This beginning of testimony is followed up to precisely the same effect by Irenaeus, except that Irenaeus speaks somewhat more explicitly, and adds a mention of two new classes of miracles — those of speaking with tongues and of raising the dead, to both of which varieties he is the sole witness during these centuries, and of the latter of which at least he manages so to speak as to suggest that he is not testifying to anything he had himself witnessed.17 Irenasus's contemporary, indeed, Theophilus of Antioch,
12 COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES
while, like Irenaeus, speaking of the exorcism of demons as a standing Christian miracle, when challenged by Autolycus to produce but one dead man who had been raised to life, discovers by his reply that there was none to produce; and "no instance of this miracle was ever produced in the first three centuries." 18 For the rest, we say, Irenaeus's witness is wholly similar to Justin's. He speaks altogether generally, adducing no specific cases, but ascribing miracle- working to "all who were truly disciples of Jesus," each according to the gift he had received, and enumerating especially gifts of exorcism, prediction, healing, raising the dead, speaking with tongues, insight into secrets, and ex- pounding the Scriptures (Cont. Har., II, lvi, lvii; V, vi).19 Tertullian in like manner speaks of exorcisms, and adduces one case of a prophetically gifted woman (Apol., xxviii; De Anima, ix) ; and Minucius Felix speaks of exorcism {Oct., xxvi).20 Origen professes to have been an eye-wit- ness of many instances of exorcism, healing, and prophecy, although he refuses to record the' details lest he should rouse the laughter of the unbeliever {Cont. Cels., I, ii; III, xxiv; VII, iv, lxvii). Cyprian speaks of gifts of visions and exorcisms. And so we pass on to the fourth century in an ever-increasing stream, but without a single writer having claimed himself to have wrought a miracle of any kind or having ascribed miracle-working to any known name in the church, and without a single instance having been recorded in detail. The contrast of this with the testimony of the fourth century is very great. There we have the greatest writers recording instances witnessed by themselves with the greatest circumstantiality. The miracles of the first three centuries, however, if accepted at all, must be ac- cepted on the general assertion that such things occurred — a general assertion which itself is wholly lacking until the middle of the second century and which, when it does appear, concerns chiefly prophecy and healings, including especially exorcisms,21 which we can scarcely be wrong in
RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD 13
supposing precisely the classes of marvels with respect to which excitement most easily blinds the judgment and in- sufficiently grounded rumors most readily grow up.22
We are no doubt startled to find Irenaeus, in the midst of delivering what is apparently merely a conventional testi- mony to the occurrence of these minor things, suddenly adding his witness to the occurrence also of the tremendous miracle of raising the dead. The importance of this phe- nomenon may be thought to require that we should give a little closer scrutiny to it, and this the more because of the mocking comment which Gibbon has founded on it. "But the miraculous cure of diseases of the most inveterate or even preternatural kind," says he,23 "can no longer occa- sion any surprise when we recollect that in the days of Irenaeus, about the end of the second century, the resur- rection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently per- formed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place ; and that the persons thus restored by their prayers had lived afterward among them many years. At such a period, when faith could boast of so many wonderful victories over death, it seems difficult to account for the scepticism of those phi- losophers who still rejected and derided the doctrine of the resurrection. A noble Grecian had rested on this important ground the whole controversy, and promised Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, that, if he could be gratified by the sight of a single person who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Christian religion. It is somewhat remarkable that the prelate of the first Eastern church, however anxious for the conver- sion of his friend, thought proper to decline this fair and reasonable challenge."
The true character of Gibbon's satirical remarks is al- ready apparent from the circumstances to which we have already alluded, that Irenaeus alone of all the writers of this
14 COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES