ierunt: Quis unquam unus ab inferis resurrexit, ut exemplo ejus fieri posse credamus?' Div. Inst. vii. 22.

6

So in Tertullian: At enim Christianus, si de homine hominem, ipsumque de Caio Caium reducem repromittat, statim illic vesica quæritur: lapidibus magis nec saltem cæstibus a populo exigetur.' Apol. c. 48. The general purpose of which, though some of the expressions be obscure and perhaps corrupted, is plainly this, that if a Christian speak of the certainty of a resurrection, he is presently treated by the Pagans as a knave, or a fool, or a madman. Speaking of a resurrection and a future judgment, he adds; Hæc et nos risimus aliquando. De vestris fuimus.' Apol. c. 18. Let us see what Theophilus replies.

1. What great thing would it be, if you should give credit to what you have beheld?'

Theophilus here seems to have thought upon the words of Christ, 'Because thou hast seen, thou hast believed,' &c.

2. You who are so incredulous, can yet imagine that Hercules lives, and that Esculapius was raised after death.'

To this Autolycus would perhaps have replied, My friend, let me tell you a secret; I believe no more of the matter than you do: but though I should think that the souls of these two heroes became gods after their death, what is that to the resurrection which you Christians expect?

If Autolycus really believed such things, he had much more credulity than the Roman publicans. 'An Amphiaraus deus erit, et Trophonius? Nostri quidem publicani, quum essent agri in Bocotia deorum immortalium excepti lege censoria, negabant immortales esse ullos, qui aliquando homines fuissent.' Cicero De Nat. Deorum, iii.

Supposing him to have admitted popular Paganism, and rejected Christianity, Theophilus might have told him, that he strained at a gnat, and swallowed a camel."

3. If you will not believe the testimony of God, I question whether you would believe, though I should show you a person raised from the dead."

Theophilus had in his mind, If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'

4. The death and resurrection of the seasons of the year, of day and night, of the sun and moon, of seeds and fruits, &c. are figures and divine indications of the resurrection which we expect.'

5. I, who was a Pagan, and an unbeliever like you, now believe a resurrection, being induced to it by the indications of it which I have mentioned, and by the prophets, whose writings show that they were inspired of the Holy Ghost, and had the knowledge of things past, present, and future.

Theophilus by the prophets meant not only the writers of the Old but of the New Testament, and immediately subjoins some passages taken from St. Paul's Epistles.

From all this it must, I think, be acknowledged that Theophilus never saw a man raised from the dead. If he had, it would have so affected him that he could not have avoided the mentioning it, and would have urged it to his friend, whom he was desirous to confute and to convert,' and who would surely have paid some degree of regard to his testimony. At least he would have mentioned it as a reason for his own belief, and a motive to himself to continue stedfast in all the doctrines of Christianity, and particularly in the doctrine of a resurrection, a reason and a motive stronger surely than the return of seasons, and the setting and rising of the sun, &c. • Soles occidere et redire possunt,' &c. Instead of saying, I myself have seen it, he talks of the small merit in believing what one beholds, and of the reasonableness of assenting to inspired men without such overbearing evidence.

It is probable, from his silence, that he had heard of no instance of such a miracle in his days; probable, I say, but not certain because though he had heard of it, he might possibly have thought it to no purpose to tell his friend that there were Christians who affirmed such things, and he might suspect that Autolycus would not have admitted the testimony of persons with whom he had no acquaintance, and for whom he had little regard.

Theophilus makes no mention of any miracles, except the casting out dæmons, not even of the miracles of Christ and his apostles; which is strange: and when he speaks of curing the dæmoniacs, it is with a sort of moderation and

reserve-οἱ δαιμονῶντες ἐνίοτε καὶ μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο ἐξορκίζονται—καὶ ὁμολογεῖ τὰ πλάνα πνεύματα εἶναι δαίμονες This is done, says he, 'sometimes, even still'-ïi. p. 87. Is that all he had to say? And yet some will have it that dæmoniacs and resurrections were as common in those days as fevers and palsies. It must be confessed that his books are not drawn up in a manner altogether proper to convince unbelievers.

Clemens Romanus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Tatian, Minucius Felix, and others, when they treat the same subject, the doctrine of a resurrection, mention no resurrections in their days to confirm it, but Clemens mentions the resurrection of Christ.

A

,

As Theophilus was disputing with a Pagan about the resurrection, he might have told him that the thing had not appeared impossible to some Pagans, and have referred him to a remarkable passage in Plato ; ἐκ τῶν τετελευτηκό των αὖ, κειμένων δὲ ἐν γῇ, πάλιν ἐκεῖ ξυνισταμένους καὶ avabiwonoμévous - ex mortuis nimirum, sed terrâ conαναβιωσκομένουςditis, illos iterum tum restitutos, et in novam vitam restauratos. And again; ἐκ γῆς γὰρ ἀνεβιώσκοντο πάντες, οὐδὲν μεμνημένοι τῶν πρόσθεν. 'Omnes enim ex terra redivivi nascebantur, rerum præteritarum immemores.' Polit. p. 271, 272. Plato is speaking of an old history,' aλaíou μútov. The Athenians could not be surprised at St. Paul's mentioning avάotaris, if they had read Plato. See the passage of Minucius cited above, and some Pagan stories of resurrections in the notes of Davies, and Grotius de Ver. R. C. ii. § 7, 10. and Bayle's Dict. Theopompe, note L.

It is certain that the most convincing proof of the resurrection which could have been offered to Autolycus, or which Autolycus could have asked, would have been to raise a dead man before his eyes; but in this kind of dialogues, real or fictitious, we are not to suppose that the Pagan always said what was most suitable, and that the Christian always replied in the most pertinent manner.

THEOPHILUS, iii. 3. says; Τί μοι λοιπὸν καταλέγειν τὰ περὶ Ποσειδῶνος, καὶ ̓Απόλλωνος, ἢ Διονύσου καὶ Ἡρακλέος, Αθηνᾶς τῆς φιλοκόλπου, καὶ Αφροδίτης τῆς ἀναισχύντου; Quid jam recenseam Neptuni, Apollinis, Bacchi, Hercu

lis, Minervæ sinus amantis, Veneris pudorem projicientis facinora? honórov is an epithet which ought to have been explained by the editors. Theophilus means the Ephesian Diana, Diana Toλuxorog, who is represented with a multitude of breasts one above another, and makes an ugly figure, more like a she-devil than a goddess. Diana-Ephesia mammis multis et veribus [uberibus] exstructa. Minucius, c. 21. where see Davies. Theophilus should rather have called her "Αρτεμις than 'Αθηνά: but the Pagans confounded their deities together, and made their Ceres, Diana, Hecate, Isis, Proserpina, Minerva, &c. to be one and the same; and thence came the Symbolic and Pantheistic images of gods and goddesses, representing the attributes of several deities.

CONTEMPORARY with Theophilus was Irenæus, who gives us an account of miracles wrought in the church, as healing the sick, casting out devils, speaking various languages, raising the dead, &c.

It hath been hitherto taken for granted on all sides that he speaks of all these miracles, as being performed in his days. Therefore Dr. Middleton has laboured to invalidate his testimony, and to show that he was a weak, credulous, and injudicious man; and I fear it will be no easy task to a clear him entirely from the imputation of credulity and inaccuracy. But on considering the words of Irenæus, a conjecture offered itself to me, which may perhaps deserve notice: Irenæus, writing against heretics, observes that they never had miraculous gifts amongst them, and thereby might be distinguished from the disciples of Christ. Then he proceeds to speak of the miracles performed by the latter, mixing those which had been wrought by the apostles and their immediate successors with those which

* The credulity and inaccuracy of the Christians of those times permit us not to trust to their relations, especially when they contain any thing preternatural. One cannot help wishing that they had been more circumspect and less credulous; but perhaps Providence would not preserve them from these errors and defects, that it might plainly appear, that they were men in no manner comparable to the first disciples of Jesus Christ, and consequently altogether incapable of forging the books of the New Testament. Le Clerc, Bibl. A. et M. xxiii. p. 27.

in his opinion, and according to common report, still continued in the church. When he speaks of resurrections he says, the soul returned,' the dead were raised,' and A remained σὺν ἡμῖν, * with usb, that is, “ with us Christians;' but he fixes not the time when they were recalled to life, and were to be seen. It is not evident therefore, even upon his own account of it, that the dead were raised, or remained alive at the time he wrote. It is remarkable, that when he speaks of casting out devils, healing the sick, and other miracles, he uses the present tense, ἐπιτελοῦσιν, ἐλαύνουσιν, ἰῶνται, &c. but when he mentions resurrecions, he has the caution always to use the aorist, ἐπέστρεψεν, ἐχαρίσθη, ἠγέρθησαν, παρέμειναν.

Irenæus says that the dead were raised, and remained alive for some years: Quadratus, who wrote his Apology about fifty years before him, speaks thus; Τοῦ δὲ Σωτῆρος, ἡμῶν τὰ ἔργα ἀεὶ παρῆν· ἀληθῆ γὰρ ἦν· οἱ θεραπευθέντες· οἱ ἀναστάντες ἐκ νεκρῶν· οἱ οὐκ ὤφθησαν μόνον θεραπευόμενοι, καὶ ἀνιστάμενοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀεὶ παρόντες· οὐδὲ ἐπιδημοῦντος μόνον τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντος, ἦσαν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἱκανόν. ὥστε καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἡμετέρους χρόνους τινὲς αὐτῶν ἀφί κοντο. • Servatoris autem nostri opera semper conspicua erant, quippe quæ vera essent: ii scilicet qui morbis liberati, aut qui ex morte ad vitam revocati fuerant. Qui quidem non solum dum sanabantur, aut dum ad vitam revocabantur, conspecti sunt ab omnibus, sed secuto deinceps tempore. Nec solum quamdiu in terris moratus est Servator noster, verum etiam post ejus discessum diu superstites fuerunt adeo ut nonnulli eorum etiam ad nostra usque tempora pervenerint.' Apud Euseb. iv. 3. Both of them use the same word ἱκανός. χρόνον ἱκανὸν, says Quadratus; ἱκανοῖς ἔτεσι, says Irenæus, Did Irenæus copy Qua

dratus d?

b Nov dici potest, de re quæ ætate nostra facta est, idemque valet ac τὸ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς, quod Eusebius usurpare solet de rebus multo ante gestis. Ut cum dicit de Porphyrio philosopho ὁ καθ' ἡμᾶς γενόμενος-Justinus de Antinoo ita loquitur, τοῦ νῦν γενομένου, qui nostra ætate vixit. Valesius ad Euseb. iv. 8.

· Τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀποδέουσι τοῦ νεκρὸν ἐγεῖραι, καθὼς ὁ Κύριος ἤγειρε καὶ οἱ Απόστολοι διὰ προσευχῆς· καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀδελφότητι πολλάκις, διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον τῆς κατὰ τόπον ἐκκλησίας πάσης αίτησαμένης μετὰ νη