work by magic in the heathen way of fpeaking, was in the language of the Jews to caft out devils by Beelzebub the Prince of the devils. Our Saviour, who knew that unbelievers in all ages would put this perverfe interpretation on his miracles, has branded the malignity of thofe men, who contrary to the dictates of their own hearts ftarted fuch an unreafonable objection, as a blafphemy against the Holy Ghoft, and declared not only the guilt, but the punishment of fo black. a crime. At the fame time he condescended to fhew the vanity and emptiness of this objection against his miracles, by representing that they evidently tended to the deftruction of thofe powers, to whofe affiftance the enemies of his doctrine then afcribed them. An argument, which if duly weighed, renders the objection so very frivolous and groundlefs, that we may venture to call it even blafphemy against common fenfe. Would Magic endeavour to draw off the minds of men from the worship which was paid to ftocks and ftones, to give them an abhorrence of thofe evil fpirits who rejoiced in the most cruel facrifices, and in offerings of the greatest impurity s

and

and in fhort to call upon mankind to exert their whole ftrength in the love and adoration of that one Being, from whom they derived their existence, and on whom only they were taught to depend every moment for the happiness and continuance of it? Was it the bufinefs of magic to humanize our natures with compaffion, forgivenefs, and all the inftances of the most extenfive charity ? Would evil fpirits contribute to make men fober, chafte, and temperate, and in a word to produce that reformation, which was wrought in the moral world by those doctrines of our Saviour, that received their fanction from his miracles? Nor is it poffible to imagine, that evil fpirits would enter into a combination with our Saviour to cut off all their correspondence and intercourfe with mankind, and to prevent any for the future from addicting themselves to thofe rites and ceremonies, which had done them fo much honour. We fee the early ef fect which Christianity had on the minds of men in this particular, by that number of books, which were filled with the fecrets of magic, and made a facrifice to Christianity by the converts mentioned

in the Acts of the Apoftles. We have likewise an eminent inftance of the inconfiftency of our Religion with magic, in the hiftory of the famous Aquila. This perfon, who was a kinfman of the Emperor Trajan, and likewise a man of great learning, notwithstanding he had embraeed Christianity, could not be brought off from the studies of magic, by the repeated admonitions of his fellow-chriftians: fo that at length they expelled him their fociety, as rather chufing to lofe the reputation of fo confiderable a Profelyte, than communicate with one who dealt in fuch dark and infernal practices. Befides we may observe, that all the favourers of magic were the most profest and bitter enemies to the chriftian religion. Not to mention Simon Magus and many others, I fhall only take notice of those two great perfecutors of chriftianity, the Emperors Adrian and Julian the Apoftate, both of them initiated in the myfteries of divination, and skilled in allthe depths of magic. I fhall only add, that evil fpirits cannot be fuppofed to have concurred in the establishment of a religion, which triumphed over them, drove them out of the places they poffeft,

and

and divested them of their influence on mankind; nor would I mention this particular, though it be unanimously reported by all the ancient chriftian Authors; did it not appear from the autho rities above-cited, that this was a fact confeft by heathens themselves.

V. We now fee what a multitude of Pagan teftimonies may be produced for all those remarkable paffages, which might have been expected from them: and indeed of feveral, that, I believe, do more than answer your expectation, as they were not subjects in their own nature fo exposed to publick notoriety. It cannot be expected they should mention particulars, which were transacted amongst the Disciples only, or among fome few even of the Disciples themfelves; fuch as the transfiguration, the agony in the garden, the appearance of Chrift after his refurrection, and others of the like nature. It was impoffible for a heathen Author to relate these things; because if he had believed them, he would no longer have been a heathen, and by that means his teftimony would not have been thought of fo much validity. Befides, his very report of facts fo

fa

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

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

II. A paffage concerning our Saviour, from a learned Athenian. III. His converfion from Paganism to Chriftianity makes his evidence ftronger than if be bad continued a Pagan.