great a diftance from the time they were wrought to be convinced of the truth of them? what Christian can say this, who knows that he has no better foundation for his own faith? or if it fhould be faid, what then becomes of the conduct of Phlegon, and that of fome other Heathen converts of the best character, who lived ftill later than this Writer? But was it not malevolence that made him fpeak contrary to his opinion? and are not there marks of this malevolence difperfed through this whole narration is not the whole Chriftian fect most infamously branded with principles they detefted, and crimes in which they had no fhare? and if the fect is charged unjustly, how fhould the Author of it escape free? — But if Tacitus be ill-natured for fpeaking ill of the Chri 1 That this was not any particular malevolence in Tacitus, appears from the general bad opinion which the Heathens had of the Chriftians, which the Fathers impute (and that not unjustly) to their not diftinguishing them from the Gnoftics and other Heretics, who were guilty of the most deteftable vices. Irenæus adv. Hæref. L.24. Epiphan.adv.Hær.art.Gnoft. Sozom. Hift. Eccl. Lib. 5. c. 4. Origen. cont. Cels. Lib. 1. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. L. 6. c. 19. Athenaq. leg pro Chriftian Justin. Apol. L. 1. Id. Dial. cum Trypb. Odium humani generis. Chriftians, Pliny fhould be good-natured for Per flagitia invifi. ; i.e. Mel • Adfirmabant autem hanc fuiffe fummam vel culpa fuæ vel erroris, quod effent foliti ftato die ante lucem convenire &c, quo magis neceffarium credidi ex duabus ancillis quæ miniftræ dicebantur, quid effet veri per tormenta quærere. Sed nihil aliud inveni quam fuperftitioner pravam et immodicam. Plin. Epift. L. 10. Ep. 97. W Neque enim dubitabam qualecunque id effet, quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obftinationem debere puniri. Id. ibid. Mellinius has reckoned up fifty Authors from the time of Chrift to Valentinian and after, in many of whom it was quite neceffary to mention the variety of wonders that gave birth to Christianity; in others it was very proper; and in few, or none, it would have been amifs. Yet there reigns through the whole the profoundeft filence that can well be imagined; and even in those that undertook to confute or ridicule our Religion there is a conceffion of miracles, only because they are of little importance. Mellinius indeed feems to be fatisfied with the report which three of those Authors make of our Religion; because they mention it with fome refpect; but it is eafy to fee from what has been already faid, that he has as little reason to be fatisfied here, as he has to be diffatisfied in other places; and the compliment, which he pays * Mellinius in veteres quofdam Scriptores malevolos Christiani nominis obtrectatores, L. 2, 3. Such as these were Tacitus, Suetonius, Paufanias, Maximus Tyrius, Dio, Spartian, Capitolinus, Trebellius, Vopifcus, Eutropius, &c. z Such as thefe, were Valerius Maximus, Pliny, Seneca, Plutarch, Elian, Philoftratus, &c. Porphyry, Lucian, Celfus, Hieracles, Proclus, &c. Mellin. L. 4. ad finem. pays these Writers for fpeaking well of our Religion, is juft as abfurd as his accufation of those who speak ill of it; for neither of them are to be blamed or commended, as writing from conviction; and efpecially fince each class equally overlooks the miracles of Chrift; this was observed before of Pliny, and is in like manner true of Lampridius, Chalcidius, and Marcellinus, the three Writers fingled out to do honour to the Chriftian Name: nay rather if any thing, these Authors who esteem the Gospel Difpenfation deferve less respect from us, than thofe who do not; fince the excellency of it's doctrines and purity of it's morals should naturally lead them to think more highly on the proofs on which it was founded, than those, who looking upon it as an execrable fuperftition, must of consequence judge it unworthy of God. Now from this furprizing confent of the Pagan Writers in their neglect of the Chriftian miracles, it is no wonder that even Huetius can conclude (who is always difpofed to conclude the most) that the epithet Malefica joined by Suetonius to our Religion was on a • Mellin, ubi fupra. fuppo fuppofition of it's magical operations; and that the of Lucian was on the fame acτερατεία count. But if there were more of these intimations in the Antients, it would only be recurring in the end to the fame thing; for not to mention our miracles at all, or to impute them to magic or collufion when they do, can only proceed from one principle, the contempt of them. As this will be feen yet clearer in the Differtations which follow (and I think I may affirm in every other enquiry that can be made on this fubject) I will now finish this topic, with an answer to an objection that I fuppofe has been already made, and has in part been already answered. The objection is, that the antient Hiftorians in general could not have fo mean an opinion of Edita a Chrifti difcipulis prodigia, quorum in actis meminit Lucas, quod adhuc obfcura effent nafcentis Ecclefiæ primordia, in ethnicorum libris non multum fane celebrantur. Quanquam Suetonius, cum Chriftianorum religionem appellat Superstitionem novam et maleficam ; et cum Lucianus fcribit Peregrinum, poftquam Chrifto nomen dedit, non mediocrem fibi auctoritatem conciliaffe, Πρὸς τὸν ἕξης βίον καὶ τὴν τεράτειαν, hoc eft, prodigiorum |