{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37696/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37696","id":"gutenberg_37696","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37696","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Christianity -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800","Theology -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nARGUMENTS OF CELSUS, PORPHYRY, and THE EMPEROR JULIAN, AGAINST THE\nCHRISTIANS;\n\nALSO EXTRACTS FROM DIODORUS SICULUS, JOSEPHUS, AND TACITUS, RELATING TO\nTHE JEWS, TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX;\n\nCONTAINING:\n\nTHE ORATION OF LIBANIUS IN DEFENCE OF THE TEMPLES\n\nOF THE HEATHENS, TRANSLATED BY DR. LARDNER;\n\nAND EXTRACTS FROM BINGHAM'S ANTIQUITIES\n\nOF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.\n\n\nBy [Thomas Taylor]\n\n\nMDCCCXXX.\n\n\n\"For if indeed Julian had caused all those that were under his dominion\nto be richer than Midas, and each of the cities greater than Babylon\nonce was, and had also surrounded each of them with a golden wall, but\nhad corrected none of the existing errors respecting divinity, he would\nhave acted in a manner similar to a physician, who receiving a body\nfull of evils in each of its parts, should cure all of them except the\neyes.\"--Liban. Parental, in Julian, p. 285.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\"I HAVE often wished,\" says Warburton in a letter to Dr. Forster,\nOctober 15, 1749, \"for a hand capable of collecting all the fragments\nremaining of Porphyry, Celsus, Hierocles, and Julian, and giving them\nto us with a just, critical and theological comment, as a defy to\ninfidelity. It is certain we want something more than what their ancient\nanswerers have given us. This would be a very noble work*.\"\n\nThe author of the following Collectanea has partially effected what Dr.\nWarburton wished\n\n     * See Barker's Parriana, vol. ii. p. 48.\n\n{iv}\n\nto see accomplished; for as he is not a _divine_, he has not attempted\nin his Notes to confute Celsus, but has confined himself solely to an\nillustration of his meaning, by a citation of parallel passages in other\nancient authors.\n\nAs the answer, however, of Origen to the arguments of Celsus is very\nfutile and inefficient, it would be admirable to see some one of the\nlearned divines with which the church at present abounds, leap into the\narena, and by vanquishing Celsus, prove that the Christian religion\nis peculiarly adapted to the present times, and to the interest of the\npriests by whom it is professed and disseminated.\n\nThe Marquis D'Argens published a translation in French, accompanied\nby the Greek text, of the arguments of the Emperor Julian against\nthe Christians; and as an apology for the present work, I subjoin the\nfollowing translation of a part of his preliminary discourse, in which\nhe defends that publication.\n\n\"It may be that certain half-witted gentleman\n\n{v}\n\nmay reproach me for having brought forward a work composed in former\ntimes against the Christians, in the vulgar tongue. To such I might\nat once simply reply, that the work was preserved by a Father of the\nChurch; but I will go further, and tell them with Father Petau, who gave\na Greek edition of the works of Julian, that if those who condemn the\nauthors that have published these works, will temper the ardour of their\nzeal with reason and judgement, they will think differently, and will\ndistinguish between the good use that may be made of the book, and the\nbad intentions of the writer.\n\n\"Father Petau also judiciously remarks, that if the times were not gone\nby when daemons took the advantage of idolatry to seduce mankind, it\nwould be prudent not to afford any aid, or give the benefit of any\ninvective against Jesus, or the Christian religion to the organs of\nthose daemons; but since by the blessing of God and the help of the\ncross, which have brought about our salvation, the monstrous dogmas of\nPaganism are buried in oblivion,\n\n{vi}\n\nwe have nothing to fear from that pest; there is no weighty reason for\nour rising up against the monuments of Pagan aberration that now remain,\nand totally destroying them. On the contrary, the same Father Petau\nsays, that it is better to treat them as the ancient Christians treated\nthe images and temples of the gods. At first, in the provinces in\nwhich they were in power, they razed them to the very foundations, that\nnothing might be visible to posterity that could perpetuate impiety, or\nthe sight of which could recall mankind to an abominable worship. But\nwhen the same Christians had firmly established their religion, it\nappeared more rational to them, after destroying the altars and statues\nof the gods, to preserve the temples, and by purifying them, to make\nthem serviceable for the worship of the true God. The same Christians\nalso, not only discontinued to break the statues and images of the\ngods, but they took the choicest of them, that were the work of the most\ncelebrated artists, and set them up in public places to ornament their\ncities, as well as to recall to the memory of those who beheld them, how\ngross\n\n{vii}\n\nthe blindness* of their ancestors had been, and how powerful the grace\nthat had delivered them from it.\"\n\nThe Marquis d'Argens further observes: \"It were to be wished, that\nFather Petau, having so judiciously considered the works of Julian, had\nformed an equally correct idea of the person of that Emperor. I cannot\ndiscover through what caprice he takes it amiss, that a certain learned\nProfessor** has praised the civil virtues of Julian, and condemned the\nevidently false calumnies that almost all the ecclesiastical authors\nhave lavished upon him; and amongst the rest Gregory and Cyril, who\nto the good arguments they have adduced against the false reasoning of\nJulian, have added insults which ought never to have been used by any\ndefender of truth. They have cruelly\n\n     * The Heathens would here reply to Father Petau. Which is\n     the greater blindness of the two,-- ours, in worshipping the\n     images of deiform processions from the ineffable principle\n     of things, and who are eternally united to him; or that of\n     the Papists, in worshipping the images of worthless men\n\n     ** Monsieur de la Bletric.\n\n{viii}\n\ncalumniated this Emperor to favour _their good cause_, and confounded\nthe just, wise, clement, and most courageous prince, with the Pagan\nphilosopher and theologian; when they ought simply to have refuted him\nwith argument, in no case with insult, and still less with calumnies so\nevidently false, that during fourteen centuries, in which they have\nbeen so often repeated, they have never been accredited, nor enabled to\nassume even an air of truth.\"\n\nA wise Christian philosopher, La Mothe, Le Vayer, in reflecting on\nthe great virtues with which Julian was endowed, on the contempt he\nmanifested for death, on the firmness with which he consoled those who\nwept around him, and on his last conversation with Maximus and Priscus\non the immortality of the soul, says, \"that after such testimonies of\na virtue, to which _nothing appears to be wanting but the faith to give\nits professor a place amongst the blessed_*, we have cause to wonder\nthat\n\n     * According to this _wise Christian philosopher_ therefore,\n     not only all the confessedly wise and virtuous\n\nHeathens that lived posterior, but those also who lived anterior to the\npromulgation of the Christian religion, will have no place hereafter\namong the blessed.\n\n{ix}\n\nCyril should have tried to make us believe, that Julian was a mean and\ncowardly prince*. Those who judge of men that lived in former ages by\nthose who have lived in more recent times, may feel little surprise at\nthe proceedings of Cyril. It has rarely happened that long animosity and\nabuse have not been introduced into religious controversies.\"\n\nAfter what has been above said of Julian, I deem it necessary to\nobserve, that Father Petau is egregiously mistaken in supposing that\nCyril has preserved the whole of that Emperor's arguments against the\nChristians: and the Marquis D'Argens is also mistaken when he says, that\n\"the passages of Julian's text which are\n\n     * This is by no means wonderful in Cyril, when we consider\n     that he is, with the strongest reason, suspected of being\n     the cause of the murder of Hypatia, who was one of the\n     brightest ornaments of the Alexandrian school, and who was\n     not only a prodigy of learning, but also a paragon of\n     beauty.\n\n{x}\n\nabridged or omitted, aire very few.\" For Hieronymus in Epist. 83. _Ad\nMagnum Oratorem Romanum_, testifies that this work consisted of seven\nbooks; three of which only Cyril attempted to confute, as is evident\nfrom his own words, [--Greek--] \"Julian wrote three books against the\nholy Evangelists.\" But as Fabricius observes, (in Biblioth. Graec. tom.\nvii. p. 89.) in the other four books, he appears to have attacked the\nremaining books of the Scriptures, i. e. the books of the Old Testament.\n\nWith respect, however, to the three books which Cyril has endeavoured to\nconfute, it appears to me, that he has only selected such parts of these\nbooks as he thought he could most easily answer. For that he has not\ngiven even the substance of these three books, is evident from the\nwords of Julian himself, as recorded by Cyril. For Julian, after certain\ninvectives both against Christ and John, says, \"These things, therefore,\nwe shall shortly discuss, when we come particularly to consider\n\n{xi}\n\nthe monstrous deeds and fraudulent machinations of the Evangelists*.\"\nThere is no particular discussion however of these in any part of the\nextracts preserved by Cyril.\n\nThat the work, indeed, of Julian against the Christians was of\nconsiderable extent, is evident from the testimony of his contemporary,\nLibanius; who, in his admirable funeral oration on this most\nextraordinary man, has the following remarkable passage: \"But when the\nwinter had extended the nights, Julian, besides many other beautiful\nworks, attacked the books which make a man of Palestine to be a God, and\nthe son of God; and in _a long contest_, and with strenuous arguments,\nevinced that what is said in these writings is ridiculous and nugatory.\nAnd in the execution of this work he appears to have excelled in wisdom\nthe Tyrian old man.**\n\n     * [--Greek--]\n\n     ** viz. Porphyry, who was of Tyre, and who, as is well\n     known, wrote a work against the Christians, which was\n     publicly burnt by order of the Emperor Constantine.\n\n{xii}\n\nIn asserting this however, may the Tyrian be propitious to me, and\nbenevolently receive what I have said, he having been vanquished by his\nson*.\"\n\nWith respect to Celsus, the author of the following Fragments, he lived\nin the time of the Emperor Adrian. and was, if Origen may be credited,\nan Epicurean philosopher. That he might indeed, at some former period of\nhis life, have been an Epicurean maybe admitted; but it would be highly\nabsurd to suppose that he was so when he wrote this invective against\nthe Christians; for the arguments which he mostly employs show that he\nwas well skilled m the philosophy of Plato: and to suppose, as Origen\ndoes, that he availed himself of arguments in\n\n     * [--Greek--]\n\n[xiii]\n\nwhich he did not believe, and consequently conceived to be erroneous, in\norder to confute doctrines which he was persuaded are false, would be\nto make him, instead of a philosopher, a fool. As to Origen, though he\nabandoned philosophy for Christianity, he was considered as heterodox\nby many of the Christian sect. Hence, with some of the Catholics,\nhis future salvation became a matter of doubt*; and this induced the\ncelebrated Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, in the last of his _Theological\nconclusions according to his own opinion_, to say: \"Rationabilius est\ncredere Uriginem esse salvum, quam credere ipsum esse damnatum,\" _i. e.\nIt is more reasonable to believe that Origen is saved, than that he is\ndamned._\n\nI shall conclude this Introduction with the following extract.\n\n     * 'In Prato Spiritual!, c. 26, quod citatur, a VIL Synodo,\n     et a Johanne Diacono, lib. ii. c. 45. vitas B. Gregorii\n     narratur fevelatio, qua Origines viras est in Gehenna ignis\n     cum Alio et Netftorio.\"*--Fobric. BMiotk Grate torn. v. p.\n     216\n\n{xiv}\n\nDirections of Dr. Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, to a young divine.\n\n\"It will be of great use for a divine to be acquainted with the arts,\nknavery, and fraud of the Roman inquisitor, in purging, correcting, or\nrather corrupting authors in all arts and faculties. For this purpose\nwe may consult the _Index Expurgatorius_. By considering this Index, we\ncome to know the best editions of many good books.\n\n\"1st. The best books; that is, those that are condemned.\n\n\"2nd. The best editions; viz. those that are dated before the _Index_,\nand consequently not altered.\n\n\"3rd. The _Index_ is a good common place book, to point out who has\nwritten well against the Church, p. 70.\n\n\"Ockam is damned in the _Index_, and therefore we may be sure he was\nguilty of telling some great truth, p. 41.*\"\n\n     * The Bishop's rule is as good for one church as for\n     another, and every church has its Index.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ARGUMENTS OF CELSUS AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS\n\n[Illustration: Celsus]\n\n\"THE Christians are accustomed to have private assemblies, which are\nforbidden by the law. For of assemblies some are public, and these are\nconformable to the law of the land; but others are secret, and these are\nsuch as are hostile to the laws; among which are the Love Feasts of the\nChristians *.\n\n      * Why the Romans punished the Christians:\n\n     \"It is commonly regarded as a very curious and remarkable\n     fact, that, although the Romans were disposed to tolerate\n     every other religious sect, yet they frequently persecuted\n     the Christians with unrelenting cruelty. This exception, so\n     fatal to a peaceable and harmless sect, must have originated\n     in circumstances which materially distin-...\n\n{2}\n\n\"Men who irrationally assent to anything, resemble those who are\ndelighted with jugglers and enchanters, &c. For as most of these are\ndepraved characters, who deceive the vulgar, and persuade them to assent\nto whatever they please, this also takes place with the Christians. Some\nof these are not willing either to give or receive a reason for what\nthey believe; but are accustomed to say, 'Do not investigate, but\nbelieve, your faith will save you.\n\n     ...guished them from the votaries of every other religion. The\n     causes and the pretexts of persecution may have varied at\n     various periods; but there seems to have been one general\n     cause which will readily be apprehended by those who are\n     intimately acquainted with the Roman jurisprudence. From the\n     most remote period of their history, the Romans had\n     conceived extreme horror against all nocturnal meetings of a\n     secret and mysterious nature. A law prohibiting nightly\n     vigils in a temple has even been ascribed, perhaps with\n     little probability, to the founder of their state. The laws\n     of the twelve tables declared it a capital offence to attend\n     nocturnal assemblies in the city. This, then, being the\n     spirit of the law, it is obvious that the nocturnal meetings\n     of the primitive Christians must have rendered them objects\n     of peculiar suspicion, and exposed them to the animadversion\n     of the magistrate. It was during the night that they usually\n     held their most solemn and religious assemblies; for a\n     practice which may be supposed to have arisen from their\n     fears, seems to have been continued from the operation of\n     other causes. Misunderstanding the purport of certain\n     passages of Scripture, they were...\n\n{3}\n\n'For the wisdom of the world is bad, but folly is good*,'\n\n\"The world, according to Moses, was created at a certain time, and has\nfrom its commencement existed for a period far short of ten thousand\nyears,--The world, however, is without a beginning; in consequence of\nwhich there have been from all eternity many conflagrations, and\nmany deluges, among the latter of which the most recent is that of\nDeucalion**.\n\n     ...led to imagine that the second advent, of which they lived\n     in constant expectation, would take place during the night;\n     and they were accustomed to celebrate nightly vigils at the\n     tombs of the saints and martyrs. In this case, therefore,\n     they incurred no penalties peculiar to the votaries of a new\n     religion, but only such as equally attached to those who,\n     professing the public religion of the state, were yet guilty\n     of this undoubted violation of its laws.\"--Observations on\n     the Study of the Civil Law, by Dr. Irving, Edin. 1820. p.\n     11.\n\n\"It is not true that the primitive Christians held their assemblies in\nthe night time to avoid the interruptions of the civil power: but the\nconverse of that proposition is true in the utmost latitude; viz. that\nthey met with molestations from that quarter, because their assemblies\nwere nocturnal.\"--Elements of Civil Law, by Dr. Taylor, p. 579.\n\n     * See Erasmus's Praise of Folly, towards the end.\n\n     ** See on this subject the Tinusus of Plato.\n\n{4}\n\n\"Goatherds and shepherds among the Jews, following Moses as their\nleader, and being allured by rustic deceptions, conceived that there is\n[only] one God.\n\n\"These goatherds and shepherds were of opinion that there is one God,\nwhether they delight to call him the Most High, or Adonai, or Celestial,\nor Sabaoth, or to celebrate by any other name the fabricator of this\nworld*; for they knew nothing farther. For it is of no consequence,\nwhether the God who is above all things, is denominated, after the\naccustomed manner of the Greeks, Jupiter, or is called by any other\nname, such as that which is given to him by the Indians or Egyptians.\"\n\nCelsus, assuming the person of a Jew, represents him as speaking to\nJesus, and reprehending him for many things. And in the first place he\nreproaches him with feigning that he was born of a virgin; and says,\nthat to his disgrace he was born in a Judaic village from a poor Jewess,\nwho obtained the means\n\n     * In the original there is nothing more than [--------] i.\n     e. this world; but it is necessary to read, conformably to\n     the above translation, [--------]. For the Jews did not\n     celebrate the world, but the Maker of the world, by these\n     names.\n\n{5}\n\nof subsistence by manual labour. He adds, That she was abandoned by her\nhusband, who was a carpenter, because she had been found by him to\nhave committed adultery. Hence, in consequence of being expelled by her\nhusband, becoming an ignominious vagabond, she was secretly delivered\nof Jesus, who, through poverty being obliged to serve as a hireling in\nEgypt, learnt there certain arts for which the Egyptians are famous.\nAfterwards, returning from thence, he thought so highly of himself,\non account of the possession of these [magical] arts, as to proclaim\nhimself to be a God. Celsus also adds, That the mother of Jesus became\npregnant with him through a soldier, whose name was Panthera*.\n\n\"Was therefore the mother of Jesus beautiful, and was God connected with\nher on account of her beauty, though he is not adapted to be in love\nwith a corruptible body? Or is it not absurd to suppose that God\nwould be enamoured of a woman who was neither fortunate nor of royal\nextraction, nor even scarcely known to her neighbours; and who was also\nhated and ejected by the carpenter her\n\n     * The same thing is said of Jesus in a work called \"The\n     Gospel according to the Jews, or Toldoth Jesu.\" See Chap. I.\n     and II. of that work.\n\n{6}\n\nhusband, so as neither to be saved by her own credulity nor by divine\npower? These things, therefore, do not at all pertain to the kingdom of\nGod.\"\n\nCelsus, again personifying a Jew, says to Christ, \"When you were washed\nby John, you say that the spectre of a bird flew to you from the air.\nBut what witness worthy of belief saw this spectre? Or who heard a voice\nfrom heaven, adopting you for a son of God, except yourself, and some\none of your associates, who was equally a partaker of your wickedness\nand punishment?\n\n\"Jesus having collected as his associates ten or eleven infamous men,\nconsisting of the most wicked publicans and sailors, fled into different\nplaces, obtaining food with difficulty, and in a disgraceful manner.\"\n\nAgain, in the person of a Jew, Celsus says to Christ, \"What occasion\nwas there, while you were yet an infant, that you should be brought to\nEgypt, in order that you might not be slain? For it was not fit that a\nGod should be afraid of death. But an angel came from heaven, ordering\nyou and your associates to fly, lest being taken you should be put to\ndeath. For the great God [it seems] could not\n\n{7}\n\npreserve you, his own son, m your own country, but sent two angels on\nyour account.\"\n\nThe same Jew in Celsus also adds, \"Though we do not believe in the\nancient fables, which ascribe a divine origin to Perseus, Amphion,\nAEacus, and Minos, yet at the same time their deeds are demonstrated to\nbe mighty and admirable, and truly superhuman, in order that what\nis narrated of their origin may not appear to be improbable.\" But\n(speak-ing to Jesus) he says, \"What beautiful or admirable thing have\nyou said or done, though you was (sp) called upon in the temple to give\nsome manifest sign that you were the son of God?\"\n\nCelsus, pretending not to disbelieve in the miracles ascribed to Christ,\nsays to him, \"Let us grant that these things were performed by you; but\nthey are common with the works of enchanters, who promise to effect\nmore wonderful deeds than these, and also with what those who have been\ntaught by the Egyptians to perform in the middle of the forum for a\nfew oboli; such as expelling daemons from men, dissipating diseases by a\npuff, evocating the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous suppers, and\ntables covered with food, which have no reality. These magicians also\nrepresent animals as moving, which are not in reality animals, but\nmerely appear\n\n{8}\n\nto the imagination to be such.--Is it fit, therefore\" that we should\nbelieve these men to be the sons of God, because they worked these\nwonders? Or ought we not rather to say, that these are the arts of\ndepraved and unhappy men!\"\n\nAgain the Jew says, \"It is but recently, and as it were yesterday, since\nwe punished Christ; and you, who are [in no respect superior to] keepers\nof oxen, have abandoned the laws of your ancestors and country. Why\nlikewise do you begin from our sacred institutions, but afterwards in\nthe progress [of your iniquity] despise them? For you have no other\norigin of your dogma, than our law. Many. other such persons also as\nJesus was, may be seen by those who wish to be deceived. How too is it\nprobable that we, who have declared to all men that a person would be\nsent by God as a punisher of the unjust, should treat him ignominiously,\nif such a person had appeared among us? Again: How can we think him to\nbe a God, who, that I may omit other things, performed, as we learn,\nnothing that was promised? And when, being condemned by us, he was\nthought worthy of punishment, having concealed himself and fled, was\nmost disgracefully made a prisoner; being betrayed by those whom he\ncalled his disciples? If, however, he was a God, it was not proper that\nhe should either fly, or be led\n\n{9]\n\naway captive. And much less was it fit, that, being considered as a\nsaviour and the son of the greatest God, and; also the messenger of this\nGod, by his familiars and private associates, he should be deserted and\nbetrayed by them. But what _excellent_ general, who was the leader of\nmany myriads of men, was ever betrayed by his soldiers? Indeed, this\nhas not happened even to the chief of a band of robbers, though a man\ndepraved, and the captain of men still more depraved than himself, when\nto his associates he appeared to be useful. But Christ, who was betrayed\nby those of whom he was the leader, though not as a good commander, nor\nin such a way as robbers would behave to their captain, could not obtain\nthe benevolence of his deluded followers.--Many other things also, and\nsuch as are true, respecting Jesus might be adduced, though they are not\ncommitted to writing by his disciples; but these I willingly omit. His\ndisciples also falsely pretended, that he foreknew and foretold every\nthing that happened to him.\n\n\"The disciples of Jesus, not being able to adduce any thing respecting\nhim that was obviously manifest, falsely assert that he foreknew all\nthings; and have written other things of a similar kind respecting lum.\nThis, however, is just the same as if some one should assert that a\ncertain person is a just\n\n{10}\n\nman, and notwithstanding this should show that he acted unjustly; that\nhe is a pious man, and yet a murderer; and, though immortal, died;\nat the same time adding to all these assertions, that he had a\nforeknowledge of all things.\n\n\"These things Jesus said after he had previously declared that he was\nGod, and it was entirely necessary that what he had predicted should\ntake place. He therefore, though a God, induced his disciples and\nprophets, with whom he ate and drank, to become impious. It was,\nhowever, requisite that he should have been beneficial to all men, and\nparticularly to his associates. No one likewise would think of betraying\nthe man, of whose table he had been a partaker. But here the associate\nof the table of God became treacherous to him; God himself, which is\nstill more absurd, making those who had been hospitably entertained by\nhim to be his impious betrayers.\"\n\nThe Jew in Celsus also says, that \"What is asserted by the Jewish\nprophets may be much more probably adapted to ten thousand other persons\nthan to Jesus. Besides, the prophets say, that he who was to come would\nbe a great and powerful king, and would be the lord of the whole earth,\nand of all nations and armies: but no one would\n\n{11}\n\ninfer from such like symbols and rumours, and from such ignoble\narguments, that Christ is the son of God.\n\n\"As the sun, which illuminates all other things, first shows himself [to\nbe the cause of light], thus also it is fit that this should have been\ndone by the son of God*. But the Christians argue sophistically, when\nthey say that the son of God is _the word itself_. And the accusation\nis strengthened by this, that _the word_ which was announced by the\nChristians to be the son of God, was not a pure and holy _word_, but a\nman who was most disgracefully punished and put to death.\n\n\"What illustrious deed did Jesus accomplish worthy of a God, who beholds\nfrom on high with contempt [the trifling pursuits of] men, and derides\nand considers as sport terrestrial events?\n\n\"Why too did not Jesus, if not before, yet now at least, [i. e. when he\nwas brought before Pilate,] exhibit some divine indication respecting\nhimself; liberate himself from this ignominy, and punish those\n\n     * Celsus means that Christ should have given indubitable\n     evidence, by his sayings, his deeds, and by all that\n     happened to him, that he was the son of God.\n\n{12}\n\nwho had insulted both him and his father? What kind of ichoer also or\nblood dropped from his crucified body? was it,.....such as from the\nblest immortals flows?\"*\n\nThe Jew in Celsus further adds: \"Do you reproach us with this, O most\nfaithful men, that we do not conceive Christ to be God, and that we do\nnot accord with you in believing that he suffered these things for the\nbenefit of mankind, in order that we also might despise punishment?\nNeither did he persuade any one while he lived, not even his own\ndisciples, that he should be punished, and suffer as he did: nor did he\nexhibit himself [though a God] as one liberated from all evils.\n\n\"Certainly you Christians will not say, that Christ, when he found\nthat he could not induce the inhabitants on the surface of the earth to\nbelieve in his doctrines, descended to the infernal regions, in order\nthat he might persuade those that dwelt there. But if inventing absurd\napologies by which you are ridiculously deceived, what should hinder\nothers also, who have perished miserably, from being ranked among angels\nof a more divine order?\"\n\n     * See Iliad, V, ver. S40.\n\n{13}\n\nThe Jew in Celsus further observes, on comparing Christ with robbers,\n\"Some might in a similar manner unblushingly say of a robber and a\nhomicide, who was punished for his crimes, that he was not a robber but\na God; for he predicted to his associates that he should suffer what he\ndid suffer.\n\n\"The disciples of Jesus, living with him, hearing his voice, and\nembracing his doctrines, when they saw that he was punished and put to\ndeath, neither died with nor for him, nor could be persuaded to despise\npunishment; but denied that they were his disciples. Why, therefore, do\nnot you Christians [voluntarily] die with your master?\"\n\nThe Jew in Celsus also says, that \"Jesus made converts of ten sailors,\nand most abandoned publicans; but did not even persuade all these to\nembrace his doctrines.\n\n\"Is it not also absurd in the extreme, that so many should believe\nin the doctrines of Christ now he is dead, though he was not able to\npersuade any one [genuinely] while he was living?\n\n\"But the Christians will say, We believe Jesus to be the son of God,\nbecause he cured the lame and the blind, and, as you assert, raised the\ndead.\n\n{14}\n\n\"O light and truth, which clearly proclaims in its own words, as you\nwrite, that other men, and these depraved and enchanters, will come\namong you, possessing similar miraculous powers! Christ also feigns that\na certain being, whom he denominates Satan, will be the source of these\nnefarious characters: so that Christ himself does not deny that these\narts possess nothing divine, and acknowledges that they are the works\nof depraved men. At the same time likewise, being compelled by truth, he\ndiscloses both the arts of others and his own. Is it not, therefore, a\nmiserable thing, to consider, from the performance of the same deeds,\nthis man to be a God, but others to be nothing more than enchanters? For\nwhy, employing his testimony, should we rather think those other workers\nof miracles to be more depraved than himself? Indeed Christ confesses\nthat these arts are not indications of a divine nature, but of certain\nimpostors, and perfectly wicked characters.\"\n\nAfter this, the Jew in Celsus says to his fellow-citizens who believed\nin Jesus, as follows: \"Let us grant you that Jesus predicted his\nresurrection: but how many others have employed such-like prodigies,\nin order by a fabulous narration to effect what they wished; persuading\nstupid auditors to believe in these miracles? Zamolxis among the\n\n{15}\n\nScythians, who was a slave of Pythagoras, used this artifice; Pythagoras\nalso himself, in Italy; and in Egypt, Rhampsinitus. For it is related\nof the latter that he played at dice with Ceres in Hades, and that\nhe brought back with him as a gift from her a golden towel. Similar\nartifices were likewise employed by Orpheus among the Odryssians;\nby Protesilaus among the Thessalians; and by Hercules and Theseus in\nTaenarus. This, however, is to be considered,--whether any one who in\nreality died, ever rose again in the same body: unless you think that\nthe narrations of others are fables,but that your catastrophe of the\ndrama will be found to be either elegant or probable, respecting what\nwas said by him who expired on the cross, and the earthquake, and the\ndarkness, which then according to you ensued. To which may be added,\nthat he who when living could not help himself, arose, as you say, after\nhe was dead, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and his hands\nwhich had been perforated on the cross. But who was it that saw this?\nA furious woman, as you acknowledge, or some other of the same magical\nsect; or one who was under the delusion of dreams, and who voluntarily\nsubjected himself to fallacious phantasms,--a thing which happens\nto myriads of the human race. Or, which is more probable, those who\npretended to see this were such as wished to astonish others by\n\n{16}\n\nthis prodigy, and, through a false narration of this kind, to give\nassistance to the frauds of other impostors.\n\n\"Is it to be believed that Christ, when he was alive, openly announced\nto all men what he was; but when it became requisite that he should\nprocure a strong belief of his resurrection from the dead, he should\nonly show himself secretly to one woman and to his associates?\n\n\"If also Christ wished to be concealed, why was a voice heard from\nheaven, proclaiming him to be the son of God? Or, if he did not wish\nto be concealed, why did he suffer punishment, and why did, he\n[ignominiously] die?\"\n\nThe Jew in Celsus likewise adds, \"These things therefore we have adduced\nto you from your own writings, than which we have employed no other\ntestimony, for you yourselves are by them confuted. Besides, what God\nthat ever appeared to men, did not procure belief that he was a God,\nparticularly when he appeared to those who expected his advent? Or why\nwas he not acknowledged by those, by whom he had been for a long time\nexpected? We certainly hope for a resurrection in the body, and that we\nshall have eternal life. We\n\n{17}\n\nalso believe that the paradigm and primary leader of this, will be he\nwho is to be sent to us; and who will show that it is not impossible for\nGod to raise _any one_ with his body that he pleases.\"\n\nAfter this, Celsus in his own person says, \"The Christians and Jews most\nstupidly contend with each other, and this controversy of theirs about\nChrist differs in nothing from the proverb about the contention for the\nshadow of an ass*. There is also nothing venerable in the investigation\nof the Jews and Christians with each other; both of them believing that\nthere was a certain prophecy from a divine spirit, that a saviour of the\nhuman race would appear on the earth, but disagreeing in their opinion\nwhether he who was predicted had appeared or not.\n\n\"The Jews originating from the Egyptians deserted Egypt through\nsedition, at the same time despising the religion of the Egyptians.\nHence the\n\n     * This proverb is mentioned by Apuleius at the end of the\n     Ninth Book of his Metamorphosis. There is also another Greek\n     proverb mentioned by Menander, Plato, and many others,\n     [--------], concerning the shadow of an ass, which is said of\n     those who are anxious to know things futile, frivolous, and\n     entirely useless. These two proverbs Apuleius has merged\n     into one.\n\n{18}\n\nsame thing happened to the Christians afterwards, who abandoned the\nreligion of the Jews, as to the Jews who revolted from the Egyptians;\nfor the cause to both of their innovation was a seditious opposition to\nthe common* and established rites of their country.\n\n\"The Christians at first, when they were few, had but one opinion; but\nwhen they became scattered through their multitude, they were again and\nagain divided into sects, and each sect wished to have an establishment\nof its own. For this was what they desired to effect from the beginning.\n\n\"But after they were widely dispersed one sect opposed the other, nor\ndid any thing remain common\n\nto them except the name of Christians; and even this they were at the\nsame time ashamed to leave as a common appellation: but as to other\nthings, they were the ordinances of men of a different persuasion.\n\n\"What however is still more wonderful is this, that their doctrine may\nbe [easily] confuted, as consisting of no hypothesis worthy of belief.\nBut their\n\n     * In the original  [--------], but it is necessary to read,\n     conformably to the above translation,  [--------]\n\n{19}\n\ndissension among themselves, the advantage they derive from it, and\ntheir dread of those who are not of their belief, give stability to\ntheir faith.\n\n\"The Christians ridicule the Egyptians, though they indicated many and\nby no means contemptible things through enigmas, when they taught that\nhonours should be paid to _eternal_ ideas, and not, as it appears to the\nvulgar, to diurnal animals*.\" Celsus adds, that \"The Christians\nstupidly introduce nothing more venerable than the goats and dogs of the\nEgyptians in their narrations respecting Jesus.\n\n\"What is said by a few who are considered as Christians, concerning the\ndoctrine of Jesus and the precepts of Christianity, is not designed for\nthe wiser, but for the more unlearned and ignorant part of mankind. For\nthe following are their precepts: 'Let no one who is erudite accede\nto us, no one who is wise, no one who is prudent (for these things are\nthought by us to be evil); but let any one who is unlearned, who is\nstupid, who is an infant in understanding boldly come to us.' For the\nChristians openly acknowledge that such as these are worthy\n\n     *  See on this subject the Treatise of Plutarch respecting\n     Isis and Osiris.\n\n{20}\n\nto be noticed by their God; manifesting by this, that they alone wish\nand are able to persuade the ignoble, the insensate, slaves, stupid\nwomen, and little children and fools.\n\n\"We may see in the forum infamous characters and jugglers* collected\ntogether, who dare not show their tricks to intelligent men; but\nwhen they perceive a lad, and a crowd of slaves and stupid men, they\nendeavour to ingratiate themselves with such characters as these.\n\n\"We also may see in their own houses, wool-weavers, shoemakers,\nfullers, and the most illiterate and rustic men, who dare not say any\nthing in the presence of more elderly and wiser fathers of families;\nbut when they meet with children apart from their parents, and certain\nstupid women with them, then they discuss something of a wonderful\nnature; such as that it is not proper to pay attention to parents and\npreceptors, but that they should be persuaded by them. For, say they,\nyour parents and preceptors are delirious and stupid, and neither know\nwhat is truly good, nor are able to effect it, being prepossessed with\ntrifles of an unusual nature. They\n\n     * Celsus, as we are informed by Origen, compares the\n     Christians with men of this description.\n\n{21}\n\nadd, that they alone know how it is proper to live, and that if children\nare persuaded by them, they will be blessed, and also the family to\nwhich they belong. At the same time likewise that they say this, if\nthey see any one of the wiser teachers of erudition approaching, or the\nfather of the child to whom they are speaking, such of them as are more\ncautious defer their discussion to another time; but those that are\nmore audacious, urge the children to shake off the reins of parental\nauthority, whispering to them, that when their fathers and preceptors\nare present, they neither wish nor are able to unfold to children what\nis good, as they are deterred by the folly and rusticity of these men,\nwho are entirely corrupted, are excessively depraved, and would punish\nthem [their true admonishers]. They further add, that if they wish\nto be instructed by them, it is requisite that they should leave their\nparents and preceptors, and go with women and little children, who are\ntheir playfellows, to the conclave of women, or to the shoemaker's\nor fuller's shop, that they may obtain perfection [by embracing their\ndoctrines].\n\n\"That I do not however accuse the Christians more bitterly than truth\ncompels, may be conjectured from hence, that the criers who call men to\nother mysteries proclaim as follows: 'Let him approach,\n\n{22}\n\nwhose hands are pure, and whose words are wise.' And again, others\nproclaim: 'Let him approach, who is pure from all wickedness, whose soul\nis not conscious of any evil, and who leads a just and upright life.'\nAnd these things are proclaimed by those who promise a purification from\nerror. Let us now hear who those are that are called to the Christian\nmysteries. '_Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is a\nfool, and whoever, in short, is miserable, him the kingdom of God will\nreceive_.' Do you not therefore call a sinner, an unjust man, a thief,\na housebreaker, a wizard, one who is sacrilegious, and a robber of\nsepulchres? What other persons would the crier nominate, who should call\nrobbers together?\n\n\"God, according to the Christians, descended to men; and, as consequent\nto this, it was fancied that he had left his own proper abode.\n\n\"God, however, being unknown among men [as the Christians say], and in\nconsequence of this appearing to be in a condition inferior to that of\na divine being, was not willing to be known, and therefore made trial of\nthose who believed and of those who did not believe in him; just as\nmen who have become recently rich, call on God as a witness of their\nabundant and entirely mortal ambition.\n\n{23}\n\n\"The Christians have asserted nothing paradoxical or new concerning a\ndeluge or a conflagration, but have perverted the doctrine of the\nGreeks and barbarians, that in long periods of time, and recursions and\nconcursions of the stars, conflagrations and deluges take place; and\nalso that after the last deluge, which was that of Deucalion, the period\nrequired, conformably to the mutation of wholes, a conflagration*.\nThis the Christians, however, have perverted by representing God as\ndescending with fire as a spy.\n\n\"Again, we will repeat and confirm by many arguments, an assertion which\nhas nothing in it novel, but was formerly universally acknowledged. God\nis good, is beautiful and blessed, and his very nature consists in that\nwhich is most beautiful and the best. If therefore he descended to men,\nhis nature must necessarily be changed. But the change must be from good\nto evil, and from the beautiful to the base, from felicity to\ninfelicity, and from that which is most excellent to that which is most\nworthless. Who, however, would choose to be thus changed? Besides, to be\nchanged and transformed pertains to that which is naturally mortal; but\nan invariable\n\n     * See Taylor's translation of Proclus on the Timaeus of\n     Plato, Book I.\n\n{24}\n\nsameness of subsistence is the prerogative of an immortal nature. Hence\nGod could never receive a mutation of this kind*.\n\n\"Either God is in reality changed, as the Christians say, into a mortal\nbody,--and we have before shown that this is impossible; or he himself\nis not changed, but he causes those who behold him to think that he is,\nand thus falsifies himself, and involves others in error. Deception,\nhowever, and falsehood are indeed otherwise evil, and can only be\n[properly] employed by any one as a medicine, either in curing friends\nthat are diseased or have some vicious propensity, or those that are\ninsane, or for the purpose of avoiding danger from enemies. But no one\nwho has vicious propensities, or is insane, is dear to Divinity.\nNor does God fear any one, in order that by wandering he may escape\ndanger**.\n\n     * See a most admirable defence of the immutability of\n     Divinity, by Proclus, in Taylor's Introduction to the Second\n     and Third Books of Plato's Republic, in vol. i. of his\n     translation of Plato's Works. See also Taylor's note at the\n     end of vol. iii. of his translation of Pausanias, p. 235.\n\n     ** The original of this sentence is, [--------] the latter\n     part of which, [--------], is thus, erroneously translated\n     by Spencer, \"ut imposture opus habeat ad evadendum\n     periculum.\"\n\n{25}\n\n\"The Christians, adding to the assertions of the Jews, say that the\nson of God came on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews,\npunishing Jesus and causing him to drink _gall_, raised the _bile_ of\nGod against them.\"\n\nCelsus after this, in his usual way deriding both Jews and Christians,\ncompares all of them to a multitude of bats, or to ants coming out of\ntheir holes, or to frogs seated about a marsh, or to earthworms that\nassemble in a corner of some muddy place, and contend with each other\nwhich of them are most noxious. He likewise represents them as saying,\n\"God has manifested and predicted all things to us; and deserting\nthe whole world and the celestial circulation, and likewise paying no\nattention to the widely-extended earth, he regards our concerns alone,\nto us alone sends messengers, and he will never cease to explore by what\nmeans we may always associate with him.\" He likewise resembles us\nto earthworms acknowledging that God exists; and he says that we\nearthworms, i. e. the Jews and Christians, being produced by God after\nhim, are entirely similar to him. All things too are subject to\nus, earth and water, the air and the stars, and are ordained to be\nsubservient to us*. Afterwards\n\n     * This reminds me of the following beautiful lines in...\n\n{26}\n\nthese earthworms add: \"Now because some of us have sinned, God will\ncome, or he will send his son, in order that he may burn the unjust,\nand that those who are not so may live eternally with him.\" And Celsus\nconcludes with observing that \"such assertions would be more tolerable\nif they were made by earthworms or frogs, than by Jews or Christians\ncontending with each other.\"\n\nCelsus, after having adduced, from the writings of the heathens,\ninstances of those who contended for the antiquity of their race, such\nas the Athenians, Egyptians, Arcadians, and Phrygians, and also of those\nwho have asserted that some among them were aborigines, says, that\n\"the Jews being concealed in a corner of Palestine, men perfectly\nin-erudite, and who never had previously heard the same things\ncelebrated by Hesiod and innumerable\n\n     ...Epistle I. of Pope's Essay on Man, in which Pride is\n     represented as saying:\n\n     \"For me kind nature wakes her genial power,\n     Suckles each herb, and spreads out every flower;\n     Annual for me the grape, the rose, renew\n     The juice nectarious and the balmy dew.\n     For me the mine a thousand treasures brings:\n     For me health gushes from a thousand springs;\n     Seas roll to waft me, suns to light me rise,\n     My footstool earth, my canopy the skies.\"\n\n{27}\n\nother divine men, composed a most incredible and inelegant narration,\nthat a certain man was fashioned by the hands of God, and inspired by\nhim with the breath of life; that a woman was taken from the side of\nthe man; that precepts were given to them by God; and that a serpent was\nadverse to these precepts. Lastly, they make the serpent to frustrate\nthe commands of God: in all this, narrating a certain fable worthy only\nof being told by old women, and which most impiously makes God to be\nfrom the first imbecile, and incapable of persuading one man fashioned\nby himself to act in a way conformable to his will.\n\n\"The Christians are most impiously deceived and involved in error,\nthrough the greatest ignorance of the meaning of divine enigmas. For\nthey make a certain being whom they call the Devil, and who in the\nHebrew tongue is denominated Satan, hostile to God. It is therefore\nperfectly stupid and unholy to assert that the greatest God, wishing to\nbenefit mankind, was incapable of accomplishing what he wished, through\nhaving one that opposed him, and acted contrary to his will. The son of\nGod, therefore, was vanquished by the devil; and being punished by him,\nteaches us also to despise the punishments inflicted by him; Christ at\nthe same time predicting that Satan would appear on\n\n{28}\n\nthe earth, and, like himself, would exhibit great and admirable works,\nusurping to himself the glory of God. The son of God also adds, that it\nis not fit to pay attention to Satan, because he is a seducer, but\nthat himself alone is worthy of belief. This, however, is evidently the\nlanguage of a man who is an impostor earnestly endeavouring to prevent,\nand previously guarding himself against, the attempts of those who think\ndifferently from and oppose him. But, according to the Christians, the\nson of God is punished by the devil, who also punishes us in order\nthat through this we may be exercised in endurance. These assertions,\nhowever, are perfectly ridiculous. For it is fit, I think, that the\ndevil should be punished, and not that men should be threatened with\npunishment who are calumniated by him.\n\n\"Further still: If God, like Jupiter in the comedy, being roused from\na long sleep, wished to liberate the human race from evils, why did\nhe send only into a corner of the earth this spirit of whom you boast?\nthough he ought in a similar manner to have animated many other bodies,\nand to have sent them to every part of the habitable globe. The comic\npoet indeed, in order to excite the laughter of the audience in the\ntheatre, says that Jupiter, after he was roused from his sleep, sent\nMercury to the Athenians and Lacedaemonsians:--but do not\n\n{29}\n\nyou think that it is a much more ridiculous fiction to assert that God\nsent his son to the Jews?\n\n\"Many--and these, men whose names are not known,--both in temples and\nout of temples, and some also assembling in cities or armies, are easily\nexcited from any casual cause, as if they possessed a prophetic power.\nEach of these likewise is readily accustomed to say, 'I am God, or the\nson of God, or a divine spirit. But I came because the world will soon\nbe destroyed, and you, O men! on account of your iniquities will perish.\nI wish, however, to save you, and you shall again see me, returning with\na celestial army. Blessed is he who now worships me; but I will cast\nall those who do not, into eternal fire, together with the cities and\nregions to which they belong. Those men also that do not now know the\npunishments which are reserved for them, shall afterwards repent and\nlament in vain: but those who believe in me I will for ever save.'\nExtending to the multitude these insane and perfectly obscure\nassertions, the meaning of which no intelligent man is able to\ndiscover,--for they are unintelligible and a mere nothing,--they afford\nan occasion to the stupid and to jugglers of giving to them whatever\ninterpretation they please.\n\n\"Again, they do not consider, if the prophets of\n\n{30}\n\nthe God of the Jews had predicted that this would be his son, why did\nthis God legislatively ordain through Moses, that the Jews should enrich\nthemselves and acquire power; should fill the earth with their progeny;\nand should slay and cut off the whole race of their enemies, which Moses\ndid, as he says, in the sight of the Jews; and besides this, threatening\nthat unless they were obedient to these his commands, he should consider\nthem as his enemies;--why, after these things had been promulgated by\nGod, did his son, a Nazarean man, exclude from any access to his father,\nthe rich and powerful, the wise and renowned? For he says that we ought\nto pay no more attention than ravens do, to food and the necessaries of\nlife*, and that we should be less concerned about our clothing than the\nlilies of the field. Again, he asserts, that to him who smites us on\none cheek we should likewise turn the other**. Whether, therefore, does\nMoses or Jesus lie? Or, was the Father who sent Jesus forgetful of what\nhe had formerly said to Moses? Or, condemning his own laws, did he alter\nhis opinion, and send a messenger to mankind with mandates of a contrary\nnature?\n\n     * Luke xii. 24.\n\n     ** Luke vi. 29.\n\n{31}\n\n\"The Christians again will say, How can God be known unless he can be\napprehended by sense? To this we reply, that such a question is not the\ninterrogation of man, nor of soul, but of _the flesh_. At the same time,\ntherefore, let them hear, if they are capable of hearing any thing, _as\nbeing a miserable worthless race, and lovers of body!_ If, closing the\nperceptive organs of sense, you look upward with the visive power of\nintellect, and, averting the eye of the _flesh,_ you excite the eye\nof the soul, you will thus alone behold God*. And if you seek for the\nleader of this path, you must avoid impostors and enchanters, and those\nwho persuade you to pay attention to [real] idols; in order that you may\nnot be entirely ridiculous, by blaspheming as idols other things which\nare manifestly Gods**, and venerating that which is in reality more\nworthless than any image, and which is not even an image, but _a dead\nbody_***; and by investigating a Father similar to it.\n\n     * This is most Platonically said by Celsus.\n\n     ** Such as the sun and moon, and the other heavenly bodies.\n\n     *** The Emperor Julian in the fragments of his Arguments\n     against the Christians, 'preserved by Cyril, says, speaking\n     to the Christians: \"You do not notice whether any thing is\n     said by the Jews about holiness; but you emulate their rage\n     and their bitterness, overturning temples and altars, and\n     cutting the throats not only of those who remain firm in\n     paternal institutes, but also of...\n\n{32}\n\n\"There are essence and generation, the intelligible and the visible.\nAnd truth indeed subsists with essence, but error with generation*.\nScience, therefore, is conversant with truth, but opinion with\ngeneration. Intelligence also pertains to, or has the intelligible for\nits object; but what is visible is the object of sight. And intellect\nindeed knows the intelligible; but the eye knows that which is visible.\nWhat the sun therefore is in the visible region,--being neither the eye,\nnor sight, but the cause to the eye of seeing, and to the sight of its\nvisive power, to all sensibles of their being generated, and to\nhimself of being perceived;--this the supreme God [or _the good_] is\nin intelligibles: since he is neither intellect, nor intelligence, nor\nscience, but is the cause, to intellect, of intellectual perception;\n\n     ...those heretics who are equally erroneous with yourselves,\n     and who do not lament a dead body in the same manner as you\n     do. For neither Jesus nor Paul exhorted you to act in this\n     manner. But the reason is, that they did not expect you\n     would arrive at the power which you have obtained. For they\n     were satisfied if they could deceive maid-servants and\n     slaves, and through these married women, and such men as\n     Cornelius and Sergius; among whom, if you can mention one\n     that was at that time an illustrious character, (and these\n     things were transacted under the reign of Tiberius or\n     Claudius,) believe that I am a liar in all things.\"\n\n     * Generation signifies the whole of that which is visible.\n\n{33}\n\nto intelligence, of its subsistence on account of him; to science, for\nits possession of knowledge for his sake, and to all intelligibles for\ntheir existence as such. He is likewise the cause to truth itself and\nto essence itself, of their existence, being himself beyond all\nintelligibles, by a certain ineffable power*. And these are the\nassertions of men who possess intellect. But if you understand any thing\nof what is here said, you are indebted to us for it. If, likewise, you\nthink that a certain spirit descending from God announced to you things\nof a divine nature, this will be the spirit which proclaimed what I have\nabove said, and with which ancient men being replete, have unfolded so\nmany things of a most beneficial nature. If, therefore, you are unable\nto understand these assertions, be silent, and conceal your ignorance,\nand do not say that those are blind who see, and that those are lame who\nrun,\n\n     * This sentence in the original is as follows: [--------].\n     But it is requisite to read, conformably to the above\n     translation, [--------]. Celsus has derived what he here\n     says from the Sixth Book of Plato's Republic, and what he\n     says previous to this from the Timaeeus of Plato.--See\n     Taylor's translation of these Dialogues.\n\n{34}\n\nyou at the same time possessing souls that are in every respect lame and\nmutilated, and living in body, viz. in that which is dead.\n\n\"How much better would it be for you, since you are desirous of\ninnovation, to direct your attention to some one of the illustrious\ndead, and concerning whom a divine fable may be properly admitted! And\nif Hercules and Esculapius do not please you, and other renowned men of\ngreat antiquity, you may have Orpheus, a man confessedly inspired by a\nsacred spirit, and who suffered a violent death. But he perhaps has been\nadopted as a leader formerly by others. Consider Anaxarchus, therefore,\nwho being thrown into a mortar, and bruised in the cruellest manner,\nmost courageously despised the punishment, exclaiming, 'Bruise, bruise\nthe sack of Anaxarchus, for you cannot bruise him.' This, indeed,\nwas uttered by a certain truly divine spirit. Him, however, some\nphysiologists have already vindicated to themselves. In the next place,\nconsider Epictetus, who when his master twisted his leg violently, said,\nsmiling gently and without being terrified, 'You will break my leg;' and\nwhen his master had broken his leg, only observed, 'Did I not tell you\nthat you would break it? What thing of this kind did your God utter when\n\n{35}\n\nhe was punished*? The sibyl, likewise, whose verses are used by some of\nyou, is far more worthy to be regarded by you as the daughter of God.\n_But now you have fraudulently and rashly inserted in her verses many\nthings of a blasphemous nature_**; and Christ, who in his life was most\nreprehensible, and in his death most miserable, you reverence as a God.\nHow much more appropriately might you have bestowed this honour on Jonas\nwhen he was under the gourd, or on Daniel who was saved in the den\nof lions, or on others of whom more prodigious things than these are\nnarrated!\n\n\"This is one of the precepts of the Christians: 'Do not revenge yourself\non him who injures you; and if any person strikes you on one cheek,\nturn the other to him also.' And this precept indeed is of very great\nantiquity, but is recorded in a more rustic\n\n     * Christ when on the cross exclaimed, \"My God, my God, why\n     hast thou forsaken me?\" But Socrates in his Apology to his\n     Judges, as recorded by Plato, most magnanimously said,\n     \"Anytus and Melitus may indeed put me to death, but they\n     cannot injure me.\"\n\n     ** The collection of the Sibylline Oracles which are now\n     extant, are acknowledged by all intelligent men among the\n     learned to be for the most part forgeries.--See the account\n     of them by Fabricius in vol. i. of his Bibliootheca Graeca,\n\n{36}\n\nmanner by Christ. For Socrates is made by Plata in the Crito to speak\nas follows: 'It is by no means therefore proper to do an injury. By no\nmeans. Hence neither is it proper for him who is injured to revenge the\ninjury, as the multitude think it is; since it is by no means fit to do\nan injury. It does not appear that it is. But what! is it proper or\nnot, O Crito, to be malific? It certainly is not proper, Socrates. Is it\ntherefore just or unjust for a man to be malific to him by whom he has\nbeen hurt? for in the opinion of the vulgar it is just. It is by\nno means just. For to be hurtful to men does not at all differ from\ninjuring them. You speak the truth. Neither, therefore, is it proper to\nrevenge an injury, nor to be hurtful to any man, whatever evil we may\nsuffer from him.' These things are asserted by Plato, who also adds:\n'Consider, therefore, well, whether you agree, and are of the same\nopinion with me in this; and we will begin with admitting, that it is\nnever right either to do an injury, or revenge an injury on him who has\nacted badly towards us. Do you assent to this principle? For formerly it\nappeared, and now still appears, to me to be true.' Such, therefore,\nwas the opinion of Plato, and which also was the doctrine of divine men\nprior to him. Concerning these, however, and other particulars which the\nChristians have corrupted, enough has been said. For he who\n\n{37}\n\ndesires to search further into them, may easily be satisfied.\n\n\"But why is it requisite to enumerate how many things have been\nforetold with a divinely inspired voice, partly by prophetesses and\nprophets, and partly by other men and women under the influence of\ninspiration? What wonderful things they have heard from the adyta\nthemselves! How many things have been rendered manifest from victims and\nsacrifices to those who have used them! How many from other prodigious\nsymbols! And to some persons, divinely luminous appearances have been\nmanifestly present. Of these things indeed the life of every one is\nfull. How many cities, likewise, have been raised from oracles, and\nliberated from disease and pestilence! And how many, neglecting these,\nor forgetting them, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been\nfounded from these, and by observing their mandates have been rendered\nhappy! How many potentates and private persons have, from attending to\nor neglecting these, obtained a better or a worse condition! How many,\nlamenting their want of children, have through these obtained the object\nof their wishes! How many have escaped the anger of daemons! How many\nmutilated bodies have been healed! And again, how many have immediately\nsuffered for insolent behaviour in\n\n{38}\n\nsacred concerns! some indeed becoming insane on the very spot; others\nproclaiming their impious deeds, but others not proclaiming them before\nthey perished; some destroying themselves, and others becoming a prey\nto incurable diseases. And sometimes a dreadful voice issuing from the\nadyta has destroyed them*.\n\n\"In the next place, is it not absurd that you should desire and hope\nfor the resurrection of the body, as if nothing was more excellent or\nmore honourable to us than this; and yet again, that you should hurl\nthis same body into punishments, as a thing of a vile nature? To men,\nhowever, who are persuaded that this is true, and who are conglutinated\nto body, it is not worth while to speak of things of this kind. For\nthese are men who in other respects are rustic and impure, without\nreason, and labouring under the disease of sedition. Indeed, those who\nhope that the soul or intellect will exist eternally, whether they\nare willing to call it pneumatic**, or an intellectual spirit holy and\nblessed, or a living soul, or the supercelestial and\n\n     * See the scientific theory of Oracles unfolded in the Notes\n     to Taylor's translation of Pausanias, vol. iii. p. 259.\n\n     ** This is said conformably to the opinion of the Stoics.\n\n{39}\n\nincorruptible progeny of a divine and incorporeal nature*, or whatever\nother appellation they may think fit to give it; those who thus hope,\n(but I say this in accordance with Divinity,) in this respect think\nrightly, that those who have lived well in this life will be blessed,\nbut that those who have been entirely unjust, will be involved in\nendless evils. And neither the Christians nor any other man were ever\nhostile to this dogma.\n\n\"Since men are bound to body, whether they are so for the sake of the\ndispensation of the whole of things, or in order that they may suffer\nthe punishment of their offences, or in consequence of the soul through\ncertain passions becoming heavy and tending downwards, till through\ncertain orderly periods it becomes purified;--for according to\nEmpedocles, it is necessary that\n\n          'From the blest wandering thrice ten thousand times,\n          Through various mortal forms the soul should pass.'--\n\n     * This is asserted in accordance with the doctrine of the\n     Platonists.\n\n     ** This 30,000 times must not be considered mathematically;\n     since it symbolically indicates a certain appropriate\n     measure of perfection. For in units S is a perfect number,\n     as having a beginning, middle, and end. And again, 10 is\n     perfect, because it comprehends all numbers in itself.\n     These numbers, however, were call-...\n\n{40}\n\nThis being the case, it is requisite to believe that men are committed\nto the care of certain inspective guardians of this prison the body.\n\n\"That to the least of things, however, are allotted guardian powers,\nmay be learnt from the Egyptians, who say that the human body is divided\ninto thirty-six parts, and that daemons* or certain etherial gods who are\ndistributed into the same number of parts, are the guardians of these\ndivisions of the body. Some also assert, that there is a much greater\nnumber of these presiding powers; different corporeal parts being under\nthe inspection of different powers. The names of these also in the\nvernacular tongue of the Egyptians are Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Knat,\nSicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor. What, therefore, should\nprevent him from making use of these and other powers, who wishes\nrather to be well than to be ill, to be fortunate rather than to be\nunfortunate, and to be liberated from such\n\n     ...ed by the ancients perfect, in a different way from 6, 28,\n     &c.; for these were thus denominated because they are equal\n     to the sum of their parts.\n\n     * i. e. beneficent daemonss; for the ancients divided\n     daemonss into the beneficent and malevolent. They also\n     considered the former as assisting the soul in its ascent to\n     its pristine state of felicity; but the latter as of a\n     punishing and avenging characteristic.\n\n{41}\n\ntormentors and castigators as these things are thought to be?*\n\n\"He, however, who invokes these powers ought to be careful, lest being\nconglutinated [as it were] to the worship of them, and to a love of\nthe body, he should turn from and become oblivious of more excellent\nnatures. For it is perhaps requisite not to disbelieve in wise men, who\nsay that the greater part of circumterrestrial daemons are conglutinated\nto generation, and are delighted with blood, with the odour and vapour\nof flesh, with melodies and with other things of the like kind**; to\nwhich being bound, they are unable to effect any thing superior to the\nsanction of the body, and the prediction of future events to men and\ncities. Whatever also pertains to mortal actions they know, and are able\nto bring to pass.\n\n\"If some one should command a worshiper of God either to act impiously,\nor to say any thing of a most disgraceful nature, he is in no respect\nwhatever to be obeyed; but all trial and every kind of death are to be\nendured rather than to meditate,\n\n     * Vid. Salmas.   In fine libri He Annis climactericis.\n\n     ** See Book II. of Taylor's translation of Porphyry,--On\n     Abstinence from Animal Food.\n\n{42}\n\nand much more to assert, any thing impious concerning God. But if any\none should order us to celebrate the Sun or Minerva, we ought most\ngladly to sing hymns to their praise. For thus you will appear to\nvenerate the supreme God in a greater degree *, if you also celebrate\nthese powers: for piety when it passes through all things becomes more\nperfect.\"\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM, AND INFORMATION RELATIVE TO, THE TREATISE OF PORPHYRY\nAGAINST THE CHRISTIANS\n\n[Illustration: Porphyry]\n\nThis work of Porphyry consisted of Fifteen Books, and is unfortunately\nlost. It is frequently mentioned by the Fathers of the Church, from\nwhose writings the following particulars are collected.\n\nThe First Book appears to have contained a development of the\ncontrariety of the Scriptures, and proofs that they did not proceed from\nDivinity, but from men. To this end Porphyry especially adduces what\nPaul writes to the Galatians, chap. ii.\n\n     * For as the ineffable principle of things possesses all\n     power and the highest power, he first produced from himself\n     beings most transcendently allied to himself; and therefore,\n     by venerating these, the highest God will be in a greater\n     degree venerated, as being a greater veneration of his\n     power.\n\n{43}\n\nviz. that \"when Peter came to Antioch, he withstood him to his face,\nbecause he was to be blamed.\" Hence Porphyry infers, \"that the Apostles,\nand indeed the chief of them, did not publicly study the salvation\nof all men, but that each of them was privately attentive to his own\nrenown.\" This the Fathers testify in more than one place. See the\nCommentary of Jerome on the above-mentioned Epistle. Jerome also, in his\n89th Epistle to Augustin, informs us that Porphyry says, \"that Peter and\nPaul opposed each other in a puerile contest, and that Paul was envious\nof the virtue of Peter.\"\n\nThe Third Book treated of the interpretation of the Scriptures, in\nwhich Porphyry condemned the mode of explaining them adopted by the\ncommentators, and especially the allegories of Origen. This is evident\nfrom a long extract from this work of Porphyry given by Eusebius in\nHist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 13.\n\nThe Fourth Book treated of the Mosaic history and the antiquities of the\nJews, as we learn from Eusebius, Proep. Evang. lib. i. cap. 9, and from\nTheo-doret, Serm. ii. Therap.\n\nBut the Twelfth Book was the most celebrated of all, in which Porphyry\nstrenuously opposes the\n\n{44}\n\nprophecy of Daniel. Of this work Jerome thus speaks in the Preface to\nhis Commentary on that prophet: \"Porphyry's twelfth book is against the\nprophet Daniel, as he was unwilling to admit that it was written by that\nprophet, but contends that it was composed by a person in Judaea named\nEpiphanes, and who lived in the time of Antiochus. Hence he says,\nthat Daniel does not so much narrate future as past events. Lastly, he\nasserts, that whatever is related as far as to the reign of Antiochus\ncontains a true history; but that all that is said posterior to this\ntime, as the writer was ignorant of futurity, is false.\"\n\nThe Thirteenth Book also, according to Jerome*, was written against\nthe same prophet; in which book, speaking of the \"abomination of\ndesolation,\" as it is called by Daniel, (when standing in the sacred\nplace,) he says many reproachful things of the Christians.\n\nThe same Jerome likewise, in Epist. ci., ad Pam-machium, testifies, that\nPorphyry accuses the history of the Evangelists of falsehood, and says**\nthat Christ, after he had told his brethren that he should\n\n     * Vid. lib. iv. Comment, in 24 Cap. Matth.\n\n     ** Lib. ii. adversus Pelagianos.\n\n{45}\n\nnot go up to the feast of tabernacles, yet afterwards went up to it\n(John vii.). Hence Porphyry accuses him of inconstancy and mutability.\nJerome's observation on this is curious, viz. \"Nesciens omnia scandala\nad carnem esse referenda.\"\n\nJerome adds (in Lib. Quasst. Hebraic, in Genesin) \"that Porphyry\ncalumniates the Evangelists for making a miracle to the ignorant, by\nasserting that Christ walked on the sea, calling the lake Genezareth\nthe sea.\" He likewise says, that Porphyry called the miracles which\nwere performed at the sepulchres of the martyrs, \"the delusions of evil\ndemons.\"\n\nThe following remarkable passage from one of the lost writings of\nPorphyry relative to the Christians, is preserved by Augustin in his\nTreatise De Civit. lib. xix. cap. 23.\n\n\"Sunt spiritus terreni minimi loco terreno quodam malorum daemonum\npotestati subjecti. Ab his sapientes Hebraeorum, quorum unus iste etiam\nJesus fuit, sicut audivisti divina Apollonis oracula quae superius dicta\nsunt. Ab his ergo _Hebaei_ dsemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus\nvetabant religiosos, et ipsis vacare prohibebant: venerari autem magis\ncoelestes Deos, amplius autem venerari Deum patrem. Hoc autem et Dii\npraecipiunt, et in\n\n{40}\n\nsuperioibus ostendimus, quemadmodum animadvertere ad Deum monent, et\nilium colere ubique imperant. Verum indocti et impiae naturae, quibus\nvere Fatum non concessit a Dius dona obtinere, neque habere Jovis\nimmortalis notitiam, non audientes Deos et divinos viros; Deos quidem\nomnes recusaverunt, prohibitos autem daemones non solum nullis odiis\ninsequi, sed etiam revereri delegerunt. Deum autem simulantes se colere,\nea sola per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus quidem utpote omnium\npater nullius indiget: sed nobis est bene, cum eum per justitiam et\ncastitatem, aliasque virtutes adoramus, ipsam vitam precem ad ipsum\nfa-cientes, per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim\npurgat, imitatio deificat affectionem ad ipsum operando.\"\n\ni. e. \"There are terrene spirits of the lowest order, who in a certain\nterrene place are subject to the power of evil demons. From these were\nderived the wise men of the Hebrews, of whom Jesus also was one; as you\nhave heard the divine oracles of Apollo above mentioned assert. From\nthese worst of demons therefore, and lesser spirits of the _Hebrew_,\nthe oracles forbid the religious, and prohibit from paying attention to\nthem, but exhort them rather to venerate the celestial gods, and still\nmore the father of the gods. And we have above\n\n{47}\n\nshown how the gods admonish us to look to Divinity, and everywhere\ncommand us to worship him. But the unlearned and impious natures, to\nwhom Fate has not granted truly to obtain gifts from the gods, and to\nhave a knowledge of immortal Jupiter,--these not attending to the gods\nand divine men, reject indeed all the gods, and are so far from hating\nprohibited demons, that they even choose to reverence them*. But\npretending that they worship God, they do not perform those things\nthrough which alone God is adored. For God, indeed, as being the father\nof all things, is not in want of any thing; but it is well with us when\nwe adore him through justice and continence, and the other\n\n     *The Platonic philosopher Sallust, in his golden book On the\n     Gods and the World, says, alluding to the Christians, cap.\n     18, \"Impiety, which invades some places of the earth, and\n     which will often subsist in future, ought not to give any\n     disturbance to the worthy mind; for things of this kind do\n     not affect, nor can religious honours be of any advantage to\n     the gods; and the soul from its middle nature is not always\n     able to pursue that which is right Besides, it is not\n     improbable that impiety is a species of punishment; for\n     those who have known and at the same time despised the gods,\n     we may reasonably suppose will in another life be deprived\n     of the knowledge of their nature. And those who have\n     honoured their proper sovereigns as gods, shall be cut off\n     from the divinities, as the punishment of their impiety.\"\n\n{48}\n\nvirtues, making our life a prayer to him through the imitation and\ninvestigation of him. For investigation purifies, but imitation deifies\nthe affection of the mind by energizing about divinity.\"\n\nThe following extract from Porphyry concerning a pestilence which raged\nfor many years at Rome, and could not be mitigated by any sacrifices, is\npreserved by Theodoret: \"[--------].\" i. e. \"The Christians now wonder\nthat the city has been for so many years attacked by disease, the advent\n[or manifest appearance] of Esculapius and the other gods no longer\nexisting. For Jesus being now reverenced and worshiped, no one any\nlonger derives any public benefit from the gods.\"\n\n\n\n\nA FRAGMENT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH BOOK OF DIODORUS SICULUS.\n\n\"King Antiochus besieged Jerusalem; but the Jews resisted him for some\ntime. When, however, all their provision was spent, they were forced to\nsend ambassadors to him to treat on terms. Many of his friends persuaded\nhim to storm the city, and\n\n{49}\n\nto root out the whole nation of the Jews; because they only, of all\npeople, hated to converse with any of another nation, and treated all of\nthem as enemies. They likewise suggested to him, that the ancestors of\nthe Jews were driven out of Egypt as impious and hateful to the Gods.\nFor their bodies being overspread and infected with the itch and\nleprosy, they brought them together into one place by way of expiation,\nand as profane and wicked wretches expelled them from their coasts.\nThose too that were thus expelled seated themselves about Jerusalem,\nand being afterwards embodied into one nation, called the nation of\nthe Jews, their hatred of all other men descended with their blood to\nposterity. Hence they made strange laws, entirely different from those\nof other nations. In consequence of this, they will neither eat nor\ndrink with any one of a different nation, nor wish him any prosperity.\nFor, say they, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, having subdued the Jews,\nentered into the temple of God, into which by their law no one was\npermitted to enter but the priest. Here, when he found the image of a\nman with a long beard carved in stone sitting on an ass, he conceived\nit to be Moses who built Jerusalem, established the nation, and made all\ntheir impious customs and practises legal: for these abound in hatred\nand enmity to all other men. Antiochus, therefore, abhorring this\n\n{50}\n\ntheir contrariety to all other nations, used his utmost endeavour to\nabrogate their laws. In order to effect this, he sacrificed a large hog\nat the image of Moses and at the altar of God that stood in the outward\ncourt, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice. He commanded\nlikewise that the sacred books, whereby they were taught to hate all\nother nations, should be sprinkled with the broth made of the hog's\nflesh. And he extinguished the lamp called by them immortal, which was\ncontinually burning in the temple. Lastly, he compelled the high priest\nand the other Jews to eat swine's flesh. Afterwards, when Antiochus and\nhis friends had deliberately considered these things, they urged him to\nroot out the whole nation, or at least to abrogate their laws and compel\nthem to change their former mode of conducting themselves in common\nlife. But the king being generous and of a mild disposition, received\nhostages and pardoned the Jews. He demolished, however, the walls of\nJerusalem, and took the tribute that was due.\"\n\n\n\n\nFROM MANETHO RESPECTING THE ISRAELITES.\n\n\"While such was the state of things in Ethiopia, the people of\nJerusalem, having come down with the defiled of the Egyptians, treated\nthe inhabitants in such an unholy manner, that those who witnessed\n\n{51}\n\ntheir impieties, believed that their joint sway was more execrable than\nthat which the shepherds had formerly exercised. For they not only set\nfire to the cities and villages, but committed every kind of sacrilege,\nand destroyed the images of the gods, and roasted and fed upon those\nsacred animals that were worshipped; and having compelled the priests\nand prophets to kill and sacrifice them, they cast them naked out of the\ncountry. It is said also that the priest who ordained their polity and\nlaws was by birth of Heliopolis, and his name Osarsiph, from Osons the\ngod of Heliopolis; but that when he went over to these people, his name\nwas changed, and he was called Moyses.\"\n\nManetho again says: \"After this, Amenophis returned from Ethiopia with\na great force, and Rampses also his son with other forces; and\nencountering the shepherds and defiled people, they defeated and slew\nmultitudes of them, add pursued them to the bounds of Syria.\"--Joseph\ncontn App. lib. i. cap. 26, & 27.\n\n\"Cherilus also, a still more ancient writer [than Herodotus], and a\npoet, makes mention of our nation, and informs us that it came to the\nassistance of king Xerxes in his expedition against Greece. For in his\nenumeration of all those nations, he last of\n\n{52}\n\nall inserts ours among the rest, when he says: \"At the last, there\npassed over a people wonderful to behold; for they spake the Phoenician\ntongue, and dwelt in the Solymaean mountains, near a broad lake. Their\nheads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and\nfaces were like nasty horse heads, also, that had been hardened in the\nsmoke.\"--Whiston's Josephus, vol. iv. p. 299.\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM THE FIFTH BOOK OF TACITUS RESPECTING THE JEWS, AS\nTRANSLATED BY MURPHY.\n\n\"Being now to relate the progress of a siege that terminated in the\ndestruction of that once celebrated city [Jerusalem], it may be proper\nto go back to its first foundation, and to trace the origin of the\npeople. The Jews we are told were natives of the Isle of Crete. At the\ntime when Saturn was driven from his throne by the violence of Jupiter,\nthey abandoned their habitations, and gained a settlement at the\nextremity of Libya. In support of this tradition, the etymology of their\nname is adduced as a proof. Mount Ida, well known to fame, stands in\nthe Isle of Crete: the inhabitants are called Idaeans; and the word by\na barbarous corruption was changed afterwards to that of Judaeans.\nAccording to others they were a colony from Egypt, when that country,\nduring the reign of Isis,\n\n{53}\n\noverflowing with inhabitants poured forth its redundant numbers under\nthe conduct of Hierosolymus and Juda. A third hypothesis makes them\noriginally Ethiopians, compelled by the tyranny of Cepheus, the reigning\nmonarch, to abandon their country. Some authors contend that they were\na tribe of Assyrians, who for some time occupied a portion of Egypt, and\nafterwards transplanting themselves into Syria, acquired in their own\nright a number of cities, together with the territories of the Hebrews.\nThere is still another tradition, which ascribes to the Jews a more\nillustrious origin, deriving them from the ancient Solymans, so highly\ncelebrated in the poetry of Homer. By that people the city was built,\nand from its founder received the name of Hierosolyma.\n\n\"In this clash of opinions, one point seems to be universally admitted.\nA pestilential disease, disfiguring the race of man, and making the body\nan object of loathsome deformity, spread all over Egypt. Bocchoris, at\nthat time the reigning monarch, consulted the oracle of Jupiter\nAmmon, and received for answer that the kingdom must be purified by\nexterminating the infected multitude as a race of men detested by the\ngods. After diligent search, the wretched sufferers were collected\ntogether, and in a wild and barren desert abandoned to their misery.\n\nIn that distress, while the vulgar herd was\n\n{54}\n\nsunk in deep despair, Moses, one of their number, reminded them, that\nby the wisdom of his counsels they had been already rescued out of\nimpending danger. Deserted as they were by men and gods, he told them\nthat if they did not repose their confidence in him, as their chief by\ndivine commission, they had no resource left. His offer was accepted.\nTheir march began they knew not whither. Want of water was their chief\ndistress. Worn out with fatigue they lay stretched out on the bare\nearth, heart-broken, ready to expire; when a troop of wild asses,\nreturning from pasture, went up the steep ascent of a rock covered with\na grove of trees. The verdure of the herbage round the place, suggested\nthe idea of springs near at hand. Moses traced the steps of the animals,\nand discovered a plentiful vein of water. By this relief the fainting\nmultitude was raised from despair. They pursued their journey for six\ndays without intermission. On the seventh they made a halt, and having\nexpelled the natives took possession of the country, where they built\ntheir city and dedicated their temple.\n\n\"In order to draw the bond of union closer, and to establish his own\nauthority, Moses gave a new form of worship, and a system of religious\nceremonies, the reverse of every thing known to any other age or\ncountry. _Whatever is held sacred by_\n\n{55}\n\n_the Romans, with the Jews is profane: and what in other nations is\nunlawful and impure, with them is fully established_. The figure of\nthe animal that guided them to refreshing springs is consecrated in the\nsanctuary of their temple*. In contempt of Jupiter Hammon they sacrifice\na ram. The ox worshiped in Egypt for the god Apis is slain as a victim\nby the Jews. From the flesh of swine they abstain altogether. An animal\nsubject to the same leprous disease that infected their whole nation, is\nnot deemed proper food. The famine with which they were for a long time\nafflicted, is frequently commemorated by a solemn fast. Their bread,\nin memory of their having seized a quantity of grain to relieve their\nwants, is made without leaven. The seventh day is sacred to rest, for\non that day their labours ended; and such is their natural propensity to\nsloth, that in consequence of it every seventh year is devoted to repose\nand sluggish inactivity. For this septennial custom some account in a\n\n     * Conformably to this, see what Diodorus Siculus says (in\n     the extract given from him, p. 49.): Josephus denies that\n     the figure of an ass was consecrated in the sanctuary of the\n     Jewish temple. But this does not invalidate the testimony of\n     Diodorus Siculus to the contrary. For Antiochus when he\n     subdued the Jews might have found the image of this animal\n     in their temple; but in the time of Josephus the ass might\n     not have been consecrated by them.\n\n{56}\n\ndifferent manner: they tell us that it is an institution in honour of\nSaturn; either because the Idaeans, expelled, as has been mentioned,\nfrom the Isle of Crete, transmitted to their posterity the principles\nof their religious creed; or because among the seven planets that govern\nthe universe, Saturn moves in the highest orbit, and acts with the\ngreatest energy. It may be added that the period in which the heavenly\nbodies perform their revolutions is regulated by the number seven.\n\n\"These rites and ceremonies, from whatever source derived, owe their\nchief support to their antiquity.\n\nThey have other institutions, in themselves corrupt, impure, and even\nabominable; but eagerly embraced, as if their very depravity were a\nrecommendation. The scum and refuse of other nations, renouncing the\nreligion of their country, flocked in crowds to Jerusalem, enriching\nthe place with gifts and offerings. Hence the wealth and grandeur of the\nstate. Connected amongst themselves by the most obstinate and inflexible\nfaith, the Jews extend their charity to all of their own persuasion,\nwhile towards the rest of mankind they nourish a sullen and inveterate\nhatred. Strangers are excluded from their tables. Unsociable to all\nothers, they eat and lodge with one another only; and though addicted to\nsensuality, they admit no intercourse with women\n\n{57}\n\nfrom other nations. Among themselves their passions are without\nrestraint. Vice itself is lawful. That they may know each other by\ndistinctive marks, they have established the practice of circumcision.\nAll who embrace their faith, submit to the same operation. The first\nelements of their religion teach their proselytes to despise the gods,\nto abjure their country, and forget their parents, their brothers,\nand their children. With the Egyptians they agree in their belief of a\nfuture state; they have the same notion of departed spirits, the same\nsolicitude, and the same doctrine. With regard to the Deity their creed\nis different. The Egyptians worship various animals, and also symbolical\nrepresentations, which are the work of man: the Jews acknowledge one\nGod only, and him they adore in contemplation; condemning as impious\nidolaters all who, with perishable materials wrought into the human\nform, attempt to give a representation of the Deity. Their priests made\nuse of fifes and cymbals; they were crowned with wreaths of ivy, and a\nvine wrought in gold was seen in their temple. Hence some have inferred\nthat Bacchus, the conqueror of the East, was the object of their\nadoration. But the Jewish forms of worship have no conformity to the\nrites of Bacchus. The latter have their festive days which are always\ncelebrated with mirth and carousing banquets. Those of the Jews are a\ngloomy ceremony,\n\n{58}\n\nfall of absurd enthusiasm, rueful, mean, and sordid.\"\n\n\n\n                             --------\n\n\n\n\"Chaeremon *, professing to write the history of Egypt, says, that under\nAmenophis and his son Ramessis two hundred and fifty thousand leprous\nand polluted men were cast out of Egypt. Their leaders were Moses the\nscribe, and Josephus, who was also a sacred scribe. The Egyptian name\nof Moses was Tisithen, of Joseph Peteseph. These coming to Pelusium, and\nfinding there 380,000 men left by Amenophis, which he would not admit\ninto Egypt, making a league with them, they undertook an expedition\nagainst Egypt. Upon this Amenophis flies into Ethiopia, and his son\nMessenes drives out the Jews into Syria, in number about 200,000, and\nreceives his father Amenophis out of Ethiopia. I know Lysimachus**\nassigns another king and another time in which Moses led the Israelites\nout of Egypt, and that was when Bocchoris reigned in Egypt; the nation\nof the Jews, being infected with leprosies and scabs and other diseases,\nbetook themselves to the temples to beg their living, and many being\ntainted with the disease, there happened a dearth in Egypt. Whereupon\nBocchoris consulting\n\n     * Joseph, lib. i. contra Apionem.\n\n     ** Idem.\n\n{59}\n\nwith the oracle of Ammon, received for answer that the leprous people\nwere to be drowned in the sea, in sheets of lead, and the scabbed were\nto be carried into the wilderness; who choosing Moses for their\nleader, conquered that country which is now called Judaea.\"--Greaves\nPyramidograpkia, p. 26.\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM THE WORKS OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN RELATIVE TO THE\nCHRISTIANS.\n\n\n[Illustration: Julian]\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM EPISTLE LI. TO THE ALEXANDRIANS.\n\n\"As the founder of your city was Alexander, and your ruler and tutelar\ndeity King Serapis, together with the virgin his associate, and the\nqueen of all Egypt, Isis, * * *, you do not emulate a healthy city, but\nthe diseased part dares to arrogate to itself the name of [the whole]\ncity. By the gods, Men of Alexandria, I should be very much ashamed, if,\nin short, any Alexandrian should acknowledge himself to be a Galilaean.\n\n\"The ancestors of the Hebrews were formerly slaves to the Egyptians.\nBut now, Men of Alexandria, you, the conquerors of Egypt (for Egypt\nwas conquered by your founder), sustain a voluntary servitude to the\ndespisers of your national dogmas, in opposition to your ancient sacred\ninstitutions. And you do not recollect your former\n\n{60}\n\nfelicity, when all Egypt had communion with the gods, and we enjoyed an\nabundance of good. But, tell me, what advantage has accrued to your city\nfrom those who now introduce among you a new religion? Your founder was\nthat pious man Alexander of Macedon, who did not, by Jupiter! resemble\nany one of these, or any of the Hebrews, who far excelled them. Even\nPtolemy, the son of Lagus, was also superior to them. As to Alexander,\nif he had encountered, he would have endangered even the Romans. What\nthen did the Ptolemies, who succeeded your founder? Educating your city,\nlike their own daughter, from her infancy, they did not bring her to\nmaturity by the discourses of Jesus, nor did they construct the form\nof government, through which she is now happy, by the doctrine of the\nodious Galilaeans.\n\n\"Thirdly: After the Romans became its masters, taking it from the\nbad government of the Ptolemies, Augustus visited your city, and thus\naddressed the citizens: 'Men of Alexandria, I acquit your city of all\nblame, out of regard to the great god Serapis,\n\nand also for the sake of the people, and the grandeur of the city. A\nthird cause of my kindness to you is my friend Areus.' This Areus,\nthe companion of Augustus Caesar, and a philosopher, was your\nfellow-citizen.\n\n{61}\n\n\"The particular favours conferred on your city by the Olympic gods\nwere, in short, such as these. Many more, not to be prolix, I omit. But\nthose blessings which the apparent gods bestow in common every day, not\non one family, nor on a single city, but on the whole world, why do you\nnot acknowledge? Are you alone insensible of the splendour that flows\nfrom the sun? Are you alone ignorant that summer and winter are produced\nby him, and that all things are alone vivified and alone germinate from\nhim? Do you not, also, perceive the great advantages that accrue to your\ncity from the moon, from him and by him the fabricator of all things?\nYet you dare not worship either of these deities; but this Jesus, whom\nneither you nor your fathers have seen, you think must necessarily be\nGod the word, while him, whom from eternity every generation of mankind\nhas seen, and sees and venerates, and by venerating lives happily, I\nmean the mighty sun, a living, animated, intellectual, and beneficent\nimage of the intelligible Father, you despise. If, however, you listen\nto my admonitions, you will by degrees return to truth. You will not\nwander from the right path, if you will be guided by him, who to the\ntwentieth year of his age pursued that road, but has now worshiped the\ngods for near twelve years.\"\n\n{62}\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM THE FRAGMENT OF AN ORATION OR EPISTLE ON THE DUTIES OF A\nPRIEST.\n\n\"If any are detected behaving disorderly to their prince, they are\nimmediately punished; but those who refuse to approach the gods, are\npossessed by a tribe of evil daemons, who driving many of the atheists\n[i. e. of the Christians] to distraction, make them think death\ndesirable, that they may fly up into heaven, after having forcibly\ndislodged their souls. Some of them prefer deserts to towns; but man,\nbeing by nature a gentle and social animal, they also are abandoned to\nevil daemons, who urge them to this misanthropy; and many of them*\nhave had recourse to chains and collars. Thus, on all sides, they are\nimpelled by an evil daemons, to whom they have voluntarily surrendered\nthemselves, by forsaking the eternal and saviour gods.\n\n\"Statues and altars, and the preservation of the unextinguished fire,\nand in short all such particulars, have been established by our fathers,\nas symbols of the presence of the gods; not that we should believe that\nthese symbols are gods, but that through these we should worship the\ngods. For since we are connected with body, it is also\n\n     * i. e. The Cappadocian monks and hermits.\n\n{63}\n\nnecessary that our worship of the gods should be performed in a\ncorporeal manner; but they are incorporeal. And they, indeed, have\nexhibited to us as the first of statues, that which ranks as the second\ngenus of gods from the first, and which circularly revolves round the\nwhole of heaven*. Since, however, a corporeal worship cannot even be\npaid to these, because they are naturally unindigent, a third kind of\nstatues was devised in the earth, by the worship of which we render the\ngods propitious to us. For as those who reverence the images of kings,\nwho are not in want of any such reverence, at the same time attract to\nthemselves their benevolence; thus, also, those who venerate the statues\nof the gods, who are not in want of any thing, persuade the gods by\nthis veneration to assist and be favourable to them. For alacrity in the\nperformance of things in our power is a document of true sanctity;\nand it is very evident that he who accomplishes the former, will in a\ngreater degree possess the latter. But he who despises things in his\npower, and afterwards pretends to desire impossibilities, evidently does\nnot pursue the\n\n     * Meaning those divine bodies the celestial orbs, which in\n     consequence of participating a divine life from the\n     incorporeal powers from which they are suspended, may be\n     very properly called secondary gods.\n\n{64}\n\nlatter, but overlooks the former. For though divinity is not in want\nof any thing, it does not follow that on this account nothing is to be\noffered to him. For neither is he in want of celebration through the\nministry of _words_. What then? Is it, therefore, reasonable that he\nshould also be deprived of this? By no means. Neither, therefore, is he\nto be deprived of the honour which is paid him through _works_; which\nhonour has been legally established, not for three or for three thousand\nyears, but in all preceding ages, among all nations of the earth.\n\n\"But [the Galilaeans will say], O! you who have admitted into your\nsoul every multitude of daemons, whom, though according to you they are\nformless and unfigured, you have fashioned in a corporeal resemblance,\nit is not fit that honour should be paid to divinity through such works.\nHow, then, do we not consider as wood and stones those statues which\nare fashioned by the hands of men? O more stupid than even stones\nthemselves! Do you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the nose as\nyou are drawn by execrable daemonss, so as to think that the artificial\nresemblances of the gods are the gods themselves? Looking, therefore, to\nthe resemblances of the gods, we do not think them to be either stones\nor wood; for neither do we\n\n{65}\n\nthink that the gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that\nroyal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that they are the kings\ntherefore, but the images of kings. Whoever, therefore, loves his king,\nbeholds with pleasure the image of his king; whoever loves his child is\ndelighted with his image; and whoever loves his father surveys his image\nwith delight. Hence, also, he who is a lover of divinity gladly surveys\nthe statues and images of the gods; at the same time venerating and\nfearing with a holy dread the gods who invisibly behold him*. If,\ntherefore, some\n\n     * The Catholics have employed similar arguments in defence\n     of the reverence which they pay to the images of the men\n     whom they call saints. But the intelligent reader need not\n     be told, that it is one thing to venerate the images of\n     those divine powers which proceed from the great first Cause\n     of all things, and eternally subsist concentrated and rooted\n     in him, and another to reverence the images of men, who when\n     living were the disgrace of human nature. In addition to\n     what is said by Julian on this subject, the following\n     extract from the treatise of Sallust, on the Gods, and the\n     World, is well worthy the attentive perusal of the reader:\n     \"A divine nature is not indigent of any thing; but the\n     honours which we pay to the gods are performed for the sake\n     of our advantage. And since the providence of the gods is\n     everywhere extended, a certain habitude or fitness is all\n     that is requisite, in order to receive their beneficent\n     communications. But all habitude is produced through\n     imitation and similitude.    Hence temples imitate the\n     heavens, but altars,...\n\n{66}\n\none should fancy that these ought never to be corrupted, because they\nwere once called the images of the gods, such a one appears to me to\nbe perfectly void of intellect. For if this were admitted, it is also\nrequisite that they should not be made by men. That, however, which\nis produced by a wise and good man may be corrupted by a depraved and\nignorant man. But the gods which circularly revolve about the heavens,\nand which are living statues, fashioned by the gods themselves as\nresemblances of their unapparent essence,--these remain for ever. No\none, therefore, should disbelieve in the gods, in consequence of seeing\nand hearing that some persons have behaved insolently towards statues\nand temples. For have there not been many who have destroyed good men,\nsuch as Socrates and Dion, and the great Empedotimus? And who, I well\nknow, have, more than statues or temples, been taken care of by the\ngods. See, however, that the gods, knowing the body of these to\n\n     ...the earth; statues resemble life, and on this account\n     they are similar to animals. Prayers imitate that which is\n     intellectual; but characters, superior ineffable powers.\n     Herbs and stones resemble matter; and animals which are\n     sacrificed, the irrational life of our souls. But, from all\n     these, nothing happens to the gods beyond what they already\n     possess; for what accession can be made to a divine nature?\n     But a conjunction with our souls and the gods is by these\n     means produced.\n\n{67}\n\nbe corruptible, have granted that it should yield and be subservient\nto nature, but afterwards have punished those by whom it was destroyed;\nwhich clearly happened to be the case with all the sacrilegious of our\ntime.\n\n\"Let no one, therefore, deceive us by words, nor disturb us with\nrespect to providential interference. For as to the prophets of the\nJews, who reproach us with things of this kind, what will they say of\ntheir own temple, which has been thrice destroyed, but has not been\nsince, even to the present time, rebuilt? I do not, however, say this as\nreproaching them; for I have thought of rebuilding it, after so long\na period, in honour of the divinity who is invoked in it. But I have\nmentioned this, being willing to show, that it is not possible for any\nthing human to be incorruptible; and that the prophets who wrote things\nof this kind were delirious, and the associates of stupid old women.\nNothing, however, hinders, I think, but that God may be great, and yet\nhe may not have worthy interpreters [of his will]. But this is because\nthey have not delivered their soul to be purified by the liberal\ndisciplines; nor their eyes, which are profoundly closed, to be opened;\nnor the darkness which oppresses them to be purged away. Hence, like men\nwho survey a great light through thick darkness,\n\n{68}\n\nneither see purely nor genuinely, and in consequence of this do not\nconceive it to be a pure light, but a fire, and likewise perceiving\nnothing of all that surrounds it, they loudly exclaim, _Be seized with\nhorror, be afraid, fire, flame, death, a knife, a two-edged sword_;\nexpressing by many names the one noxious power of fire. Of these men,\nhowever, it is better peculiarly to observe how much inferior their\nteachers of the words of God are to our poets.\"\n\n\nAN EDICT, FORBIDDING THE CHRISTIANS TO TEACH THE LIFE-RATURE OF THE\nHEATHENS.\n\n\"We are of opinion that proper erudition consists not in words, nor\nin elegant and magnificent language, but in the sane disposition of an\nintelligent soul, and in true opinions of good and evil, and of what is\nbeautiful and base. Whoever, therefore, thinks one thing, and teaches\nanother to his followers, appears to be no less destitute of erudition\nthan he is of virtue. Even in trifles, if the mind and tongue be\nat variance, there is some kind of improbity. But in affairs of the\ngreatest consequence, if a man thinks one thing, and teaches another\ncontrary to what he thinks, in what respect does this differ from the\nconduct of those mean-spirited, dishonest, and abandoned traders, who\ngenerally affirm what they know to be false, in order to deceive and\ninveigle customers?\n\n{60}\n\n\"All, therefore, who profess to teach, ought to possess worthy manners,\nand should never entertain opinions opposite to those of the public;\nbut such especially, I think, ought to be those who instruct youth, and\nexplain to them the works of the ancients, whether they are orators\nor grammarians; but particularly if they are sophists. For these last\naffect to be the teachers, not only of words, but of manners, and\nassert that political philosophy is their peculiar province. Whether,\ntherefore, this be true or not, I shall not at present consider. I\ncommend those who make such specious promises, and should commend\nthem much more, if they did not falsify and contradict themselves, by\nthinking one thing, and teaching their scholars another. What then? Were\nnot Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and\nLysias, the leaders of all erudition? And did not some of them\nconsider themselves sacred to Mercury, but others to the Muses? I think,\ntherefore, it is absurd for those who explain their works to despise the\ngods whom they honoured.\n\n\"I do not mean (for I think it would be absurd) that they should change\ntheir opinions for the sake of instructing youth; but I give them their\noption, either not to teach what they do not approve, or, if they choose\nto teach, first to persuade their\n\n{70}\n\nscholars that neither Homer, nor Hesiod, nor any of those whom they\nexpound and charge with impiety, madness, and error concerning the gods,\nare really such as they represent them to be. For as they receive a\nstipend, and are maintained by their works, if they can act with such\nduplicity for a few drachms, they confess themselves guilty of the most\nsordid avarice.\n\n\"Hitherto, indeed, many causes have prevented their resorting to the\ntemples; and the dangers that everywhere impended, were a plea for\nconcealing the most true opinions of the gods. But now, since the gods\nhave granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd for any to teach those\nthings to men which they do not approve. And if they think that those\nwriters whom they expound, and of whom they sit as interpreters, are\nwise, let them first zealously imitate their piety towards the gods.\nBut if they think they have erred in their conceptions of the most\nhonourable natures [the gods], let them go into the churches of the\nGalilaeans, and there expound Matthew and Luke, by whom being persuaded\nyou forbid sacrifices. I wish that your ears and your tongues were (as\nyou express it) regenerated in those things of which I wish that myself,\nand all who in thought and deed are my friends, may always be partakers.\n\n{71}\n\n\"To masters and teachers let this be a common law. But let no youths be\nprevented from resorting to whatever schools they please. It would be\nas unreasonable to exclude children, who know not yet what road to\ntake, from the right path, as it would be to lead them by fear and with\nreluctance to the religious rites of their country. And though it would\nbe just to cure such reluctance, like madness, even by force, yet\nlet all be indulged with that disease. For I think it is requisite to\ninstruct, and not to punish the ignorant.\"\n\n{72}\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nLIBANIUS'S ORATION FOR THE TEMPLES*.\n\n[The occasion of the oration was this. In the reign of Theodosius\nseveral heathen temples, some of them very magnificent, were pulled down\nand destroyed in the cities, and especially in country-places, by the\nmonks, with the consent and connivance, as Libanius intimates, of the\nbishops, and without express order of the Emperor to that purpose. Of\nthis Libanius complains, and implores the Emperor's protection, that the\ntemples may be preserved.]\n\n\"Having already, O Emperor, often offered advice which has been approved\nby you, even when others have advised contrary things, I come to you now\nupon the same design, and with the same hopes, that now especially you\nwill be persuaded by me. But if not, do not judge the speaker an\n\n     * From Dr. Lardner's Heathen Testimonies.\n\n{73}\n\nenemy to your interests, considering, beside other things, the great\nhonour* which you have conferred upon me, and that it is not likely that\nhe who is under so great obligations should not love his benefactor.\nAnd, for that very reason, I think it my duty to advise, where I\napprehend I have somewhat to offer which may be of advantage; for I have\nno other way of showing my gratitude to the Emperor but by orations, and\nthe counsel delivered in them.\n\n\"I shall, indeed, appear to many to undertake a matter full of danger\nin pleading with you for the temples, that they may suffer no injury, as\nthey now do. But they who have such apprehensions seem to me to be very\nignorant of your true character. For I esteem it the part of an angry\nand severe disposition, for any one to resent the proposal of counsel\nwhich he does not approve of: but the part of a mild and gentle and\nequitable disposition, such as yours is, barely to reject counsel not\napproved of. For when it is in the power of him to whom the address is\nmade to embrace any counsel or not, it is not reasonable to refuse a\nhearing which can do no harm; nor yet to resent and punish the proposal\nof counsel, if it appear contrary to his own judgment;\n\n     * The office of Praefectus Praetorio.\n\n{74}\n\nwhen the only thing that induced the adviser to mention it, was a\npersuasion of its usefulness.\n\n\"I entreat you, therefore, O Emperor, to turn your countenance to me\nwhile I am speaking, and not to cast your eyes upon those who in many\nthings aim to molest both you and me; forasmuch as oftentimes a look is\nof greater effect than all the force of truth. I would further insist,\nthat they ought to permit me to deliver my discourse quietly and without\n\ninterruption; and then, afterwards, they may do their best to confute us\nby what they have to say. [Here is a small breach in the Oration. But\nhe seems to have begun his argument with an account of the origin of\ntemples, that they were first of all erected in country places.] Men\nthen having at first secured themselves in dens and cottages, and having\nthere experienced the protection of the gods, they soon perceived how\nbeneficial to mankind their favour must be: they therefore, as may be\nsup-, posed, erected to them statues and temples, such as they could\nin those early times. And when they began to build cities, upon the\nincrease of arts and sciences, there were many temples on the sides of\nmountains and in plains: and in every city [as they built it] next to\nthe walls were temples and sacred edifices raised, as the beginning of\nthe rest of the body. For from such governors they expected the\n\n{75}\n\ngreatest security: and, if you survey the whole Roman empire, you\nwill find this to be the case every where. For in the city next to the\ngreatest * there are still some temples**, though they are deprived\nof their honours; a few indeed out of many, but yet it is not quite\ndestitute. And with the aid of these gods the Romans fought and\nconquered their enemies; and having conquered them, they improved their\ncondition, and made them happier than they were before their defeat;\nlessening their fears and making them partners in the privileges of\nthe commonwealth. And when I was a child, he*** led the Gallic army\noverthrew him that had affronted him; they having first prayed to the\ngods for success before they engaged. But having prevailed over him who\nat that time gave prosperity to the cities, judging it for his advantage\nto have another deity, for the building of the city which he then\ndesigned he made use of the sacred money, but made no alteration in the\nlegal worship. The temples indeed were impoverished, but the rites\nwere still performed there. But when the empire came to his son****, or\nrather the form of empire, for the government was really in the hands of\nothers, who\n\n     * He means Constantinople.\n\n     ** He alludes to the ancient temples of Byzantium.\n\n     *** Constantine.\n\n     **** Constantius.\n\n{78}\n\nfrom the beginning had been his masters, and to whom he vouchsafed equal\npower with himself: he therefore being governed by them, even when he\nwas Emperor, was led into many wrong actions, and among others to forbid\nsacrifices. These his cousin*, possessed of every virtue, restored: what\nhe did otherwise, or intended to do, I omit at present. After his death\nin Persia, the liberty of sacrificing remained for some time: but at\nthe instigation of some innovators, sacrifices were forbidden by the\ntwo brothers**, but not incense;--which state of things your law has\nratified. So that we have not more reason to be uneasy for what is\ndenied us, than to be thankful for what is allowed. You, therefore, have\nnot ordered the temples to be shut up, nor forbidden any to frequent\nthem: nor have you driven from the temples or the altars, fire or\nfrankincense, or other honours of incense. But those black-garbed\npeople***, who eat more than elephants, and demand a large quantity of\nliquor from the people who send them drink for their chantings, but who\nhide their luxury by their pale artificial countenances,--these men, O\nEmperor, even whilst your law is in force, run to the temples, bringing\nwith them wood, and stones, and iron, and\n\n     * Julian.\n\n     **Valentinian and Valens.\n\n     *** The monks.\n\n{77}\n\nwhen they have not these, hands and feet. Then follows a Mysian prey*,\nthe roofs are uncovered, walls are pulled down, images are carried off,\nand altars are overturned: the priests all the while must be silent upon\npain of death. When they have destroyed one temple they run to another,\nand a third, and trophies are erected upon trophies: which are all\ncontrary to [your] law. This is the practice in cities, but especially\nin the countries. And there are many enemies every where. After\ninnumerable mischiefs have been perpetrated, the scattered multitude\nunites and comes together, and they require of each other an account\nof what they have done; and he is ashamed who cannot tell of some great\ninjury which he has been guilty of. They, therefore, spread themselves\nover the country like torrents, wasting the countries together with the\ntemples: for wherever they demolish the temple of a country, at the same\ntime the country itself is blinded, declines, and dies. For, O Emperor,\nthe temples are the soul of the country; they have been the first\noriginal of the buildings in the country, and they have subsisted for\nmany ages to this time; and in\n\n     * This proverbial expression took its rise from the Mysians,\n     who, in the absence of their king Telephus, being plundered\n     by their neighbours, made no resistance. Hence it came to be\n     applied to any persons who were passive under injuries.\n\n{78}\n\nthem are all the husbandman's hopes, concerning men, and women, and\nchildren, and oxen, and the seeds and the plants of the ground. Wherever\nany country has lost its temples, that country is lost, and the hopes of\nthe husbandmen, and with them all their alacrity: for they suppose they\nshall labour in vain, when they are deprived of the gods who should\nbless their labours; and the country not being cultivated as usual, the\ntribute is diminished. This being the state of things, the husbandman\nis impoverished, and the revenue suffers. For, be the will ever so\ngood, impossibilities are not to be surmounted. Of such mischievous\nconsequence are the arbitrary proceedings of those persons in the\ncountry, who say, 'they fight with the temples.' But that war is the\ngain of those who oppress the inhabitants: and robbing these miserable\npeople of their goods, and what they had laid up of the fruits of the\nearth for their sustenance, they go off as with the spoils of those whom\nthey have conquered. Nor are they satisfied with this, for they also\nseize the lands of some, saying it is sacred: and many are deprived of\ntheir paternal inheritance upon a false pretence. Thus these men riot\nupon other people's misfortunes, who say they worship God with fasting.\nAnd if they who are abused come to the pastor in the city, (for so they\ncall a man who is not one of the meekest,) complaining of the injustice\nthat has been done\n\n{79}\n\nthem, this pastor commends these, but rejects the others, as if they\nought to think themselves happy that they have suffered no more.\nAlthough, O Emperor, these also are your subjects, and so much more\nprofitable than those who injure them, as laborious men are than the\nidle: for they are like bees, these like drones. Moreover, if they\nhear of any land which has any thing that can be plundered, they cry\npresently, 'Such an one sacrificeth, and does abominable things, and\nan army ought to be sent against him.' And presently the reformers are\nthere: for by this name they call their depredators, if I have not used\ntoo soft a word. Some of these strive to conceal themselves and deny\ntheir proceedings; and if you call them robbers, you affront them.\nOthers glory and boast, and tell their exploits to those who are\nignorant of them, and say they are more deserving than the husbandmen.\nNevertheless, what is this but in time of peace to wage war with the\nhusbandmen? For it by no means lessens these evils that they suffer from\ntheir countrymen. But it is really more grievous to suffer the things\nwhich I have mentioned in a time of quiet, from those who ought to\nassist them in a time of trouble. For you, O Emperor, in case of a war\ncollect an army, give out orders, and do every thing suitable to the\nemergency. And the new works which you now carry on are designed as a\nfurther\n\n{80}\n\nsecurity against our enemies, that all may be safe in their habitations,\nboth in the cities and in the country: and then if any enemies should\nattempt inroads, they may be sensible they must suffer loss rather than\ngain any advantage. How is it, then, that some under your government\ndisturb others equally under your government, and permit them not to\nenjoy the common benefits of it? How do they not defeat your own care\nand providence and labours, O Emperor? How do they not fight against\nyour law by what they do?\n\n\"But they say, 'We have only punished those who sacrifice, and thereby\ntransgress the law, which forbids sacrifices.' O Emperor, when they\nsay this they lie. For no one is so audacious, and so ignorant of the\nproceedings of the courts, as to think himself more powerful than the\nlaw. When 1 say the law, I mean the law against sacrifice\". Can it be\nthought, that they who are not able to bear the sight of a collector s\ncloak, should despise the power of your government? This is what\nthey say for themselves. And they have been often alleged to Flavian*\nhimself, and never have been confuted, no not yet. For I appeal to the\nguardians of this law: Who has known any of those whom you have\n\n     * Bishop of Antioch\n\n{81}\n\nplundered to have sacrificed upon the altars, so as the law does not\npermit? What young or old person, what man, what woman? Who of those\ninhabiting the same country, and not agreeing with the sacrificers in\nthe worship of the gods? Who of their neighbours? For envy and jealousy\nare common in neighbourhoods. Whence some would gladly come as an\nevidence if any such thing had been done: and yet no one has appeared,\nneither from the one nor from the other: [that is, neither from the\ncountry, nor from the neighbourhood.] Nor will there ever appear, for\nfear of perjury, not to say the punishment of it. Where then is the\ntruth of this charge, when they accuse those men of sacrificing contrary\nto law?\n\n\"But this shall not suffice for an excuse to the Emperor. Some one\ntherefore may say: 'They have not sacrificed.' Let it be granted. But\noxen have been killed at feasts and entertainments and merry meetings.\nStill there is no altar to receive the blood, nor a part burned, nor do\nsalt-cakes precede, nor any libation follow. But if some persons meeting\ntogether in some pleasant field kill a calf, or a sheep, or both, and\nroasting part and broiling the rest, have eat it under a shade upon the\nground, I do not know that they have acted contrary to any laws. For\nneither have you, O Emperor, forbid\n\n{82}\n\nthese things by your law; but mentioning one thing, which ought not to\nbe done, you have permitted every thing else. So that though they\nshould have feasted together with all sorts of incense, they have not\ntransgressed the law, even though in that feast they should all have\nsung and invoked the gods. Unless you think fit to accuse even their\nprivate method of eating, by which it has been customary for the\ninhabitants of several places in the country to assemble together in\nthose [places] which are the more considerable, on holidays, and having\nsacrificed, to feast together. This they did whilst the law permitted\nthem to do it. Since that, the liberty has continued for all the rest\nexcept sacrificing. When, therefore, a festival day invited them, they\naccepted the invitation, and with those things which might be done\nwithout offence or danger, they have honoured both the day and the\nplace. But that they ventured to sacrifice, no one has said, nor heard,\nnor proved, nor been credited: nor have any of their enemies pretended\nto affirm it upon the ground of his own sight, nor any credible account\nhe has received of it.\n\n\"They will further say: 'By this means some have been converted, and\nbrought to embrace the same religious sentiments with themselves.'\nBe not deceived by what they say; they only pretend it, but are not\nconvinced: for they are averse to\n\n{83}\n\nnothing more than this, though they say the contrary. For the truth is,\nthey have not changed the objects of their worship, but only appear\nto have done so. They join themselves with them in appearance, and\noutwardly perform the same things that they do: but when they are in a\npraying posture, they address to no one, or else they invoke the gods;\nnot rightly indeed in such a place, but yet they invoke them. Wherefore\nas in a tragedy he who acts the part of a king is not a king, but the\nsame person he was before he assumed the character, so every one of\nthese keeps himself the same he was, though he seems to them to be\nchanged. And what advantage have they by this, when the profession only\nis the same with theirs, but a real agreement with them is wanting? for\nthese are things to which men ought to be persuaded, not compelled. And\nwhen a man cannot accomplish that, and yet will practise this, nothing\nis effected, and he may perceive the weakness of the attempt. It is said\nthat this is not permitted by their own laws, which commend persuasion,\nand condemn compulsion. Why then do you run mad against the temples?\nWhen you cannot persuade, you use force. In this you evidently\ntransgress your own laws.\n\n\"But they say: 'It is for the good of the world, and the men in it, that\nthere should be no temples.'\n\n{84}\n\nHere, O Emperor, I need freedom of speech; for I fear lest I should\noffend. Let then any of them tell me, who have left the tongs and the\nhammer and the anvil, and pretend to talk of the heavens, and of them\nthat dwell there, what rites the Romans followed, who arose from small\nand mean beginnings, and went on prevailing, and grew great; theirs, or\nthese, whose are the temples and the altars, from whom they knew by\nthe soothsayers, what they ought to do, or not to do? [Here Libanius\ninstanceth in the successes of Agamemnon against Troy; and of Hercules\nbefore, against the same place; and some other things.] And many other\nwars might be mentioned, which have been successfully conducted, and\nafter that peace obtained, by the favour and under the direction of\nthe gods. But, what is the most considerable of all, they who seemed to\ndespise this way of worship, have honoured it against their will. Who\nare they? They who have not ventured to forbid sacrifices at Rome. But\nif all this affair of sacrifices be a vain thing, why has not this vain\nthing been prohibited? And if it be hurtful likewise, why not much more?\nBut if in the sacrifices there performed consists the stability of the\nempire, it ought to be reckoned beneficial to sacrifice every where; and\nto be allowed that the daemonss at Rome confer greater benefits, these in\nthe country and other cities less. This is\n\n{85}\n\nwhat may be reasonably granted: for in an army all are not equal; yet in\na battle the help of each one is of use: the like may be said of rowers\nin a vessel. So one [daemons] defends the sceptre of Rome, another\nprotects a city subject to it, another preserves the country and gives\nit felicity. Let there then be temples every where. Or let those men\nconfess, that you are not well affected to Rome in permitting her to do\nthings by which she suffers damage. But neither is it at Rome only that\nthe liberty of sacrificing remains, but also in the city of Serapis*,\nthat great and populous city, which has a multitude of temples, by which\nit renders the plenty of Egypt common to all men. This [plenty] is the\nwork of the Nile. It therefore celebrates the Nile, and persuades him\nto rise and overflow the fields. If those rites were not performed, when\nand by whom they ought, he would not do so. Which they themselves seem\nto be sensible of, who willingly enough abolish such things, but do not\nabolish these; but permit the river to enjoy his ancient rites, for the\nsake of the benefit he affords.\n\n\"'What then,' some will say: 'Since there is not in every country a\nriver to do what the Nile does\n\n     *  i. e. Alexandria. The temple of Serapis was destroyed in 391.\n\n{86}\n\nfor the earth, there is no reason for temples in those places. Let\nthem therefore suffer what these good people think fit.' Whom I would\nwillingly ask this question: Whether, changing their mind, they will\ndare to say, Let there be an end of these things done by [or for] the\nNile: let not the earth partake of his waters: let nothing be sown nor\nreaped: let him afford no corn, nor any other product, nor let the mud\noverflow the whole land, as at present. If they dare not own this, by\nwhat they forbear to say they confute what they do say: for they who do\nnot affirm that the Nile ought to be deprived of his honours, confess\nthat the honours paid to the temples are useful.\n\n\"And since they mention him* who spoiled the temples [of their revenues\nand gifts], we shall omit observing that he did not proceed to the\ntaking away the sacrifices. But who ever suffered a greater punishment\nfor taking away the sacred money [out of the temples], partly in what\nhe brought upon himself; partly in what he suffered after his death,\ninsomuch that his family destroyed one another, till there were none\nleft? And it had been much better for him that some of his posterity\nshould reign, than to enlarge with buildings a city of\n\n     * Constantine\n\n{87}\n\nhis own name: for the sake of which city itself all men still curse his\nmemory, except those who live there in wicked luxury, because by their\npoverty these have their abundance.\n\n\"And since next to him they mention his son *, and how he destroyed the\ntemples, when they who polled them down took no less pains in destroying\nthem, than the builders had done in raising them,---so laborious a work\nwas it to separate the stones cemented by the strongest bands;--since,\nI say, they mention these things, I will mention somewhat yet more\nconsiderable. That he indeed made presents of the temples to those who\nwere about him, just as he might give a horse, or a slave, or a dog, or\na golden cup; but they were unhappy presents to both the giver and the\nreceivers of them: for he spent all his life in fear of the Persians,\ndreading all their motions as children do bugbears. Of whom, some were\nchildless, and died miserably intestate; and others had better never\nhave had children: with such infamy and mutual discord do they live\ntogether who descend from them, whilst they dwell among sacred pillars\ntaken from the temples. To whom I think these things are owing, who\nknowing how to enrich themselves, have taught\n\n     * Constantius.\n\n{88}\n\ntheir children this way to happiness! And at this time their distempers\ncarry some of them to Cilicia, needing the help of AEsculapius. But\ninstead of obtaining relief, they meet with affronts only for the injury\ndone to the place. How can such return without cursing the author of\nthese evils? But let the conduct of this Emperor be such as to deserve\npraises living and dead; such as we know he* was who succeeded him; who\nhad overturned the Persian empire if treachery had not prevented it.\nNevertheless he was great in his death, for he was killed by treachery,\nas Achilles also was; and is applauded for that, as well as for what\nhe did before his death. This has he from the gods, to whom he restored\ntheir rites, and honours, and temples, and altars, and blood: from whom\nhaving heard,\" that he should humble the pride of Persia, and then die,'\nhe purchased the glory of his life, taking many cities, subduing a large\ntract of land, teaching his pursuers to fly; and was about to receive,\nas all know, an embassy which would have brought the submission of the\nenemy. Wherefore he was pleased with his wound, and looking upon it\nrejoiced, and without any tears rebuked those who wept, for not thinking\nthat a wound was better to him than any old age. So that the embassies\nsent after his death were all\n\n     * Julian.\n\n{80}\n\nhis right. And the reason why the Achemenidae* for the future made use\nof entreaties instead of arms, was that the fear of him still possessed\ntheir minds. Such an one was he who restored to us the temples of\nthe gods, who did things too good to be forgotten, himself above all\noblivion.\n\n\"But I thought that he** who reigned lately would pull down and burn\nthe temples of those who were of the opposite sentiment, as he knew how\nto despise the gods. But he was better than expectation, sparing the\ntemples of the enemies, and not disdaining to run some hazards for\npreserving those of his own dominions, which had long since been erected\nwith much labour and at vast expense. For if cities are to be preserved\nevery where, and some cities outshine others by means of their temples,\nand these are their chief ornaments, next to the Emperor's palaces,--how\nis it that no care must be taken of these, nor any endeavours used to\npreserve them in the body of the cities?\n\n\"But it is said: 'There will be other edifices, though there should be\nno temples.' But I think tribute to be of importance to the treasury.\nLet\n\n     * Another name for the Persians.\n\n     ** Valens.\n\n{90}\n\nthese stand then, and be taxed. Do we think it a cruel thing to cut off\na man's hand, and a small matter to pluck out the eyes of cities? And\ndo we not lament the ruins made by earthquakes? and when there are no\nearthquakes, nor other accidents, shall we ourselves do what they are\nwont to effect? Are not the temples the possession of the Emperors\nas well as other things? Is it the part of wise men to sink their own\ngoods? Does not every one suppose him to be distracted, who throws his\npurse into the sea? Or if the master of the ship was to cut those ropes\nwhich are of use to the ship; or if any one should order a mariner to\nthrow away his oar,--would you think it an absurdity? and yet think it\nproper for a magistrate to deprive a city of such a part of it? What\nreason is there for destroying that, the use of which may be changed?\nWould it not be shameful for an army to fight against its own walls? and\nfor a general to excite them against what they have raised with great\nlabour; the finishing of which was a festival for those who then\nreigned? Let no man think, Emperor, that this is a charge brought\nagainst you. For there lies in ruins, in the Persian borders, a temple*,\nto which there is none like, as may be learned from those who saw it, so\nmagnificent the stone work, and in\n\n     * Probably the temple at Odessa.\n\n{91}\n\ncompass equal to the city. Therefore in time of war the citizens thought\ntheir enemies would gain nothing by taking the town, since they could\nnot take that likewise, as the strength of its fortifications bid\ndefiance to all their attacks. At length, however, it was attacked, and\nwith a fury equal to the greatest enemies, animated by the hopes of the\nrichest plunder. I have heard it disputed,by some, in which state it\nwas the greatest wonder; whether now that it is no more, or when it\nhad suffered nothing of this kind, like the temple of Serapis. But\nthat temple, so magnificent and so large, not to mention the wonderful\nstructure of the roof, and the many brass statues, now hid in darkness\nout of the light of the sun, is quite perished; a lamentation to them\nwho have seen it, a pleasure to them who never saw it. For the eyes and\nears are not alike affected with these things. Or rather to those who\nhave not seen it, it is both sorrow and pleasure: the one because of its\nfall, the other because their eyes never saw it. Nevertheless, if it be\nrightly considered, this work is not yours, but the work of a man *\nwho has deceived you; a profane wretch, an enemy of the gods, base,\ncovetous, ungrateful to the earth that received him when born, advanced\nwithout merit, and abusing his greatness, when advanced;\n\n     * Probably Cynegius, the Emperor's lieutenant.\n\n{93}\n\na slave to his wife, gratifying her in any thing, and esteeming her all\nthings, in perfect subjection to them* who direct these things, whose\nonly virtue lies in wearing the habit of mourners; but especially to\nthose of them who also weave coarse garments. This workhouse** deluded,\nimposed upon him, and misled him; [and it is said that many gods have\nbeen deceived by gods;] for they gave out, 'that the priests sacrificed,\nand so near them that the smoke reached their noses:' and after the\nmanner of some simple people, they enlarge and heighten matters, and\nvaunt themselves as if they thought nothing was above their power. By\nsuch fiction, and contrivance, and artful stories, proper to excite\ndispleasure, they persuaded the mildest father [of his people] among the\nEmperors***. For these were really his virtues, humanity, tenderness,\ncompassion, mildness, equity, who had rather save than destroy. But\nthere were those who gave lister counsel; that if such a thing had\nbeen done, the attempt should be punished, and care taken to prevent\nthe like for time to come. Yet he who thought he ought to have a\nCadmean victory, carried on his conquest. But after he had taken his own\npleasures, he should have provided for his\n\n     * The monks.\n\n     **The monastery.\n\n     *** Probably Valens.\n\n{93}\n\npeople, and not have desired to appear great to those who shun the\nlabours of the country, and converse in the mountains *, as they say,\nwith the Maker of all things. But let your actions appear excellent and\npraiseworthy to all men. There are at this time many, so far friends as\nto receive and empty your treasures, and to whom your empire is dearer\nthan their own souls; but when the time comes that good counsel and real\nservices are wanted, they have no concern upon them but to take care of\nthemselves; and if any one comes to them, and inquires what this means,\nthey excuse themselves as free from all fault. They disown what they\nhave done, or pretend 'that they have obeyed the Emperor's order; and if\nthere is any blame, he must see to it.' Such things they say, when it is\nthey who are found guilty, who can give no account of their actions.\nFor what account can be given of such mischiefs? These men before others\ndeny this to be their own work. But when they address you alone, without\nwitnesses, they say, 'they have been in this war serving your family.'\nThey would deliver your house from those who by land and sea endeavour\nto defend your person; than which there is nothing greater you can\nreceive from them. For these men, under the name of friends and\nprotectors,\n\n     * He refers to the monks near Antioch,\n\n{94}\n\ntelling stories of those by whom they say they have been injured,\nimprove your credulity into an occasion of doing more mischief.\n\n\"But I return to them, to demonstrate their injustice by what they have\nsaid: Say then, for what reason you destroyed that great temple? Not\nbecause the Emperor approved the doing it. They who pull down a temple\nhave done no wrong if the Emperor has ordered it to be done. Therefore\nthey who pulled it down did not do wrong by doing what the Emperor\napproved of. But he who does that which is not approved by the Emperor,\ndoes Wrong; does he not? You, then, are the men who have nothing of this\nto say for what you have done. Tell me why this temple of Fortune is\nsafe? and the temple of Jupiter, and of Minerva, and of Bacchus? Is it\nbecause you would have them remain? No, but because no one has given\nyou power over them; which, nevertheless, you have assumed against those\nwhich you have destroyed. How, then, are you not liable to punishment?\nor how can you pretend that what you have done is right, when the\nsufferers have done no wrong? Of which charge there would have been some\nappearance, if you, O Emperor, had published an edict to their purpose:\n'Let no man within my empire believe in the gods, nor worship them, nor\nask any\n\n{95}\n\ngood thing of them, neither for himself, nor for his children, unless it\nbe done in silence and privately: but let all present themselves at the\nplaces where I worship, and join in the rites there performed. And let\nthem offer the same prayers which they do, and bow the head at the hand\nof him who directs the multitude. Whoever transgresses this law, shall\nbe put to death.' It was easy for you to publish such a law as this; but\nyou have not done it; nor have you in this matter laid a yoke upon the\nsouls of men. But though you think one way better than the other, yet\nyou do not judge that other to be an impiety, for which a man may be\njustly punished. Nor have you excluded those of that sentiment from\nhonours, but have conferred upon them the highest offices, and have\ngiven them access to your table, to eat and drink with you. This you\nhave done formerly, and at this time; beside others, you have associated\nto yourself (thinking it advantageous to your government) a man, who\nswears by the gods, both before others, and before yourself: and you are\nnot offended at it; nor do you think yourself injured by those oaths:\nnor do you account him a wicked man who placeth his best hopes in the\ngods. When, therefore, you do not reject us, as neither did he who\nsubdued the Persians by arms reject those of his subjects who differed\nfrom him in this matter, what pretence have these to reject us?\n\n{96}\n\nHow can these men reject their fellow-subjects, differing from them in\nthis matter? By what right do they make these incursions? How do they\nseize other men's goods with the indignation of the countries? How do\nthey destroy some things, and carry off others? adding to the injury of\ntheir actions the insolence of glorying in them. We, O Emperor, if\nyou approve and permit these things, will bear them; not without grief\nindeed; but yet we will show that we have learned to obey. But if you\ngive them no power, and yet they come and invade our small remaining\nsubstance, or our walls: Know, that the owners of the countries will\ndefend themselves.\"\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM BINGHAM'S ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*,\n\nOF THE NAMES OF REPROACH WHICH THE JEWS, INFIDELS, AND HERETICS CAST\nUPON THE CHRISTIANS.\n\n\n\"Besides the names already spoken of, there were some other reproachful\nnames cast upon them by their adversaries, which it will not be improper\nhere to mention. The first of these was Nazarens, a\n\n     * The edition from which these Extracts are taken it in one\n     vol. 8vo, London, 1708, and begins at p. 13.\n\n{97}\n\nname of reproach given them first by the Jews, by whom they are styled\nthe sect of the Nazarens, Acts xxiv. 5. There was indeed a particular\nheresy, who called themselves [--------]: and Epiphanius* thinks the\nJews had a more especial spite at them, because they were a sort of\nJewish apostates, who kept circumcision and the Mosaical rites together\nwith the Christian religion: and therefore, he says, they were used\nto curse and anathematize them three times a day, morning, noon, and\nevening, when they met in their synagogues to pray, in this direful form\nof execration,' [--------], 'Send thy curse, O God, upon the Nazarens.'\nBut St. Jerome** says this was levelled at Christians in general, whom\nthey thus anathematized under the name of Nazarens. And this seems\nmost probable, because both as St. Jerome*** and Epiphanius himself****\nobserve, the Jews termed all Christians by way of reproach, Nazarens.\nAnd the Gentiles took it from the Jews, as appears from that of\n\n     * Epiphan. Haer. 29. n. 9.\n\n     ** Hieron. Com. in Esa. xlix. t 5. p. 178. Ter per tingulos\n     dies sub nomine Nazaienorum maledicunt in synagogis suis.\n\n     *** Id. de loc. Hebr. t. 3. p. 289. Nos apnd veterei\" quasi\n     opprobrio Nazaraei dicebamur, quos nunc Christianos vocant.\n\n     **** Epiphan. ibid.\n\n{98}\n\nDatianus the praetor in Prudentius*, where speaking to the Christians\nhe gives them the name of Nazarens. Some** think the Christians at first\nwere very free to own this name, and esteemed it no reproach, till such\ntime as the heresy of the Nazarens broke out, and then in detestation\nof that heresy they forsook that name, and called themselves Christians.\nActs xi. 26. But whether this be said according to the exact rules of\nchronology, I leave those that are better skilled to determine.\n\nAnother name of reproach was that of Galilaeans, which was Julian's\nordinary style, whenever he spake of Christ or Christians. Thus in\nhis Dialogue with old Maris a blind Christian bishop, mentioned by\nSozomen***, he told him by way of scoff, \"Thy Galilaean God will not cure\nthee.\" And again, in his epistle**** to Arsacius high-priest of Galatia,\n\"The Galilaeans maintain their own poor and ours also.\" The like may be\nobserved in Socrates(v), Theodoret (vi),\n\n     * Prudent. ---------].    Carm. 5. de S. Vincent.\n         Vos Nazareni assistite,\n         Rudemque ritum spernite.\n\n         Id. Hymno 9. de Rom. Mart.\n\n     ** Junius, Parallel, lib. 1. c. 8. Godwyn, Jew.\n     Rites, lib. 1. c. 8.\n\n     *** Sozom. lib. 5. c. 4.\n\n     **** A p. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 16.\n\n     (v) Socrat. lib. 3. c. 12.\n\n     (vi) Theodor. lib. 3. c 7. & 31.\n\n{90}\n\nChrysostom*, and Gregory Nazianzen**, who adds, that he not only called\nthem Galilaeans himself, but made a law that no one should call them by\nany other name; thinking thereby to abolish the name of Christians.\n\nThey also called them Atheists, and their religion the Atheism or\nImpiety, because they derided the worship of the heathen gods. Dio***\nsays, Acilius\n\nGlabrio was put to death for atheism, meaning the Christian religion.\nAnd the Christian apologists, Athenagoras**** Justin Martyr(v),\nArnobius(vi), and others, reckon this among the crimes which the\nheathens usually lay to their charge. Eusebius says(vii) the name was\nbecome so common, that when the persecuting magistrates would oblige\na Christian to renounce his religion, they bade him abjure it in\nthis form, by saying among other things, [--------] 'Confusion to the\natheists, Away with the impious,' meaning the Christians.\n\nTo this they added the name of Greeks and Impostors. Which is noted by\nSt. Jerome(viii) who says\n\n     * Chrys. Horn. 63. torn. 5.\n\n     ** Naz. i. Invectiv.\n\n     *** Dio in Domitian.\n\n     **** Athen. Legat. pro Christ.\n\n     (v) Just. Apol. i. p. 47.\n\n     (vi) Arnob. lib. i.\n\n     (vii) Euseb. lib. iv. c. 15.\n\n     (viii) Hieron. Ep. 10. ad Furiara. Ubicunque viderint\n\n{100}\n\nwheresoever they saw a Christian, they would presently cry out,\n'[--------], 'Behold a Grecian impostor.' This was the character which\nthe Jews gave our Saviour, [--------]' that deceiver*, Matt, xxvii. 63.\nAnd Justin Martyr** says, they endeavoured to propagate it to posterity,\nsending their apostles or emissaries from Jerusalem to all the\nsynagogues in the world, to bid them beware of a certain impious,\nlawless sect, lately risen up under one Jesus, a Galilaean impostor.\nHence Lucian*** took occasion in his blasphemous raillery to style\nhim The crucified sophister. And Celsus**** commonly gives him and his\nfollowers the name of [--------] 'deceivers.' So Asclepiades the judge\nin Prudentius**** compliments them with the appellation of sophisters;\nand Ulpian(v) proscribes them in a law by the name of impostors.\n\nThe reason why they added the name of Greeks\n\n     * Christianum, statim illud de Trivio, [--------] vocant\n     Impostorem.\n\n     ** Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. p. 335.\n\n     ***  Lucian. Peregrin.\n\n     **** Cels. ap. Orig. lib. i. et lib. 6.\n\n     (v) Prudent. [--------]. Carm. 9. de Romano Marty. Quis hos\n     Sophistas error invexit novus, &c.\n\n     (vi) Digest, lib. 50. tit. 13. c 1. Si incantavit, si in-\n     precatus est, si (ut vulgari verbo Impostoruxn utar) si\n     exorcisavit\n\n{101}\n\nto that of impostors, was (as learned men* conjecture) because many of\nthe Christian philosophers took upon them the Grecian or philosophic\nhabit, which was the [--------] or pallium: whence the Greeks were\ncalled Pallitati, as the Romans were called Togati, or Gens togata, from\ntheir proper habit, which was the toga. Now it being some offence to the\nRomans to see the Christians quit the Roman gown, to wear the Grecian\ncloak; they thence took occasion, to mock and deride them with the\nscurrilous names of Greeks, and Grecian impostors. Tertullian s book\n_de Pallio_ was written to show the spiteful malice of this foolish\nobjection.\n\nBut the heathens went one step further in their malice; and because our\nSaviour and his followers did many miracles, which they imputed to evil\narts and the power of magic, they therefore generally declaimed against\nthem as magicians, and under that character exposed them to the fury of\nthe vulgar. Celsus** and others pretended that our Saviour studied magic\nin Egypt: and St. Austin*** says, it was generally believed among the\nheathens, that he\n\n     * Kortholt de Morib. Christian, c. 3. p. 23.    Baron an.\n     56. n. 11.\n\n     ** Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 2. Arrobius, lib. 1. p. 36.\n\n     *** Aug. de Consensu Evang. lib. 1. c. 9.\n\n{102}\n\nwrote some books about magic too, which he delivered to Peter and Paul\nfor the use of his disciples. Hence it was that Suetonius* speaking in\nthe language of his party, calls the Christians _Genus hominum\nsuperstionis maleficae_, 'the men of the magical superstition.' As\nAsclepiades the judge in Prudentius** styles St. Romanus the martyr,\nArch-magician.\n\nAnd St. Ambrose observes in the Passion of St. Agnes*** how the\npeople cried out against her, 'Away with the sorceress! Away with the\nenchanter! 'Nothing being more common than to term all Christians,\nespecially such as wrought miracles, by the odious name of sorcerers\nand magicians.'\n\nThe New Superstition was another name of reproach for the Christian\nreligion. Suetonius gives it that title****, and Pliny and Tacitus add\nto it(v) the opprobrious terms of wicked and unreasonable\n\n     * Sueton. Neron. c. 16.\n\n     ** Prudent. Hymn. 9. de S. Romano. Quousque tandem\n     su m m us hic nobis Magus illudit.\n\n     *** Ambr. Serm. 90. in S. Agnen. Tolle Magam! Tolle\n     Maleticam!\n\n     ****  See Kortholt de Morib. Christ, c. 4.\n\n     (v) Sueton. Nero. c. 16.\n\n     (vi) Plin. lib. 10. ep. 97. Nihil aliud inveni, quam\n     superstitionem pravam et immodicara. Tacit. Annal. 15. c.\n     44.   Exitiabilis superstitio.\n\n{103}\n\nsuperstition. By which name also Nero triumphed over it in his trophies\nwhich he set up at Rome, when he had harassed the Christians with a\nmost severe persecution. He gloried that he had purged the country of\nrobbers, and those that obtruded and inculcated the new superstition*\nupon mankind. By this, there can be no doubt he meant the Christians,\nwhose religion is called the superstition in other inscriptions of the\nlike nature. See that of Diocletian cited in Baronius, Ann. 304. from\nOcco. \"Superstitione Christianorum ubique deleta,\" &c.\n\nNot much unlike this was that other name which Porphyry** and some\nothers give it, when they call it the barbarous, new, and strange\nreligion. In the acts of the famous martyrs of Lyons, who suffered under\nAntoninus Pius, the heathens scornfully insult it with this character.\nFor having burnt the martyrs to ashes, and scattered their remains into\nthe river Rhone, they said, they did it 'to cut off their hopes of a\nresurrection, upon the\n\n     * Inscript. Antiq. ad Calcem Sueton. Oxon. NERONI. CLAUD.\n     CAIS. AUG. PONT. MAX. OB. PROVING. LATRONIB. ET. HIS. QUI.\n     NOVAM. GENERI. HUM.   SUPERSTITION. INCULCAB. PURGAT.\n\n     ** Ap. Euseb. Hist Eccl, lib* 6, c 19,  [--------]\n\n{104}\n\nstrength of which they sought to obtrude* the new and strange religion\nupon mankind. But now let us see whether they will rise again, and\nwhether their God can help and deliver them out of our hands.'\n\nCelsus gives them the name of Sibyllists**, because the Christians in\ntheir disputes with the heathens sometimes made use of the authority of\nSibylla their own prophetess against them; whose writing they urged with\nso much advantage to the Christian cause, and prejudice to the heathen,\nthat Justin Martyr*** says, the Roman governors made it death for any\none to read them, or Hystaspes, or the writings of the prophets.\n\nThey also reproached them with the appellation of [--------],\n'self-murderers,' because they readily offered themselves up to\nmartyrdom, and cheerfully underwent any violent death, which the\nheathens could inflict upon them. With what eagerness they courted\ndeath, we learn not only from the Christian writers**** themselves, but\nfrom the testimonies\n\n     * Act. Mart. Lugd. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 1. [--------]\n\n     ** Origen. c. Cels. lib. 5. p. 272.\n\n     ***  Just Apol. 2. p. 82.\n\n     **** See these collected in Pearson, Vind. Ignat. Par. 2. c.\n     9. p. 384.\n\n{105}\n\nof the heathens* concerning them. Lucian** says they not only despised\ndeath, but many of them voluntarily offered themselves to it, out of a\npersuasion that they should be made immortal and live forever. This he\nreckons folly, and therefore gives them the name of [--------], 'The\nmiserable wretches, that threw away their lives,' In which sense\nPorphyry*** also styles, the Christian religion, [--------] the\nbarbarous boldness.' As Arrjus Antoninus**** terms the professors of\nit, [--------], The stupid wretches, that had such a mind to die; and\nthe heathen in Minucius(v), homines deploratae ac desperate factionis,\n'the men of the forlorn and desperate faction.' All which agrees with\nthe name Biothanati, or Biaeothanati, as Baronius(vi) understands\nit* Though it may signify not only self-murderers, but (as a learned\ncritic(xii) notes) men that expect to live after death. In which sense\nthe heathens probably might use it likewise to ridicule the Christian\ndoctrine of the resurrection; on which, they\n\n     *  Arrius Antonin. ap. Tertul. ad Scap. c. 4.    Tiberias, in\n     Joh. Malela Chronic.\n\n     ** Lucian. de Mort Peregrin.\n\n     *** Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Hist Eccl. 1. 6. c 19.\n\n     **** Tertul. ibid.\n\n     (v) Minuc. Octav. p. 25.\n\n     (vi) Baron, an. 138. n. 5.\n\n     (vii) Suicer. Thesaur. Ecclesiast 1.1. p. 690.\n\n{106}\n\nknew, all their fearless and undaunted courage was founded. For so\nthe same heathen in Minucius endeavours to expose at once both their\nresolution and their belief: \"O strange folly, and incredible madness!\"\nsays he; \"they despise all present torments, and yet fear those that are\nfuture and uncertain: they are afraid of dying after death, but in the\nmean time do not fear to die. So vainly do they flatter themselves,\nand allay their fears, with the hopes of some reviving comforts after\ndeath.\" For one of these reasons then they gave them the name of\n_Biothanati_,\n\nwhich word expressly occurs in some of the acts of the ancient martyrs.\nBaronius observes* out of Bede's Martyrology, that when the seven sons\nof Symphorosa were martyred under Hadrian, their bodies were all cast\ninto one pit together, which the temple-priests named from them, _Ad\nSeptem Biothanatos_, 'The grave of the seven Biothanati.'\n\nFor the same reasons they gave them the names of _Parabolarii and\nDesperati_, 'The bold and desperate men.' The Parabolarii, or Parabolani\namong the Romans were those bold adventurous men, who hired out\nthemselves to fight with wild beasts upon the stage or amphitheatre,\nwhence they had also the name of _Bestiarii, and Confectores_. Now\nbecause the\n\n    * Baron, an. 138. n. 5.\n\n{107}\n\nChristians were put to fight for their lives in the same manner, and\nthey rather chose to do it than deny their religion, they therefore got\nthe name of _Paraboli and Parabolani_: which, though it was intended as\na name of reproach and mockery, yet the Christians were not unwilling to\ntake to themselves, being one of the truest characters that the heathens\never gave them. And therefore they sometimes gave themselves this name\nby way of allusion to the Roman Paraboli. As in the Passion of Abdo\nand Senne* in the time of Valerian, the martyrs who were exposed to be\ndevoured by wild beasts in the amphitheatre, are said to enter, '_ut\naudacissimi Parabolani_,' as most resolute champions, that despised\ntheir own lives for their religion's sake. But the other name of\n_Desperati_ they rejected as a calumny, retorting it back upon their\nadversaries, who more justly deserved it. \"Those,\" says Lactantius***,\n\"who set a value upon their faith, and will not deny their God, they\nfirst torment and butcher with all their might, and then call them\ndesperados, because they will not spare their bodies: as if any thing\ncould be more desperate, than to torture and tear in pieces those whom\nyou cannot but know to be innocent.\"\n\n     * Acta Abdon. et Sennes ap. Suicer.\n\n     ** Lact. Instil, lib. 5. c. 9.   Desperates vocant, quia\n     corpori suo minime parcunt, &c.\n\n{108}\n\nTertullian mentions another name, which was likewise occasioned by their\nsufferings. The martyrs which were burnt alive, were usually tied to\na board or stake of about six foot long, which the Romans called\n_semaxis_; and then they were surrounded or covered with faggots of\nsmall wood, which they called _sarmenia_. From this their punishment,\nthe heathens, who turned every thing into mockery, gave all Christians\nthe despiteful name of _Sarmentitii_ and _Semaxii_*.\n\nThe heathen in Minucius*** takes occasion also to reproach them under\nthe name of the sculking generation, or the men that loved to prate in\ncorners and the dark. The ground of which scurrilous reflection was only\nthis, that they were forced to hold their religious assemblies in the\nnight to avoid the fury of the persecutions. Which Celsus**** himself\nowns, though otherwise prone enough to load them with hard names and\nodious reflections.\n\nThe same heathen in Minucius gives them one\n\n     * Tertul. Apol. t, 50. Licet nunc Sarmentitios et Semaxios\n     appelletis, quia ad stipitem dimidii axis re-vincti,\n     sarmentorum ambitu exurimur.\n\n     ** Minuc. Octav. p. 25. Latebrosa et lucifugax natio, in\n     publicum muta, in angulis garrula.\n\n     *** Origen. c. Cel. lib. 1. p. 5.\n\n{109}\n\nscurrilous name more, which it is not very easy to guess the meaning of.\nHe calls them _Plautinians_*,--_homines Plautinae prosapiae_. Rigaltius**\ntakes it for a ridicule upon the poverty and simplicity of the\nChristians, whom the heathens commonly represented as a company of\npoor ignorant mechanics, bakers, tailors, and the like; men of the same\nquality with Plautus, who, as St. Jerome*** observes, was so poor, that\nat a time of famine he was forced to hire out himself to a baker to\ngrind at his mill, during which time he wrote three of his Plays in the\nintervals of his labour. Such sort of men Coecilius says the Christians\nwere; and therefore he styles Octavius in the dialogue, _homo Plautinae\nprosapiae et pistorum praecipuus_, 'a Plautinian, a chief man among the\nilliterate bakers,' but no philosopher. The same reflection is often\nmade by Celsus. \"You shall see,\" says he****, \"weavers, tailors,fullers,\nand the most illiterate and rustic fellows, who dare not speak a word\nbefore wise men, when they can get a company of children and silly women\ntogether, set up to teach strange paradoxes amongst\n\n     * Minuc. p. 37. Quid ad haec audet Octavius homo Plautinae\n     Prosapiae, ut Pistorum praecipuus ita postremus\n     Philosophorum?\n\n     ** Rigalt. in loc.\n\n     *** Hieron. Chronic, an. 1.   Olymp. 145.\n\n     **** Origen. c Cels. lib. 3. p. 144.\n\n{110}\n\nthem.\" \"This is one of their rules,\" says he again*,--\"Let no man that\nis learned, wise, or prudent come among us; but if any be unlearned, or\na child, or an ideot, let him freely come. So they openly declare, that\nnone but fools and sots, and such as want sense, slaves, women, and\nchildren, are fit disciples for the God they worship***.\"\n\nNor was it only the heathens that thus reviled them, but commonly every\nperverse sect among the Christians had some reproachful name to cast\nupon them. The Novatian party called them _Cornelieans_*** because they\ncommunicated with Cornelius bishop of Rome, rather than with Novatianus\nhis antagonist. They also termed them _Apostates, Capitolins,\nSynedrians_, because**** they charitably decreed in their synods to\nreceive apostates, and such as went to the Capitol to sacrifice, into\ntheir communion again upon their sincere repentance. The Nestorians(v)\ntermed the orthodox _Cyrillians_; and the Arians(vi) called them\n_Eustathians_ and\n\n     * Origen. c. Cels. lib. 3. p. 137. f See the preceding\n     translation of Celsus, p. 19. f Eulog. ap. Phot. Cod. 280. Sec.\n     Facian. Ep. 2. ad Sympronian. || Ep. Legat. Schismat ad suos\n     in Epheso in Act. Con. Ephes. Con. t S. p. 746. f Sozora,\n     lib, 6. c. 21.\n\n{111}\n\n_Paulinions_, from Eustathius and Paulin us bishops of Antioch. As also\n_Homousians_, because they kept to the doctrine of the [--------], which\ndeclared the Son of God to be of the same substance with the Father.\nThe author of the _Opus Imperfection_ on St. Matthew, under the name\nof Chrysostom*, styles them expressly, _Haeresis Homoousianorum_,'\nthe heresy of the Homoousians.' And so Serapion in his conflict with\nArnobius** calls them _Homousianates_,which the printed copy reads\ncorruptly _Homuncionates_, which was a name for the Nestorians.\n\nThe Cataphrygians or Montanists commonly called the orthodox\n[--------], 'carnal'; because they rejected the prophecies and pretexted\ninspirations of Montanus, and would not receive his rigid laws about\nfasting, nor abstain from second marriages, and observe four Lents in a\nyear, &c. This was Tertullian's ordinary compliment to the Christians in\nall his books** written after he was fallen into the errors of Montanus.\nHe calls his own party the _spiritual_, and the orthodox the _carnal_:\nand\n\n     * Opus Imperf. Horn. 48.\n\n     **  Conflict. Arnob. et Serap. ad cakem Irenaei, p. 519.\n\n     *** Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 1. Nos quidem agnitio Paracleti\n     disjunxit a Psychicis. Id. de Monogam. c. 1. Haeretici\n     nuptias auferunt, Psychici ingerunt. See also c. 11. and 16.\n\n{112}\n\nsome of his books* are expressly entitled, _Adversus Psychicos_. Clemens\nAlexandrinus** observes, the same reproach was also used by other\nheretics beside the Montanists. And it appears from Irenaeus, that this\nwas an ancient calumny of the Valentinians, who styled themselves\nthe _spiritual_ and the _perfect_, and the orthodox the _secular and\ncarnal_***, who had need of abstinence and good works, which were not\nnecessary for them that were perfect.\n\nThe Millenaries styled them _Allegorists_, because they expounded the\nprophecy of the saints reigning a thousand years with Christ, (Rev. xx.\n4.) to a mystical and allegorical sense. Whence Euseubius**** observes\nof Nepos the Egyptian bishop, who wrote for the Millenium, that he\nentitled his book, [--------], 'A confutation of the Allegorists.'\n\nAetius the Arian gives them the abusive name of [--------]; by which he\nseems to intimate, that their religion was but temporary, and would\n\n     * De Jejuniis adv. Psychicos.    De Pudicitia, &c.\n\n     ** Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. 4. p. 511.\n\n     *** Iren. lib. 1. c 1. p. 29. Nobis quidem, quos Psychicos\n     vocant, et de saeculo esse dicunt, necessarian) con-\n     tinentiam, &c.\n\n     **** Euseb. lib. 7. c. 24.\n\n{113} ,\n\nshortly have an end; whereas the character was much more applicable to\nthe Arians themselves, whose faith was so lately sprung up in the\nworld; as the author of the dialogues _de Trinitate_, under the name of\nAthanasius, who confutes Aetius *, justly retorts upon him.\n\nThe Manichees, as they gave themselves the most glorious names of\n_Electi, Macarii, Catharistae_, mentioned by St. Austin**; so they\nreproached the Catholics with the most contemptible name of _Simplices_,\n'ideots,' which is the term that Manichaeus himself used in his\ndispute*** with Archelaus, the Mesopotamian bishop, styling the\nChristian teachers, _Simpliciorum magistri_, 'guides of the simple;'\nbecause they could not relish his execrable doctrine concerning two\nprinciples of good and evil.\n\nThe Apollinarians were no less injurious to the Catholics, in fixing on\nthem the odious name of _Anthropolatrae_, 'man-worshippers'; because they\nmaintained that Christ was a perfect man, and had a reasonable soul and\nbody, of the same nature with ours; which Apollinarius denied. Gregory\n\n     * Athan. Dial. 2. de Trinit. t. 2. p. 193.\n\n     ** Aug. de Haer. c. 46.\n\n     *** Archel. Disp. adv. Manichaeum adcalcem Sozomen. Ed.\n     Vales, p. 197.\n\n{114}\n\nNazianzen* takes notice of this abuse, and sharply replies to it;\ntelling the Apollinarians, that they themselves much better deserved the\nname of _Sarcolatrae_, 'flesh-worshippers': for if Christ had no human\nsoul, they must be concluded to worship his flesh only.\n\nThe Origenians, who denied the truth of the resurrection, and asserted\nthat men should have only aerial and spiritual bodies in the next world,\nmade jests upon the Catholics, because they maintained the contrary,\nthat our bodies should be the same individual bodies, and of the same\nnature that they are now, with flesh and bones, and all the members in\nthe same form and structure, only altered in quality, not in substance.\nFor this they gave them the opprobrious names of _Simplices_ and\n_Philosarcae**, 'ideots' and 'lovers of the flesh'; _Carnei, Animales,\nJumenta_, 'carnal, sensual, animals'; _Lutei, 'earthy', Pilosiotae***,\nwhich Erasmus's edition reads\n\n     * Naz. Ep. 1. ad Cledon.\n\n     ** Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. t. 2. p. 171. Nos Simplices\n     et Philosarcas dicere, quod eadem ossa, et sanguis, et caro,\n     id est, vultus et membra, totiusque compago corporis\n     resurgat in novissima die.\n\n     *** Id. Ep. 65, ad Pam. et Ocean, de Error. Orig. p. 192.\n     Pelusiotas (leg. Pilosiotas) nos appellant, et Luteos,\n     Animalesque, et Cameos, quod non recipiamus ea quae Spiritus\n     sunt.\n\n{115}\n\ncorruptly _Pelusiotae_, instead of _Pilonotae_; which seems to be a name\nformed from _pili_, (hair); because the Catholics asserted, that the\nbody would rise perfect in all its parts, even with the hair itself to\nbeautify and adorn it.\n\nBut of all others the Luciferians gave the church the rudest language;\nstyling her the brothel-house, and synagogue of Antichrist and Satan;\nbecause she allowed those bishops to retain their honour and places, who\nwere cajoled by the Arians to subscribe the fraudulent confession of\nthe Council of Ariminum. The Luciferian in St. Jerome runs out in this\nmanner against the church; and St. Jerome says, he spake but the sense\nof the whole party, for this was the ordinary style and language of all\nthe rest.--Hieron. Dial. adv. Lucifer, t. ii. p. 135.\"\n\nThus far Bingham: to whose extracts may appropriately be added, what the\nEmperor Julian says reproachfully of the Christians, in the fragments\nwhich Cyril has preserved of his Treatise against them. \"You do not take\nnotice (says he) whether any mention is made by the Jews of holiness;\nbut you emulate their rage and their bitterness, overturning temples and\naltars, and cutting the throats, not only of those who remain firm in\npaternal\n\n{116}\n\ninstitutes, but also of those heretics who are equally erroneous with\nyourselves, and who do not lament a dead body [i. e. the body of Christ]\nin the same manner as you do*. For neither Jesus nor Paul exhorted you\nto act in this manner. But the reason is, that neither did they expect\nthat you would ever arrive at the power which you have obtained. For\nthey were satisfied if they could deceive maidservants and slaves, and\nthrough these married women, and such men as Cornelius and Sergius;\namong whom if you can mention one that was at that time an illustrious\ncharacter, (and these things were transacted under the reign of Tiberius\nor Claudius) believe that I am a liar in all things**.\"\n\n     * Julian here alludes to the contests between the Arians and\n     Trinitarians.\n\n     ** Vid. Cyril, apud Spanh.\n\nTHE END.","title":"Arguments of Celsus, Porphyry, and the Emperor Julian, Against the Christians: Also Extracts from Diodorus Siculus, Josephus, and Tacitus, Relating to the Jews, Together with an Appendix","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":27771}