period speaks of raisings of the dead at all, and that he speaks of them after a fashion which suggests that he has in mind not contemporary but past instances — doubtless those recorded in the narratives of the New Testament.24 Eusebius does no doubt narrate what he calls "a wonder- ful story," told by Papias on the authority of the daugh- ters of Philip, whom Papias knew. "For," says Eusebius, "he relates that in his time," that is to say in Philip's time, "one rose from the dead." 25 This resuscitation, however, it will be observed, belongs to the Apostolic, not the post- Apostolic times, and it is so spoken of as to suggest that it was thought very wonderful both by Eusebius and by Pa- pias. It is very clear that Eusebius was not familiar with raisings from the dead in his own day, and also that Papias was not familiar with them in his day;2b and it is equally clear that Eusebius did not know of numerous instances of such a transaction having been recorded as occurring in the course of the early history of the church, which history he was in the act of transcribing.27 One would think that this would carry with it the implication that Eusebius did not understand Irenaeus to assert their frequent, or even occasional, or even singular, occurrence in his time. Never- theless when he comes to cite Irenaeus's witness to the con- tinuance "to his time in some of the churches" — so he cautiously expresses himself — "of manifestations of divine and miraculous power," he quotes his words here after a fashion which seems to imply that he understood him to testify to the occurrence in his own time of raisings from the dead.28
It is an understatement to say that Irenaeus's contem- poraries were unaware that the dead were being raised in their day. What they say amounts to testimony that they were not being raised. This is true not only of the manner in which Theophilus of Antioch parries the demands of Autolycus,29 but equally of the manner in which Tertullian reverts to the matter. He is engaged specifically in con-
IREN^US'S TESTIMONY 15
trasting the Apostles with their "companions," that is, their immediate successors in the church, with a view to rebuk- ing the deference which was being paid to the Shepherd of Hermas. Among the contrasts which obtained between them, he says that the Apostles possessed spiritual powers peculiar to themselves, that is to say, not shared by their successors. He illustrates this, among other things, by declaring, "For they raised the dead."30 It would be strange indeed if Irenasus has nevertheless represented raisings from the dead to have been a common occurrence precisely in the church of Theophilus and Tertullian.
A scrutiny of his language makes it plain enough that he has not done so. In the passages cited 31 Irenaeus is con- trasting the miracles performed by Christians with the poor magical wonders to which alone the heretics he is engaged in refuting can appeal. In doing this he has in mind the whole miraculous attestation of Christianity, and not merely the particular miracles which could be witnessed in his own day. If we will read him carefully we shall ob- serve that, as he runs along in his enumeration of the Chris- tian marvels, "there is a sudden and unexpected change of tense when he begins to speak of this greatest of miracles" — raising from the dead. "Healing, exorcism, and proph- ecy— these he asserts are matters of present experience; but he never says that of resurrection from the dead. 'It often happened,' i.e., in the past; 'they were raised up/ i. e., again at some time gone by. The use of the past tense here, and here alone, implies, we may say, that Irenasus had not witnessed an example with his own eyes, or at least that such occurrences were not usual when he was writing. So, when he states, 'Even the dead were raised and abode with us many years ' — it does not appear that he means anything more than this — that such events happened within living memory." In these last remarks we have been quoting J. H. Bernard, and we find ourselves fully in accord with his conclusion.32 "The inference from
16 COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES
the whole passage," says he, "is, we believe, that these major miracles no longer happened — an inference which is corroborated by all the testimony we have got."