ments with their absurd fables; for he was very conver'sant with Plato, and Numenius, and Cronius, as well as 'with the writings of Apollophanes and Longinus, as also ' of Moderatus and Nicomachus, and other learned Pythagoreans. He also read the works of the Stoic Chæremon, and of Cornutus. When he had learned from them the allegorical method of explaining the Greek mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish scriptures." So writes Porphyry in the third book of his work against the christians.' Upon this passage we may make a few remarks.

6

1. Eusebius supposeth, that Porphyry's book against the christians was written in Sicily. The same is intimated bye Jerom.

2. Porphyry speaks of his having in his youth seen Origen; some have hence concluded, that Porphyry went to Alexandria on purpose to see Origen; but that must be af mistake, as was shown just now.

3. Porphyry calls Origen a Greek, and says he was educated in the Greek sentiments,' but afterwards, when grown up, he embraced the christian religion; all which Eusebius, who must have well known Origen's history, shows to be false. Origen's father, Leonidas, was a christian, and a martyr for the christian religion. Certainly, I think, our ecclesiastical historian's account may be relied upon, ass was formerly observed. This mistake of Porphyry, in my opinion, affords a good argument to believe that he was not originally a christian: if he had, he could not have been so strangely ignorant about christian affairs.

4. From this passage we can conclude, that in the third book of his work, as well as elsewhere, Porphyry made objections against our scriptures, and the christian interpretations of them.

5. None can forbear to observe Porphyry's manner of speaking of the christians, and the christian religion; this he calls the barbarian temerity;' they who embraced it, acted contrary to the laws;' they who forsook it, returned to the way of life prescribed by the laws.' This way of speaking seems not so very becoming a philosopher, who should follow the dictates of reason, whether they have the encouragement of human authority or not. However, we hence perceive, that christianity was not so encouraged at that time, though perhaps it was not openly persecuted. And I humbly conceive, that they who then embraced a life

e

――et contra Porphyrium, qui eodem tempore scribebat in Siciliâ. De V. I. cap. 81.

f Vid. Vales. in loc.

* See vol. ii. p. 470.

contrary to the laws, may be reasonably supposed to have been as honest and understanding men, as they who in all things complied with the laws; they who lived a life contrary to the laws must have practised some self-denial, which they would not have done without some reason for it.

III. I shall now allege Porphyry's objections against the book of Daniel, which was in the twelfth book of his work against the christians.

1. In the first place I shall transcribe a part of St. Jerom's preface to his Commentary upon the prophet Daniel, written about the year 410, or sooner.

The twelfth book of Porphyry,' says Jerom, was

h Contra prophetam Danielem duodecimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, nolens eum ab ipso, cujus inscriptus est nomine, esse compositum, sed a quodam, qui temporibus Antiochi, qui appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in Judæâ ; et non tam Danielem ventura dixisse, quam illum narrâsse præterita. Denique quicquid usque ad Antiochum dixerit, veram historiam continere; si quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia futura nescieret, esse mentitum. Cui solertissime responderunt Cæsariensis episcopus tribus voluminibus, id est, octavo decimo, et nono decimo, et vicesimo; Apollinarius quoque uno grandi libro, hoc est vicesimo sexto; et ante hos, ex parte, Methodius. Verum, quia nobis propositum est, non adversarii calumniis respondere, quæ longo sermone indigent; sed ea quæ a prophetâ dicta sunt, nostris disserere; id est, christianis; illud in præfatione commoneo, nullum prophetarum tam aperte dixisse de Christo. Non enim solum scribit eum venturum, quod est commune cum cæteris; sed etiam quo tempore venturus sit, docet, et reges per ordinem digerit, et annos enumerat, ac manifestissima signa prænuntiat. Quæ quia vidit Porphyrius universa completa, et transacta negare non poterat, superatus historiæ veritate, in hanc prorupit calumniam, ut ea, quæ in consummatione mundi de antichristo futura diceret, propter gestorum in quibusdam similitudinem, sub Antiocho Epiphane impleta contendit. Cujus impugnatio testimonium veritatis est. Tanta enim dictorum fides fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse, sed narrâsse, præterita. Et tamen sicubi se occasio in explanatione ejusdem voluminis dederit, calumniæ illius strictim respondere conabor- -Sed et hoc nôsse debemus inter cætera, Porphyrium de Danielis libro nobis objicere, idcirco illum apparere confictum, nec haberi apud Hebræos, sed Græci sermonis esse commentum, quia in Susannæ fabulâ contineatur, dicente Daniele ad presbyteros, año т8 OXIν8 σχισαι, και απο τ8 πρινε πρίσαι, quam etymologiam magis Græco sermoni convenire, quam Hebræo. Cui et Eusebius et Apollinarius pari sententiâ responderunt, Susannæ, Belisque, ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraico, sed partem esse prophetiæ Abacuc, filii Jesu de tribu Levi: sicut juxta lxx. interpretes in titulo ejusdem Belis fabulæ ponitur: Homo quidam erat sacerdos nomine Daniel, filius Abda, conviva regis Babylonis: quum • Danielem et tres pueros de tribu Juda fuisse,' sancta scriptura testetur--Et miror quosdam μeμμopes indignari mihi, quasi ego decurtaverim librum, quum et Origenes et Eusebius et Apollinarius, aliique ecclesiastici viri et doctores Græciæ, has, ut dixi, visiones non haberi apud Hebræos fateantur, nec se debere respondere Porphyrio, pro his, quæ nullam scripturæ sanctæ auctoritatem præbeant--Ad intelligendas autem extremas partes Danielis multiplex Græcorum historia necessaria est: Suctorii videlicet, Callinici, Diodori, Hi

'written against the book of the prophet Daniel; in which he says, that it was not written by him whose name it bears, but by another, who lived in Judea in the time of 'Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes and that the book of 'Daniel does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already happened. In a word, whatever it contains to the time of Antiochus is true history; if there is any thing relating to after times, it is all falsehood; forasmuch as the writer could not see things future, but at the most 'only make some conjectures about them. To him several of our authors have written answers with great labour and diligence, in particular Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, in three volumes, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th. Apolli'narius also in one large book, that is, the 26th, and before them, in part, Methodius. As it is not my design to confute the objections of the adversary, which would require a long discourse, but only to explain the prophet to our own people, that is, christians; I shall just observe, that none of the prophets have spoken so clearly of Christ as Daniel; for he not only foretells his coming, as do the ' others likewise, but he also teaches the time when he will 'come, and mentions in order the princes of the intermedi'ate space, and the number of the years, and the signs of his appearance. And because Porphyry saw all these things to have been fulfilled, and could not deny that they had actually come to pass, being overcome by the power of truth, he was compelled to say as he did; and because ' of some similitude of circumstances, he asserted, that the things foretold as to be fulfilled in Antichrist at the end of the world, happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Which kind of opposition is a testimony of truth; for such is the plain interpretation of the words, that to 'incredulous men the prophet seems not to foretell things to come, but to relate things already past. And though, as before said, it is not my intention to confute all his ob'jections, I shall, as occasion offers, take notice of some of

6

eronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii, Theonis, et Adronici cognomento Alipii, quos et Porphyrius esse secutum se dicit; Josephi quoque, et eorum quos ponit Josephus, præcipueque nostri Livii et Pompeii Trogi, atque Justini, qui omnem extremæ visionis narrant historiam; et post Alexandrum usque ad Cæsarem Augustum, Syriæ, et Ægypti, id est, Seleuci, et Antiochi, et Ptolemæorum bella describunt. Et si quando cogimur literarum secularium recordari, et aliqua ex his dicere quæ olim omisimus, non nostræ est voluntatis, sed ut, ita dicam gravissimæ necessitatis; ut probemus ea quæ a sanctis prophetis ante secula multa prædicta sunt, tam Græcorum, quam Latinorum, et aliarum gentium literis contineri. Hieron. Pr. ad Explan. in Daniel. ad Pammach. et Marcellam. Tom. iii. p. 1071, &c.

his weak arguments-And it may be proper for us, ' among other things, to observe now, that Porphyry argued, ' that the book of Daniel was not genuine, because it was 'written in Greek, and therefore certainly was not the work of any Jew, but the forgery of some Greek writer. This be argued from some Greek words which are in the fable. of Susanna; to which both Eusebius and Apollinarius ' returned the same answer; That the fabulous stories of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, • and are said to have been composed by a person of the • tribe of Levi; whereas the sacred scripture assures us, • that Daniel and the three children his companions were of the tribe of Judah. And they said, they were not ac'countable for what was not received by the Jews, nor was a part of the sacred scriptures-It ought to be farther observed, that in order to understand the latter parts of the ' book of Daniel, an acquaintance with many Greek historians is absolutely necessary, such as Suctorius, Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Possidonius, Claudius, Theon, and Andronicus, surnamed Alipius, whom also Porphyry says he had followed; as likewise Josephus, ' and Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justin, who all relate the history of the last vision, and wrote the bistory of the wars of Syria and Egypt, that is, of Seleucus, and Antiochus, and the Ptolemies, from the time of Alexander to the Roman emperor Augustus. And if I also consult these profane authors, it is out of mere necessity, that I may show the fulfilment of the ancient prophecies, from the 'writings of Greek, and Latin, and other authors.'

6

From all which we perceive, that Porphyry's work against the christians was much laboured, and that in this argument he displayed all his learning, which was very considerable. Hence also we can perceive the difficulty of undertaking an answer to him; for which very few were fully qualified; in which none of the apologists for christianity seem to have answered expectations. The preface of Jerom to his Commentary upon Daniel, which I have now so largely quoted, is supposed to have been written about the year 407, as before said. In the preface to his Latin translation of Daniel from Hebrew, computed to have been made in 392, or sooner, he says: The objections of Porphyry against this book are well known from Methodius,

i Quæ autem ex hoc prophetà, imo contra hunc librum, Porphyrius objiciat, testes sunt Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinarius, qui, multis versuum millibus ejus vesaniæ respondentes, nescio an curioso lectori satisfecerint. Hieron. T. i. p. 990.

UorM

Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have written prolix answers to him. I cannot say whether they have satisfied 'the curious reader.'

Thus writes Jerom, with great freedom, as may be supposed. In short, Porphyry was a formidable adversary. The public was satisfied with Origen's one answer to Celsus; for we hear not of any other attempted afterwards. But against Porphyry, after Methodius wrote Eusebius, and after him Apollinarius, these two last especially very large volumes; and yet altogether seem not to have made out a complete answer.

I now intend to transcribe several articles of Jerom's Commentary upon Daniel, in which some notice is taken of Porphyry.

2. Dan. ii. 40, "And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces, and subdueth all things." Which,' as Jerom observes, plainly denotes the Romans.' And afterwards: • But in the end of all these kingdoms, of gold, silver, brass, and iron, was cut out" [see ver. 34 and 45] a stone,' 'which denotes our Lord and Saviour, "cut out without hands," that is, born of a virgin without the concurrence ' of man. Which, breaking in pieces all the other king'doms, became a great mountain, and filled all the carth; which the Jews and the impious Porphyry refer to the people of Israel, who in the end of the world, as they will 'have it, shall be very powerful, and break in pieces all other kingdoms, and reign for ever."

* Jerom in one place intimates, that very many had written against Celsus and Porphyry. Adversum impiissimos Celsum atque Porphyrium, quanti scripsere nostrorum? Advers. Rufin. 1. iii. T. iv. p. 472. But that may be principally intended of Porphyry, against whom several had written, as we have seen. And many christian writers may have, in their works, occasionally confuted Celsus: but it does not appear that any, beside Origen, had written against him on set purpose: nor did Jerom know of any other; as is evident from the manner of his expressions in divers places. Origenes, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, multis versuum millibus scribunt, adversus Celsum et Porphyrium. Adv. Jovinian. ep. 30. [al. 50.] p. 236. Scripserunt contra nos Celsus atque Porphyrius. Priori Origenes, alteri Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris fortissime responderunt. Ad Magnum, ep. 83. [al. 84.] p. 655.

1

Regnum autem quartum, quod perspicue refertur ad Romanos, ferrum est, quod comminuit et domat omnia- In fine autem horum omnium regnorum, auri, argenti, æris, et ferri, abscissus est lapis Dominus atque Salvator, sine manibus, id est, absque coîtu et humano semine, de utero virginali; et, contritis omnibus regnis, factus est mons magnus, et implevit universam terram. Quod Judæi et impius Porphyrius male ad populum referunt Israël, quem in fine seculorum volunt esse fortissimum, et omnia regna conterere, et regnare in æternum. Hieron. Tom. iii. p. 1081.