expresses the strong- 
 est prejudice against the religion of the Jews". 
 
 II. Pliny the Elder. — Nothing is extant of 
 Pliny *^ but his Natural History, — a subject which 
 could hardly have led him to make any direct 
 
 • Ep. 102. &c. See particularly ad Marc. cxix. "Ilia quae no- 
 bis inferos faciunt terribiles, fabula est," &c. Op. Tom. I. p. 281. 
 
 * "Deos nemo sanus timet" De Benef. lib. iv. cap. IQ. 
 Comp. Ep. 123. and De Ira, lib. ii. cap. 27- 
 
 »o Quffist. Natur. lib. i. Praef. " Ep. 31. lib. i. &c. 
 
 " Ep. 53. 59. 73. De Provid. cap. 1, &c. " Ep. 74, &c. 
 ** De Tranquill. Animi, xv. "Nonnunquam et usque ad 
 ebrietatem veniendum." Op. Tom. I. p. 386. 
 
 " Ep. 68. 70. &c. ^^ Ap. S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. 
 
 17 De Benefic. lib. iv. cap. 7, 8. Natur. Quaest. lib. ii. 
 
 cap. 45. 
 
 ^8 Ap. S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. *' Cum usque eo sceleratissimap 
 gentis consuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta 
 
 sit," &c. 
 
 *^ On the silence of Seneca and Pliny the Elder, see the 
 observations of Bp. Watson who very justly remarks, " The 
 Sect itself must, by Nero's persecution, have been almost 
 destroyed in Rome, and it would have been uncourtly, not 
 to say unsafe, to have noticed an order of men, whose inno- 
 cence an Emperor had determined to traduce," &c. (Apol. 
 for Christianity, p. 324.) 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 67 
 
 mention of a Sect^ that was then rising. Yet 
 even in this work may be observed several senti- 
 ments entirely contrary to the doctrines, and well 
 calculated to indispose him for the reception, of 
 the new religion. His opinions appear to have 
 leaned sometimes to the Stoical system, some- 
 times to the Sceptical, generally to the Epicu- 
 rean*®. We remark the incompatibility of his 
 tenets with revealed truth, not merely in his 
 defence of suicide " ; — but in his belief that the 
 world was neither created nor destructible**; — in 
 his ridicule both of the doctrine of a particular 
 providence *^ and of a future state**; — ^and his 
 denial of the possibility of a resurrection**. 
 
 III. Plutarch. — There are many parts of 
 Plutarch's character which must have rendered 
 him an unfavourable hearer of Christianity. We 
 must particularly remember that he was initiated 
 in the rites of Delphi, and a priest of Apollo. 
 Attached to ancient superstitions, which he fondly 
 
 ^ Brucker. Hist Crit, Philos. Tom. II. p. 6lS. 
 
 '^ Hist. Nat. lib. xxviii. cap. 1. sub fine. 
 
 " Lib. ii. cap. 1. 
 
 ** " Irridendum vero agere curam rerum humanarum illud 
 quidquid est summura. Anne tam tristi atque multiplici mi- 
 nisterio non pollui credamus dubitemusve ?" (Lib. ii. cap. ?•) 
 
 ** " Puerilium ista delinimentorum, avidseque nunquam 
 desinere mortalitatis commenta." (Lib. vii. cap. 55*) And above, 
 " Post sepulturam variae manium ambages. Omnibus a su- 
 preme die eadem quae ante primum : nee magis a morte sensus 
 ullus aut corpori aut animse, quam ante natalem.*' (Oper. p. 410. 
 Tom. I. ed. Harduin.) 
 
 ** He mentions among things not in the power of God 
 himwlf,— "Mortaleswtcrnitatc domare, «ut re^'ocan* defunctOii"' 
 (Lib. ii. cap. 5.) 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 allegorized *^ — dwelling on the most incredible 
 tales, and misled by the weakest reasoning, he 
 would not easily have embraced a religion that 
 destroyed the fabric which his imagination had 
 raised. It may be doubted also, whether those 
 peculiar qualities which he considered and che- 
 rished as heroic virtues, — those splendid charac- 
 ters, which are drawn by a pencil that turns all 
 it touches to golden beauty, — be not essentially 
 different from the standard of Christian morality. 
 Our limits, however, will not allow us to examine 
 a point, which we believe to be of more im- 
 portance than is commonly supposed. We must 
 content ourselves with reducing under a few 
 heads such sentiments as are found in his writings, 
 expressly hostile to revelation: though we con- 
 fess that we believe the true cause of his credulity 
 was% — that devotion to learned pursuits which 
 prevented him from turning his attention to a 
 Sect who were deemed illiterate. He maintains 
 the Eternity of Matter ^^- — he denies a Particular 
 Providence ^^ ;— he doubts a Future State '^;— 
 he rejects Future Punishments '^ ; — he apologizes 
 for the Heathen Polytheism ^%- — he inculcates 
 
 ^ See his Treatise on Isis and Osiris, &c. His noted 
 sentence, however, against superstition has been the cause 
 of the celebrated dispute, which Bayle conducted. 
 
 ^ On this point see Tillemont. Hist, des Empereurs. 
 Tom. II. p. 477. and Jortin's Eccles. Hist. Vol. I. p. 322. 
 
 28 Oper. Tom. II. p. 1014. See Leland's Div. Revel, vii. 
 » IbL Totn. II. p. 811. ^ lb. p. 1105. 
 
 " lb. p. 107, ^c. * De Iwil. ct Owr. 
 
 E2 
 
68 
 
 obedience to the Established Religion **;— he 
 misrepresents the Jews". 
 
 IV. Tacftus. — The hostility of Tacitus must 
 be traced to the joint operation of two causes ; 
 the first was his scepticism on religious points^ 
 and his distrust of the advantage of investigation ; 
 the second was the inveterate prejudice, which 
 he seems to have conceived against the Jewish 
 name^ and his singular ignorance of the true 
 history of the Jewish nation ^^ '"Sanctius ac 
 reverentius visum, de actis deorum credere, quam 
 scire '^:" — such is the brief maxim which he has 
 taught, and which he probably adopted as a rule 
 of conduct. Would he, therefore, make any deep 
 enquiries into the nature and opinions of an 
 obscure Sect, which he considered as '^ a detestable 
 superstition," condemned by the hatred of the 
 "whole human race." May we not also urge 
 his doubts on the question, — whether Pate or 
 Chance governs the world ^, — as one of those 
 circumstances which assist us in discovering the 
 sources of his incredulity, and which certainly 
 diminish the force of any objection to which it 
 might have given rise. 
 
 ^ Oper. p. 758. ^ Sympos. lib. iv. Quaest. 5. 
 
 * E. g. he pretends that the Jews consecrated the image 
 of an ass in the sanctuary of their temple. See Hist. cap. 5. 
 
 * German. 34. 
 
 ^ " Mihi — ^in incerto judicium est, fiito ne res mortallum, 
 et necessitate immutabili, an forte volvantur: quippe sapien- 
 tissimos veterum, quique sectam eorum jemulantur, diversos 
 reperies; ac multis insitam opinionem, non initia nostri, non 
 iinem, non denique homines, diis curae." Ann. vi. 
 
 i 
 
 69 
 
 IV. Pliny the Younger.— The incredulity of 
 the Younger Pliny, may be in a great measure be 
 imputed to his extreme reverence for the heathen 
 system of religion ^^ The fact is evident from 
 several circumstances, which he has himself re- 
 corded in his works. He built several temples : 
 he enlarged and adorned others. " Reverence the 
 deities'* — " reverence ancient fame" — '' reverence 
 even fictions" — such was his general language. 
 Can we then be astonished, that he rejected what 
 be considered as an obstinate, though perhaps 
 harmless, superstition? What in fact was his 
 conduct towards the Christians? He acknow- 
 ledges that he had made no enquiry into their 
 situation, though they were then numerous, till 
 his office compelled him to begin the examina- 
 tion ^^ If such were the case with the other phi- 
 losophers, can we raise any argument on their 
 silence ? — He sought no means of convincing him- 
 self of the truth of Revelation, or of convincing 
 its believers of what he might judge to be its 
 marks of falsehood. Instead of reasoning, he 
 resorts to threats; and, even, if these are in- 
 eflfectual, he determines to have recourse to the 
 severest punishments. 
 
 V. EpiCTETUs. — The general arguments which 
 demonstrate the improbability that Christianity 
 should be joyfully received by the Stoics, will 
 sufficiently account for the incredulity of Epicte- 
 
 " Reverere conditores Deos, numina Deorum — Reverere 
 gloriam veterem — Sit apud te honor antiquitati, sit ingenti- 
 bus factis, sit fabulis quoque." Lib. viii. Ep. 24. 
 
 ^ " Cognitionibus Christianorum interfui nunquam." Lib. 
 X. Ep. 97. 
 
70 
 
 tus. In his writings also we may trace those 
 characteristic marks of hostility, which we have 
 had occasion to point out in the works of the 
 other philosophers: — he approves of an apathy^®, 
 which is irreconcileable with the benevolence and 
 charity inculcated by Revelation ;— he sanctions 
 a violent departure fropi life";— he rejects the 
 doctrine of future rewards and punishments ^%' — 
 he frequently adopts the language of Poly- 
 theism*^; and he expressly advises his disciples 
 to encourage a feeling of attachment for the es- 
 tablished religion *\ Are we to be surprised then, 
 that he turned from the preaching of supposed 
 fanatics, who spoke of sympathy with the woes 
 and cares of mankind, of future pains and future 
 happiness ; of the unity of the Deity, and the 
 danger of reverencing the idolatrous combinations 
 of folly and of crime? Christianity instilled a 
 spirit which he derided as unphilosophical ; — pro- 
 posed ends, which he contemned as unworthy of 
 a wise man ;— enjoined duties, which he believed 
 to be unnecessary, and forbade customs, which he 
 imagined to be innocent. 
 
 VI. Marcus Antoninus.— The dislike which 
 the philosophic emperor expresses against Christ- 
 ianity, must also be ascribed to the influence of 
 Stoical principles. In his work too, we have met 
 with various passages, which, in some measure, 
 afford a clue for the discovery of that parti- 
 cular train of thought, whose tendency is to pre- 
 
 / 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 ** Lib. iii. cap. 8. &c. 
 ^ Lib.iiii. cap. 13. &c. 
 *♦ Encfair. cap. 31. 
 
 ** Lib. i. cap 25. &c. 
 *" Lib. iv. cap. 4. &c. 
 
 elude the admission of the Chribtian doctrine into 
 the heart and mind *\ A disposition to look upon 
 sin as arising from inherent necessity*^; — unsettled 
 notions on the immortality of the soul *^; — and 
 a constant habit of assuming the expressions of 
 Polytheistic worship*^; — such are, perhaps, the 
 .principal proofs of that spirit, which had no kind 
 of congeniality with the lessons of the gospel. It 
 may be right also to remark, that his superstition, 
 or at least his attachment to the superstitions of 
 the people over whom he presided, was so noto- 
 rious as to expose him even to the sarcasm of 
 ridicule *^ We have already remarked, that he 
 was led, either by the misinformation of those who 
 surrounded him, or the prejudices, to which he was 
 naturally subject, to ascribe the Christian suflFer- 
 ings to the eCFects of habit and of obstinacy : hence, 
 therefore, we may conclude, that the circum- 
 stance, most likely to have attracted his attention, 
 possessed no weigjit in promoting conviction. 
 
 VII. LuciAN. — On the attacks of Lucian, 
 little need be observed. Very few, even among 
 the opponents of Christianity, can wonder at his 
 aversion for its adherents. Partly a Sceptic, and 
 partly an Epicurean, — constantly ridiculing what- 
 ever bore any resemblance to superstition or to 
 
 ** On his wrong notions of the Deity, see lib. v. 10, lib.ix. 
 §. 1. lib. iv. §. 23. Comp. Epict. lib. ii. cap. 8. 
 
 *« Lib. vii. §. 26. x. §. SO. &c. 
 
 *7 Lib. vii. §.32. viii. §.25. iv. §.21. v. ^.33. 
 
 *8 Lib.ii. §.11. &c. 
 
 *» Hence the well known petition : " The white oxen to 
 Marcus Caesar, if thou conquerest we perish." Amm. Marcell. 
 lib. XXV. 
 
72 
 
 78 
 
 dogmatism ^, and constantly betraying his fond- 
 ness for immodest subjects— could it be expected, 
 that he should examine, much less that he should 
 approve the holy precepts of religious purity? 
 Could it be expected that he who had found an 
 ample field for his railleries against enthusiasm 
 and imposture in the detected frauds of Alexan- 
 . der — the false prophet — would enquire into the 
 state of others, who were reported to be fanatics ? 
 Besides, being procurator of Egypt, he was, as 
 well as Tacitus, Pliny, and others, interested in 
 supporting the existing establishment '\ 
 
 VIII. Celsus.— Having spoken of the philo- 
 Bophers, who merely express contempt for Christ- 
 ianity, we proceed to notice with that brevity, 
 which our limits oblige us to observe, those, who 
 took an active part in opposing its professors. 
 We have already, in the course of this enquiry, 
 enumerated the principal objections of Celsus. 
 We have shewn that he was no less ignorant of 
 the Christian character than averse from the 
 Christian doctrines *^• — ^that he believed, or at 
 least urged every falsehood which calumny could 
 invent; — that he resolved all miracles into the 
 operations of magic ^, and sunk all morality to 
 the standard of Plato"; — ^lastly, that he apologized 
 
 «> See particularly ' On Sacrifices,' and his highly entertain- 
 ing dialogue Hermotimus. 
 
 •* That the Sceptics particularly observed the forms of 
 established religion is asserted by Sextus Empiricus. 
 
 ^ See also Orig. c. Cels. pp. 338. 353, See also his attacks 
 agmnst the birth, situation, and death of Christ, in pp. 22. 25. 
 
 47. 51. 
 
 " See pp. 7- 30. 53. &c. ^ Compare p. 283. &c. 
 
 i 
 
 ( 
 
 for the practice of idolatry", and betrayed the 
 utmost prejudice against the Jews^^ It must 
 also be noted that he was an Epicurean, and there- 
 fore those arguments, which we considered as 
 influential in preventing the philosophers of this 
 sect from embracing a purer system, must in 
 some degree have operated upon him, indepen- 
 dently of other causes. Nor must it be omitted 
 that he lived at a period, when the profession of 
 the new religion was likely to be attended with 
 persecution, and when an attack against it was 
 calculated to procure imperial favour. Need we 
 then be astonished that he inveighed against 
 those assemblies, which were then deemed un- 
 lawful; and that he exhorted the disciples of 
 Christ to eat meats, which had been oflFered to 
 idols, and to join in the public sacrifices on so- 
 lemn festivals ? 
 
 IX. Porphyry.— The works of Porphyry 
 against Christianity have shared the same fate as 
 those of Celsus. As his conduct seems to have 
 been unirapeached, it would be unjust to seek in 
 it any motive for his hostility. It must not how- 
 ever be concealed, that Socrates*' has ascribed his 
 renunciation of Christianity to the personal inju- 
 ries received from its followers. And, though 
 this account of his apostacy seems by no means 
 true, it is not impossible, that the origin of the 
 report may be traced to some private dispute, of 
 which we are now ignorant. Resentment poisons 
 the sources of conviction. An enemy can sel- 
 
 » p. 159. &c. 
 
 *7 H. E. lib.iii. cap.23. 
 
 M 
 
 pp.20. 189. 234. &c. 
 
1 
 
 74 
 
 dom be so open to fair reasoning, as to separate 
 the faults of an institution from those of its sup- 
 porters. St. Augustine^* furnishes us with an- 
 other reason. He ascribes his dislike to " the 
 pride of vain science." We may also perhaps be 
 allowed to hazard the conjecture, that the inju- 
 dicious conduct of some professors contributed to 
 increase his dissatisfaction. He was acquainted 
 with Origen^^ — Might he not have received an 
 unfavourable impression from the forced and alle- 
 gorical explanations of that sincere, but indiscreet. 
 Apologist ? We may also remark the agency of 
 feelings^ similar to those which actuated preceding 
 philosophers, in his manner of mentioning the 
 rising religion. It was "a barbarian temerity:" 
 it was ''contrary to the laws^." These two ex- 
 pressions will speak volumes to those who have 
 studied the peculiar notions of the ancient sages. 
 He believed that the ''Highest God" takes no 
 concern in terrestrial things ^\ He seems also 
 to have been inclined to superstition and idola- 
 try. He justifies the worship of evil demons ; — 
 he lavishes his praises on the Egyptian priests, 
 and ascribes the reverence paid to animals, to 
 their extraordinary knowledge; — lastly, he com- 
 plains that from the time that Jesus had been 
 honoured, no one had received any benefits from 
 the gods ^. These remarks are the more neces- 
 
 ^ De Civ. Div. lib. x. cap. 28. 
 
 ^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. cap. 19. &c. 
 
 ^ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. p. 220. &c. 
 
 •* De Abstin. lib. xi. sect. 34. 
 
 •* See Euseb. Praep. Evang. lib. v. cap. 1. &c. 
 
 i 
 
 < 
 
 )i 
 
 75 
 
 sary, because he appears to have been one of 
 the very few philosophers ^, who had really paid 
 some attention to the sacred volume^ and who 
 had been led, either by the weakness of his rea- 
 soning powers, or by his proneness to perpetual 
 ridicule, to attach an undue weight to uncon- 
 nected difficulties. 
 
 XI. Julian. — There are few characters, whose 
 qualities and defects have been more exaggerated 
 by admirers and by opponents, than that of 
 Julian. When a strange mixture of policy and 
 fanaticism, — a tendency to deceive others, and 
 a susceptibility of deceiving ourselves, — exist in 
 the same disposition, it is beyond the power of 
 the nicest discrimination to discover truth from 
 falsehood, — to point out whether craft predomi- 
 nated over credulity, or credulity over craft. Such 
 are the difficulties which attend the enquiry. 
 We are willing to allow that Julian was remark- 
 able for a splendid union of virtues and talents. 
 He seems one of the mighty spirits of the eternal 
 city, rising above the fleeting train of crimes 
 and follies, that pass in succession over the dark 
 period, which stretches out on the confines of 
 ancient and modern history. The lights of 
 learning, which were gradually sinking, seem 
 by a new impulse, to resume their former lustre, 
 and cast a strong, but momentary glare, on the 
 gloomy theatre. But that his character was dis- 
 figured by numerous and considerable faults, it 
 
 •3 He is called by St Augustine " doctissimus philosopho- 
 rum, quamvis Christianorum acerrimus inimicus.*' De Civ. 
 Dei, lii). xix. cap. 22. 
 
 i 
 
76 
 
 77 
 
 ii 
 
 r"ll' 
 I HI' 
 
 were a perversion of truth to deny. His very 
 virtues seem to twine themselves round osten- 
 tation and pride**; his actions were invariably 
 directed towards glory and applause : — " Glorias 
 avidusj ac per earn animi plerumque immodici^." — 
 That he was addicted to loquacity^ prone to levity, 
 devoted to superstition, and inclined to persecu- 
 tion^ even Ammianus M arcellinus ^ is unable to 
 deny. The edict, by which he precluded Christ- 
 ians from admission into the institutions of edu- 
 cation^ is an act which cannot be justified by the 
 warmest panegyrist^. To his extreme super- 
 
 •* "Son ext^rieur etoit simple, son caract^re ne Tetoit pas; 
 ses discours, ses actions avoient de Tappareil, et sembloient 
 avertir qu'il etoit grand. Suivez-le, la passion pour la 
 glorie parle partout. II lui faut un theatre et des battemens 
 se mains," &c. Thomas Essai sur les Eloges. 
 
 » Eutrop. Ub. X. cap. l6. 
 
 " "Levioris ingenii.... Lingua fusions, et admodum rar6 
 silentis. Prssagiorum sciscitationi nimise deditus. Supersti- 
 tiosus magis quam sacrorum legitimus observator, innu- 
 meras sine parsimonia pecudes mactans: ut aestimaretur, si 
 revertisset de Parthis, boves jam defuturos : Marci illius similis 
 Csesaris, in quem id accepimus dictum : ol \€vko\ fioet MapKu 
 T^ Kataapf av <tv vtKtjtrri^ aircnAo/xcda.-— Vulgi plausibus Isetus, 
 lamdum etiam ex minimis rebus intemperans appetitor, popula- 
 ritatis cupiditate cum indignis loqui saepe adfectans." Ammian. 
 lib. XXV. cap. 4. See also Liban. Or. 8. 
 
 •7 Sozomen. lib. v. cap. 18. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. 
 cap. 52. &c.^The early Christians have been often accused 
 of destroying the books of their adversaries : far be it from 
 us to offer the slightest defence of this conduct : but surely it 
 is but fair to bear in mind the spirit even of the philosophers 
 St that time. Julian, writing to Ecditius, governor of Egypt, 
 says that George, the Arian Bishop, had a great number of 
 works on philosophical and rhetorical subjects, and many 
 
 concerning 
 
 r 
 
 i 
 
 ( 
 
 stition, rather than to any philosophic freedom 
 from vulgar prejudice, we must mainly ascribe 
 his aversion from Christianity. We have also 
 reason to suppose that his animosity was con- 
 siderably increased by the impression of personal 
 grievances. The cruelties of Constantine, and 
 his cousin Constantius, and perhaps, the in- 
 judicious zeal of those^ who overlooked the eternal 
 concerns of religion in their eagerness to grasp 
 the shadows of worldly power, contributed to 
 inspire him with an incurable distaste for the 
 rising church. On the other hand, the friendship 
 of the Platonic philosophers, their respect, their 
 adulation, their sophistry, — co-operated with his 
 preconceived dislike, and directed the measures 
 of decided hostility. Greek literature also acted 
 by more indirect, but no less powerful means, in 
 giving ascendancy to feelings of hatred. Sacred 
 literature possessed no attractions. He compared " 
 Moses with Lycurgus and Solon, and Solomon with 
 Phocylides, Theognis and Isocrates. " The gods of 
 Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucy- 
 dides, Isocrates and Lysias;"— engrossed his conver- 
 sation, and possessed his whole soul. "^ A rudimentis 
 pueritise primis inclinatior erat erga numinum 
 cultum, paulatimque adolescens desiderio rei flag- 
 rabat^^" To restore their worship was the great 
 
 concerning the doctrine of the impious Galileans, which he 
 adds, *' I could wish to be entirely destroyed," (a ^ovXoinnv 
 fiiv ^(pavtiTdai wavrn), but lest more valuable books should 
 perish with them, let these also be accurately sought for." 
 
 (Ep. ix. p. 377.) 
 
 « See his Epistles — ^particularly Ep. 42. 
 
 ^^ Ammian. lib. xxii. 
 
 .^1 
 
 i 
 
78 
 
 79 
 
 object of his ambition. He attempted it in every 
 manner : he contemplated it under every circum- 
 stance. Hence, his preference for the Jews, — 
 who had 'Hemples and shrines, altars, purifica- 
 tions, and ritual observances/' — hence his en- 
 deavours to remove the absurdities of Polytheism, 
 by the aid of philosophic allegories ;_hence too 
 the antipathy, which he conceived even for the 
 name of Christ, and which led him to forbid the 
 Christians, by a public decree, from taking any 
 other appellation than that of Galileans^^ — '^Amans 
 ter centum millia Divfim '^^/' — was an expression 
 most justly applied to his character. — What argu- 
 ment then can be founded on the opposition of 
 one, who, as the great Bentley observes, was 
 "addicted to the whole train of superstitions, 
 omens, presages, prodigies, spectres, dreams, 
 visions, auguries, oracles, magic, theurgic, psy- 
 chomantic," and '' whose whole court in a manner 
 consisted of haruspices, and sacrificuli, and philo- 
 sophers ^ T* 
 
 The usual length of an Essay will not permit 
 us to examine the cases of the other philoso- 
 phers ^^ — many of whom were not without note,— 
 
 70 Greg. Naz. Or. 3. p. 81.— Lardner's Works, Vol. VIIL 
 p. S73. 
 
 "^ Prudent Apoth. 450. See the rest of his character by 
 the same author. See also Warburton's Julian. 
 
 "^ See his remarks on " a late Discourse on Free Think- 
 ing." §.43. 
 
 " Among other learned men Juvenal, Aul. Gellius, Apu- 
 leius, Diog. Laertius, Ulpian, Dion Cassius, Maximus Tyrius, 
 Longinus, Chalcidius, Themistius, Macrobius, besides Sueto- 
 nius, Florus, Appian, Fausanias, the writers of the Augustan 
 History, &c. 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 
 such as Hierocles, Qalen, Aristides and a long 
 succession of sophista We might have shewn 
 that the incredulity of the first arose chiefly from 
 his contempt of the acquirements of the Christ- 
 ians ; from his admiration of Apollonius, and his 
 belief in the agency of magic; and from his 
 confidence in those reports, which absurdly re- 
 presented our Saviour as an impostor, at the 
 head of a band of nine hundred plunderers ^* :" — 
 the hostility of the second might be ascribed to 
 his friendship with Marcus Antoninus; to the 
 different nature of his pursuits ; and to the hasty 
 prejudice, which he had formed against the fol- 
 lowers of Christ as '' obstinate men," and against 
 his doctrines as "unsupported by reasoning''^:" — 
 the aversion of the third may be certainly imputed 
 to his extreme superstition ^^. The various modi- 
 fications of these causes may be supposed to have 
 influenced the other philosophers.v-But to all 
 we must exclaim: "The great cause of your 
 unjust hatred against the name of Christians is 
 
 Ignorance 
 
 77 >9 
 
 7* Lact. Inst. lib. v. cap. 2. 
 
 75 De Different. Puis. lib. ii. and iii. 
 
 76 See his Hymn, in Jovem. &c. 
 
 77 See the beginning of TertuUian's Apology. 
 
 f 
 
80 
 
 81 
 
 i 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We have now traced the principal causes, to 
 which the impartial examiner of historical truth 
 must ascribe the incredulity of some of the ancient 
 philosophers : we say of some, because the exam- 
 ples of Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Athenagoras, 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, and others, sufficiently 
 prove that as many as investigated the history of 
 the Christian religion with accuracy and can- 
 dour admitted its authority, and embraced its 
 profession. — We had first shewn, that the con- 
 trary could not have been expected, by consider- 
 ations on the various sentiments, and precon- 
 ceived impressions of the different sects, as wdl 
 as on those natural principles of fear and cau- 
 tion, which they possessed in common with the 
 rest, of mankind ; we then marked the principal 
 reasons, which influenced the whole class, con- 
 sidered collectively, and the particular motives, 
 which actuated its several members, considered 
 individually. — ^We are conscious, however, that it 
 is almost impossible to take a just and compre- 
 hensive view of all the parts of the subject. It 
 is easy to note a few general causes; to point 
 out a few specific instances ; to dwell upon a 
 few antecedent conjectures: but who can ade- 
 
 ♦ 
 
 t 
 
 quately grasp and analyze the infinite combina* 
 tions of feelings, passions, opinions, and habits, 
 which perplex all attempt towardjs a discovery 
 of the real springs of human conduct; who can 
 ascertain when actions are the effect of want 
 of knowledge, and when the result of want ot 
 honesty,— when they spring from the weakness 
 of the reasoning, and when they proceed from 
 the corruption of the heart ; when they are to be 
 ascribed to the ascendancy of private interest, 
 and when they are to be sought in the workings 
 of personal resentment? Who can trace the 
 wild and wayward courses of mental speculations 
 as they imperceptibly lose themselves in the dark 
 and intricate channels of error? Who can un- 
 fold, as he explains, and unite, as he enforces, 
 the numberless relations of time and circum- 
 stances, and the latent operations of accident and 
 design?— Imperfect, however, very imperfect, as our 
 sketch has confessedly been, we trust, that we have 
 demonstrated one point :— that the greatest cause 
 of the hostility of the philosophical schools was 
 prejudice. It saw every thing through a deceitful 
 medium ; it clothed every thing in a false cha- 
 racter. Ignorance and disdain and hatred were 
 its attendants. Conduct could not be examined: 
 doctrine could not be estimated: evidence could 
 not be weighed. — Piety was transformed into arti- 
 fice : firmness was identified with obstinacy. — 
 The religion of peace and mercy was represented 
 as ''a detestable superstition;" the heralds of 
 salvation and truth were branded as preachers of 
 Atheism and sedition.— Scepticism and bigotry 
 
m 
 
 combined their forces. Ridicule became the 
 panoply of craft, and falsehood sought assistance 
 from the powers of persecution. With full confi- 
 dence, therefore, we may assert that no valid ar- 
 gument against Christianity can be derived from 
 the opposition of the philosophers. But this ex- 
 amination has enabled us to advance a step fur> 
 ther : it has enabled us to assert that this Very 
 opposition may form a valid argument in favour 
 of the truth and of the necessity of Christianity, 
 
 1. It affords a proof of its Truth.— To what 
 other cause can be attributed the fact, that a few 
 men, insignificant in a country itself insignifi- 
 cant in the scale of nations, without learning, 
 without riches, without friends,— should proceed, 
 amidst nakedness and thirst and weariness, to 
 the very heart of the civilized world, proclaiming 
 a religion essentially hostile to all the existing 
 systems, both of the Jew and of the Gentile ;— 
 that these unassisted men, should brave the united 
 efforts of sophistry, abuse, and intolerance— the 
 persecution of the educated, and of the ignorant, 
 _of the philosophic Aurelius\ as of the fero- 
 cious Domitian ;— and that they should, in no 
 considerable period of time, effect a complete re- 
 volution of opinions and manners, and usages 
 
 1 " Nullo sub Imperatore post Neronem plures et gravi- 
 ores calamitates perpessi sunt Christian!, quam sub Marco, 
 quem ceteris omnibus meliorem et sapientiorem fuisse cen- 
 sent" Mosheim. de Reb. Christ. The Christians had no 
 reason to beUeve that mankind would be happy when philo- 
 sophers were emperors, or emperors philosophers ; they had 
 no reason to make the prayer of Synesius: "ISoimi' <r6 t^ /3a<r,- 
 Afia wpo<r€i\fitt>6ra it>iXocro<f>iav, (Ad Arcad. Imp. de Regn.) 
 
 ( 
 
 ? ♦ 
 
 83 
 
 and establishments?— "who knoweth not in all 
 these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? " 
 who perceiveth not the mysterious finger of Him, 
 who survey eth from the throne of his eternal ma- 
 jesty, the vanities of this world changing and 
 passing before him as a torrent, while he alone 
 remaineth the same, ' without variableness' or 
 'shadow of turning?' 
 
 2. It affords a proof of its Necessity.— We 
 see that the. heathen philosophers had formed 
 no correct idea of the Deity and of his worship ; 
 and, if they had formed it, still they had no in- 
 fluence' over the people to lead them to its 
 adoption.— "Nemo credit, quia tam se hominem 
 putat esse, qui audit, quam est ille, qui praBcipit^" 
 We see them frequently insulting, always con- 
 tradicting one another; we find them generally 
 denying, never fully believing the doctrine of a 
 Future State ; sometimes rejecting the notion of 
 a particular Providence, sometimes the very exist- 
 ence of the Deity \ We perceive that they had no 
 fixed rules of morality, but referred to custom 
 and education, the essential difference between 
 right and wrong. Their tenets administered no 
 consolation, extended no hope, carried with them 
 no authority. When pride was suspended, and 
 
 2 Their precepts had no influence even over the philoso- 
 phers themselves :-Cicero says, "Quotus quisque philosopho- 
 rum invenitur, qui sit ita moratus, ita animo ac vita constitutus, 
 ut ratio postulat? qui disciplinam suam non ostentationem 
 scienti^, sed legem vitae putet? qui obtemperet ipse sibi, et 
 4ecretis suis pareat?" &c. (Tuscul. Quaest. lib. u. cap. 4.) 
 
 » Lact. iii. cap. 27- ' Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. i. §. 2. 
 
84 
 
 confidence itself was abashed, a strong sense of 
 the vanity of human wisdom extorted from them 
 an acknowledgment of the necessity of a Divine 
 Revelation *.— Shall not we, therefore, unto whom 
 the 'Father of Light/ has sent the volume of 
 Inspiration, exclaim, in the language of one, who 
 had wandered through all the mazes of the ancient 
 systems, yet found no assurance of truth but in 
 that religion, in whose defence he became a 
 distinguished Martyr: — "Christianity is the only 
 safe and profitable philosophy^?" 
 
 ^^ Tavrriv fiovriv eipiaKov (ptXoacxplav da^aXii re kui 
 avfiCpopov^ ,'* 
 
 * Compare the observations on the inefficacy of philosophy 
 in Maximus Tyrius (Dissert. S4. p. 325.) with the descrip- 
 tion of its state in Lactantius. (lib. vi.). 
 
 * See the remarkable expressions of Socrates in the Phaedo. 
 He speaks pathetically of the necessity of "sailing on the 
 ocean of life on the frail bark of human opinions, till some 
 surer support, — some divine proof be vouchsafed," §. 78 ^ 
 See also the second Alcibiades, a dialogue ascribed to Plato. 
 
 7 Justin Martyr. Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. Oper. p. 225. 
 
 -'„ 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 P. 2, 
 
 - 7, 
 
 -10, 
 
 -19, 
 
 -29, 
 
 -39, 
 
 -42, 
 
 -49, 
 
 -65. 
 
 •r t!t^ 
 
 -59| 
 -69, 
 -T5, 
 -76, . 
 
 note, lines, /or ilhtstrations, read illustrious. 
 .. ^ 7 3, /or these, read those, 
 line 4, /or former, read latter. 
 
 "- 5» /or latter, rearf former 
 
 — 24, for an, retid au. 
 
 — 2, /or tjye'iTo, read tjyeTT. 
 
 ^11''^^'' ^®^» *'^<^*^ nos. 
 -- 32, /or Tryh. read Tryph. 
 
 - 20*' J^Z ^^"^^ -^"^ P^"*- '-'^ Plat. 
 »>» M>r« be, put not. 
 
 r 5' /:*>*» Mta«i,/c«. increasing, read increa.M 
 ^^ffor glone^ r^arf gloire. 
 
 i 
 
«"i*, 
 
 o. 
 
 Published by the same Author : 
 
 1. The OFFICE and MISSION of St. JOHN the 
 BAPTIST. An Essay which obtained the Norrisian 
 Medal for the Year 1823. Prke Ss. 
 
 2. The DOCTRINES of Our SAVIOUR as derived from 
 the Four Gospels, are in perfect harmony with the 
 Doctrines of St. Paul, as derived from his Epistles. 
 A Dissertation which obtained the Hulsean Prize for 
 the Year 1824. Prke 3s. 6rf. 
 
 /• 
 
 J* 
 
 / 
 

 1^. 
 
 iJl> 
 
 I 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 a 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 1026049724 
 
 I 
 
'4*J 
 
 i 
 
 S^'H* 
 
 »^T/ieAi