fufficiently exact: and the reafon in both is the fame; namely, that the miraculous hiftory was all along prefuppofed, and that the queftion, which occupied the fpeaker's and the writer's thoughts, was this: whether, allowing the history of Jefus to be true, he was, upon the strength of it, to be received as the promised Meffiah; and, if he was, what were the confequences, what was the object and benefit of his miffion? The general observation which has been made upon the apoftolic writings, namely, that the subject of which they treated, did not lead them to any direct recital of the Christian history, belongs alfo to the writings of the apoftolic fathers. The epiftle of Barnabas is, in its fubject and general compofition, much like the epiftle to the Hebrews; an allegorical application of divers paffages of the Jewish history, of their law and ritual, to thofe parts of the Chrif tian difpenfation in which the author perceived a resemblance. The epiftle of Clement was written for the fole purpose of quieting quieting certain diffenfions that had arisen amongst the members of the church of Corinth, and of reviving in their minds that temper and spirit of which their predeceffors in the gospel had left them an example. The works of Hermas is a vision; quotes neither the Old Teftament nor the New; and merely falls now and then into the language, and the mode of fpeech, which the author had read in our gofpels. The epiftles of Polycarp and Ignatius had for their principal object the order and difcipline of the churches which they addreffed. Yet, under all these circumftances of disadvantage, the great points of the Chriftian history are. fully recognized. This hath been fhewn in its proper place *. There is, however, another clafs of writers, to whom the answer above given, viz. the unsuitableness of any fuch appeals or references as the objection demands, to the fubjects of which the writings treated, does Vol. i. p. 126-131. not not apply; and that is, the clafs of ancient apologifts, whofe declared defign it was, to defend Christianity, and to give the reasons of their adherence to it. It is neceffary, therefore, to enquire how the matter of the objection ftands in these. The most ancient apologist, of whose works we have the smallest knowledge, is Quadratus. Quadratus lived about seventy years after the afcenfion, and presented his apology to the emperor Adrian. From a paffage of this work, preferved in Eufebius, it appears that the author did directly and formally appeal to the miracles of Chrift, and in terms as exprefs and confident as we could defire. The paffage (which has been. once already ftated) is as follows: "The works of our Saviour were always confpicuous, for they were real; both they that were healed, and they that were raised from the dead, were feen, not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards; not only whilft he dwelled on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good good while after it; infomuch as that some of them have reached to our times *. No thing can be more rational or fatisfactory than this. Juftin Martyr, the next of the Chriftian apologists whofe work is not loft, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty years, has touched upon paffages of Christ's history in fo many places, that a tolerably complete account of Christ's life might be collected out of his works. In the following quotation he afferts the performance of miracles by Christ, in words as ftrong and pofitive as the language poffeffes: "Chrift healed thofe who from their birth were blind, and deaf, and lame; causing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and a third to fee and having raised the dead, and caused them to live, he by his works excited attention, and induced the men of that age to know him. Who, however, feeing these things done, faid that it was a : Euf. Hift. I. iv. c. 3. magical magical appearance, and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people *" In his first apology †, Juftin expressly affigns the reason for his having recourse to the argument from prophecy, rather than alledging the miracles of the Christian hiftory: which reafon was, that the persons with whom he contended would afcribe these miracles to magic; "left any of our opponents fhould fay, What hinders, but that he who is called Chrift by us, being a man fprung from men, performed the miracles which we attributed to him by magical art?" The fuggeftion of this reason meets, as I apprehend, the very point of the present objection; more especially when we find Juftin followed in it, by other writers of that age. Irenæus, who came about forty years after him, notices the fame evafion in the adverfaries of Christianity, and replies to it by the same argument: "But, if * * Juft. dial. p. 258, ed. Thirlby. † Ap. prim. p. 48, ib. VOL. II. A a they |