since that religion prescribes persuasion, and condemns any resort to force, as a means of its own advancement. External compulsion, he argues, can only produce hypocrites, not true converts. Themistius likewise extols the policy of toleration, for the benefit of the Christian rulers, and declares that he who applies force in matters of religion robs man of that freedom which God has made his birthright. These statements, to be sure, were liable to the suspicion of being prompted by mere selfinterest; moreover, they involved a decided impeachment of heathenism, considering its long record in the past as an instigator of bloody persecution: still, it was an item quite favorable to the dignity of their cause, that the heathen apologists were able to preach the doctrine of tolerance to their opponents. Finally, the excessive reverence paid to the Virgin and the saints could be pleaded as an ostensible justification of polytheism; and, if we may judge from the carefulness of Christian. writers to deny that the saints were in any wise regarded as deities, the advocates of paganism did not fail to improve the opportunity afforded.

Most of those renowned as apologists of heathenism in this period belonged to the Neo-Platonic school. Such was the case with Libanius and the contemporary rhetoricians, Themistius and Aurelius Symmachus; also with the philosophers, Proclus of Athens and Simplicius, belonging, the former to the fifth, and the latter to the sixth century. Both of these philosophers, however, had a high appreciation for Aristotle as well as for Plato. Proclus, according to Erdmann, represents the culmination of Neo-Platonism as a system, though in genius and originality he may be ranked below the earlier rep

resentatives, Plotinus and Jamblicus. A work by Proclus, while it does not mention Christianity by name, was designed to refute its doctrines of the creation and end of the world. This work found an answer, after about a century, from the pen of the Alexandrian John Philoponus. Among the heathen historians of the period, Ammianus Marcellinus presents an eminent example of impartiality; Eunapius and Zosimus, on the other hand, wrote in the spirit of zealous partisans.

The changed circumstances were not without their effect upon Christian apology. The apparent impotence of the heathen gods to defend their own cause gave a certain advantage to the friends of the gospel. But, on the other hand, they could not appeal to the pure lives of Christians with quite that boldness and confidence which were indulged by the apologists of an earlier period; for corruption had come in, and some of the very men who argued against heathenism openly deplored the vices of the ill-disciplined masses which had invaded the Church. Still, there was at hand plenty of trophies of the regenerating power and reforming influence of Christianity; so that no hesitation was felt in defending it from a practical, as well as a theoretical, stand-point. Learned and thoughtful apologies were produced. Some of the best talent of the Church was employed in this field.

Among the apologetic writers of the Greek Church, a prominent place must be assigned to the historian Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine. His "Evangelic Preparation" and his "Evangelic Demonstration" are both elaborate treatises. The former is a

1 Geschichte der Philosophie, § 130.

critique of heathenism; the latter gives the positive arguments for the truth of Christianity. Like the earlier apologists, Eusebius makes large account of the element of prophecy. Among the points most successfully treated is the relation between the two dispensations, in the light of which both the use of the Old Testament and the departure from it in various particulars, on the part of Christians, are justified. Good work is also done in refuting the notion that Christianity could have been the product of fraud. These writings were probably quite effective in winning converts from the heathen. Thus the testimony of Evagrius imports, who speaks of Eusebius as "an especially able writer, to the extent in particular of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith.” '

Athanasius, in his early years, before his absorbing engagement in the Arian controversy, devoted two treatises to apology; namely, his "Discourse against the Greeks," and his "Discourse on the Incarnation of the Logos." The first of these is mainly an expansion of the ideas contained in the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The second attempts to show the needfulness, the reasonableness, and the verity of the incarnation of the Son of God. In neither is there an ostentatious display of learning: quotation is made chiefly from the biblical writers; and the aptitude of the author for effective argumentation is revealed by his endeavor to confine himself to a clear and satisfactory presentation of a few points.

Theodoret, near the middle of the fifth century, composed an apology entitled, "The Healing of the

1 Hist. Eccl., Pref.

Heathen Affections." It is a very well arranged treatise, and not a few points are handled with great skill. A decidedly happy sally is made, at the opening, against the pride especially characteristic of the Neo-Platonic philosophers or rhetoricians of the East, and manifested in disparaging comments on the style of the Bible, or in a repudiation of the thought of being instructed in the truths of religion by fishermen. He reminds such that they are unreasonably fastidious, and are acting counter to the example of the most illustrious fathers of philosophy. Men who properly value truth are not so very particular about the shape in which it is presented. Hence we have the account of Plato and others visiting foreign nations, and eagerly appropriating any thing valuable in their stores, regardless of Greek polish. It is the quality of the fabric that is a matter of concern, not the race or condition of the artisan. This is a principle universally allowed in trade, and has been virtually allowed by the proud Platonists themselves in affairs of the mind. place Socrates at the very head of philosophers; and yet he was only the son of a stone-cutter, worked much himself at his father's trade, and, using the word in a technical sense, was comparatively illiterate. To prejudge the apostolic writings, therefore, on the charge that they are the products of mere fishermen, is to give the reins to blind and unreasonable prejudice. In the same connection he deals with the charge that Christians disparaged knowledge and summoned men to a headlong faith. He hints that the charge does not come with the best of grace from a party whose distinguished philosopher, Pythagoras, required his disci

They

ples, at least for a long interval, to accept his bare ipse dixit without questioning. He denies that the Christians disparage knowledge. At the same time he insists upon the value of faith, maintaining that it is in a manner the basis and condition of knowledge, since the elementary principles upon which rational thinking depends must be accepted by faith; and, moreover, the effective impulse to attention and investigation is dependent upon faith. In the following portions of the treatise he emphasizes the superior clearness, consistency, and elevation of Christian teaching on the great themes which concern man as a moral and religious being.

The list of Latin apologists in this period begins with Lactantius, a pupil of Arnobius. After having distinguished himself as a teacher of rhetoric at Sicca in North Africa, and also at the court of Diocletian in Nicomedia, he became an advocate of the Christian cause under the patronage of Constantine. His chief apologetic work, the "Divine Institutes," was composed in the first years of the Constantinian era. This production, as respects logical arrangement and economical presentation of thought, is quite remote from a model. As regards the subject-matter also, the author indicates that he had not been very thoroughly schooled in theology, and was better prepared to combat heathen errors than to give a positive construction of Christianity. His work, however, is written in elegant Latin, and shows a broad acquaintanceship with classic literature. Cicero is quoted frequently in a quite appreciative manner, and no doubt the flowing sentences of Lactantius were due in part to his familiarity with the writings of the