doctrine. He was very conversant with the writings of Plato, and Numerius, and Longinus, and Nicomachus, and other distinguished Pythagorians; and having learned from them the allegorical method of explaining the Greek mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures."*

We agree with Porphyry in censuring Origen's allegorical interpretations, and also in the belief that he adopted this method from the Greek philosophers, a fact which should have abated somewhat the censure of Porphyry in regard to it. Allegorical interpretations undoubtedly originated with he heathen philosophers: for, being ashamed of their stupid and ridiculous mythologies, and being unable to make anything out of them, if taken literally, they began to allegorize, and so bring them into consistency with their philosophies. This did the philosophers of India, in very ancient times. This did Plato, and the Pythagorians, and other philosophers of Greece. From them, this method of interpretation passed over to certain Jewish philosophers, and for the same reason. When Philo and other learned Jews of Alexandria had begun to philosophize, after the manner of the heathen, and found it impossible to reconcile their speculations with their Scriptures, they too began to allegorize; and then they could harmonize Moses and Pythagoras without difficulty. For the same reason, Origen and his followers, who thought it important to dip into the Greek philosophy, found it necessary to interpret the Scriptures allegorically. For, with a literal, historical interpretation, their philosophy and their Bibles could never come together; whereas, by the help of allegory, their Bibles could be made to speak anything they wished. As I remarked before, had Porphyry more carefully considered the source of Origen's allegories, it should have abated, if not removed, the censure which he put upon him.

Porphyry objects to the genealogy of our Saviour, as given. in Matthew. "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon; and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel."

* In Euseb. Hist. Ecc., Book vi., Chap. 19.

Chap. i. 11, 12. "Jechonias," he says, "ends the second fourteen, and begins the third, and must be reckoned twice, in order to complete the third division." There is probably an error in the reading here. In some manuscripts, the verse above quoted reads as follows: "And Josias begat Jehoiakim and his brethren, and Jehoiakim begat Jechonias, about the time that they were carried away to Babylon." Jechonias was not the son, but the grandson of Josias. See Kings ii.: 24-26. It does not appear, too, that Jechonias had any brethren; whereas Jehoiakim had several, the sons of Josias. This objection shows with how much scrutiny Porphyry had searched our Scriptures in quest of difficulties.

Porphyry has a fling at Matthew, for so readily consenting to leave his business and become a follower of Christ. Matt. ix.: 9. "Either the historian," says he, "has told a lie, or else people were great fools, to follow Jesus at his call; as though they were ready to follow any one who beckoned them."

Porphyry objects to a quotation which Matthew takes from Psalm lxxviii. 2, which Psalm is said to have been written by Asaph. In the copy which Porphyry had, the passage from Matthew reads thus: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Esaias, saying: I will open my mouth in parables," etc. Matt. xiii. 35. "Your evangelist," says Porphyry, "was so ignorant as not to know that the passage he had quoted was taken, not from Esaias, but from a Psalm of Asaph." The word Esaias, in Porphyry's copy of Matthew, was an interpolation. With a correct copy, his objection had disappeared.

Porphyry was equally unfortunate in another of his objec tions to Matthew's quotations. "This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make His paths straight." Matt. iii.: 3. "This," says the objector, "is taken, not from Esaias, but from Malachi." Chap. iii.: 1. But if he had looked through the Book of Isaiah, he would

have found the passage there also, and the reference of Matthew had been fully justified. See Is. xl. : 3.

Porphyry further objects to a representation of Matthew, that Jesus walked upon the sea. Chap. xiv.: 25. "This is stated," says he, "the better to impose upon ignorant people; for it was only a lake upon which Jesus walked." But was it not as much a miracle to walk on the sea or lake of Galilee, as on any other sea?

Porphyry thinks that some of the demons whom our Saviour ejected, and who expressed a fear that he had come to torment or destroy them, were only playing a trick upon him. They had no real apprehensions of evil, but merely feigned them." See Matt. viii.: 29; Mark v.: 7; Luke iv.: 34.

In commenting on the first verse of John's gospel, Porphyry endeavors to show that Jesus is not the Logos or Word. "If," says he, "he be the Word, he must be either the outer Word, or the inner either speech or thought. But he is neither this

nor that. Therefore he is not the Word."

Porphyry censures our Saviour's treatment of his brethren, in refusing to go up with them to the feast of tabernacles, and afterwards going up privately. John vii. 8. "This shows," says he, "great fickleness and inconstancy."

Porphyry blames the Apostle Peter for "imprecating death upon Ananias and Sapphira." But there was no imprecation in the case. Peter simply declared the judgment of God upon them for their hypocrisy. See Acts v.: 1-14.

Porphyry has much to say of the disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch, as being quite inconsistent with their inspiration, and even their integrity. Gal. ii. : 11–14. He says "they had a childish quarrel one with the other. Paul burned with envy at the virtues of Peter, and wrote in a boasting manner of things which Peter never did, or if he had done them, it was mere peevishness to blame that in another, of which he had been guilty himself."

Others, besides Porphyry, have been troubled at this instance of disagreement between the two apostles; but, as it seems to me, without sufficient reason. There is no evidence

that Paul did anything wrong in reproving Peter, or that the reproof was administered in an improper spirit. And as to the dissimulation and cowardice of Peter, we are under no obligations, as Christians, to defend all that the Apostles did, in their private intercourse with each other. Except when promulgating the revelations of God, they had no promise of Divine inspiration; and I would as soon think of accusing Peter for denying his Master, as for his dissimulation at Antioch.

sooner.

Porphyry urges more than once, that if salvation can be had only through Christ, he ought to have appeared in the world "How came it to pass that the gracious and merciful God should suffer all nations, from Adam to Moses, and from Moses to the coming of Christ, to perish through ignorance of his laws and commands? If he needed to come at all, why should he come in the end of the world, after an innumerable company of men had perished?" Porphyry had forgotten, or never knew, that according to the Christian doctrine, all the holy men and women who lived before the coming of Christ were saved by him; and that "in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." Acts x.: 35.

Porphyry has another difficulty with the Christian doctrine, which is thus stated: "Christians find fault with sacred rites — sacrifices, incense, and other things, in which the worship of the temples consists. And yet they allow that this kind of worship began in ancient times, and by the appointment of God." Yes; bloody sacrifices and offerings were, of old, appointed by God as typical of the one great sacrifice of Christ. But when Christ had come, and offered up himself a sacrifice for sin, "he took the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us, out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Col. ii. 14.

We commend the following objection of Porphyry to the consideration of our modern Universalists. We presume they have never thought of it: "Christ threatens everlasting punishment to those who do not believe in him. And yet he says:

'With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.' But all human measure is limited to time. How then can the punishment meted out by God to the wicked be eternal?" It is evident from this objection that Porphyry, and the Christians of that day, supposed that Christ had taught the doctrine of eternal punishment.

Porphyry insists that the proselyting work of the Apostles was entered upon for the sake of gain. "Ignorant and indigent men, because they had nothing, performed some signs, by magical arts. But this is no great matter. The magicians in Egypt, and many others, have wrought signs." To this Jerome replies: "If the Apostles wrought miracles that they might enrich themselves, why did they die? Why were they crucified? Others, you say, have wrought signs by magical arts; but did they die in defense of them? Our victory is completed in the blood of the Apostles, our faith is ratified in their death." It will be seen, from this objection, that Porphyry, like Celsus, admitted the miracles of Christ and his Apostles; but insisted that they were performed by magical

arts.

Porphyry's principal objection to the Christian Scriptures,-occupying the whole of his twelfth book,-- was urged against the prophecy of Daniel. He insists that the Book of Daniel was not written by him whose name it bears, but by some one who lived in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and that it does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already taken place. In short, it is history, and not prophecy, up to the time of Antiochus; and if there is anything in it relating to events which occurred afterwards, it is all falsehood.

This same objection has been repeatedly urged in modern times. In the year 1727, Anthony Collins, an English infi del, published a book entitled, "The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered," in which he urged anew the objections of Porphyry, and all others that he could think of, against the antiquity and authority of the Book of Daniel. But the most formidable assault upon this book has come, almost in our own