Scaliger likewise understands Phlegon to speak of a natural eclipse of the sun.

b

7. It is reasonable to believe from what Phlegon writes that there was a great eclipse of the sun in some year of the two hundred and second olympiad. According to the calculations of some able astronomers there was a great eclipse of the sun in the month of November, in the twenty-ninth year of our Lord, according to the common account, and the first year of the two hundred and second olympiad. But whether their calculations be right or not, I think we may be satisfied that Phlegon thought there was a great eclipse of the sun about that time.

From all these considerations (however without insisting much upon that which is the second in order) it appears to me that we have not sufficient reason to think that Phlegon has mentioned the darkness which happened at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion at Jerusalem: several learned men have been of the same opinion. I have already mentioned, and quoted, J. G. Vossius; I now refer to several others, who may be consulted by the curious.

d

Colonia puts great value upon the testimony of Phlegon to the extraordinary events attending our Saviour's passion; but I see no reason to make any remarks upon what he says: I refer however to other learned men on the same side of the question.

8. I must add one observation more (eighthly). The passage of Phlegon concerning an eclipse of the sun is very seldom mentioned by the ancient learned Christian writers as a testimony to the wonderful events at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion: which induces me to think they paid little or no regard to it; and that they did not judge it proper to be alleged, either for the satisfaction and confutation of adversaries, or for the confirmation of their own people.

I have already shewn what notice is taken of this passage of Phlegon by Origen, in his books against Celsus, and in his commentaries upon St. Matthew's gospel: and I have also mentioned divers other authors as low as the sixth and seventh century, chiefly writers of chronicles. All which, however, amount to no great number in so long a period.

For there is very little notice taken of it by other ancient Christians, whether apologists, historians or commentators.

To be more particular. No notice is taken of Phlegon, or his eclipse and earthquake, by Justin Martyr, Tatian, Bardesanes, Athenagoras, Theophilus ad Autolycum, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Arnobius, Lactantius. They may mention the miraculous events attending our Saviour's sufferings; but they allege not Phlegon as confirming the truth of the evangelical history. How those events are mentioned by Arnobius, and Lactantius, may be seen in their own words, which I place below. Lactantius has twice very particularly rehearsed the extraordinary things that bore honour to our Lord when suffering by the hands of men; but he takes not any notice of Phlegon.

f

Eusebius has the honour to sustain at once all the just mentioned characters of apologist, historian, and commentator. And yet, so far as I recollect, he has no where mentioned Phlegon, except in his Chronicle, which has been expressly cited by me. He has not distinctly quoted or referred to this passage, that I remember, in his Ecclesiastical History, nor in his Evangelical Preparation or Demonstration. All which works may be reckoned partly historical and partly apologetical for the principles of our religion. Nor does Phlegon appear in his Commentary

Nam eclipsin quoque veram Phlegon putavit. Scaliger Animadv. in Euseb. p. 186. a.

See Dr. Sykes's Dissertation on the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon, p. 70-79, and his Defence of the same dissertation, p. 60-67.

с

Kepler. Ecloga Chronicæ, p. 87, 126. He may be seen cited largely in Dr. Sykes's Diss. p. 70-72. Dr. Sykes's Dissertation on the eclipse mentioned by Phlegon, and his Defence of the same Dissertation. London. 1732 and 1733; to whom I may add Dr. S. Clarke, who, in the first edition of his sermons at Boyle's lecture alleged the passage of Phlegon, but afterwards left it out. Comp. p. 325 of the first edition in 1706, and p. 357 of the eighth edition in 1732. Basnag. ann. 29, num. 30, 31, and Bayle's Dictionnaire, Phlegon. Note D.

d La Religion Chrettienne autorisée par les Auteurs Payens. Vol. i. ch. i. p. 1-44.

e Huet. Dem. Ev. Prop. 3, p. 30, &c. Fabr. Bib. Gr. T. 3,

p. 403. Phlegon examined critically and impartially, and re-examined by Dr. John Chapman. Cambridge, 1734 and 1735. The testimony of Phlegon vindicated by Mr. Whiston,

1732.

Exutus at corpore-novitate rerum exterrita universa mundi sunt, elementa turbata, tellus mota contremuit, mare funditus refusum est, aër globis involutus est tenebrarum, igneus orbis solis tepefacto ardore diriguit. Arnob. 1. i. p. 32. • Et eâdem horâ terræ motus factus. Et velum templi, quod separabat duo tabernacula, scissum est in duas partes: et sol repente subductus est: et ab horâ sextâ usque in nonam tenebræ fuerunt-Inst. 1. 4, c. 19. Quod facinus prodigia secuta sunt, ut intelligerent nefas, quod admiserant. Eodem namque momento, quo spiritum posuit, et terræ motus magnus, et deliquium solis fuit, ut in noctem dies verteretur. Hæc omnia in Prophetæ sic futura esse prædixerant. Lact. Epit. c. 45, et 46.

b

upon the Psalms or Isaiah. In his Ecclesiastical History, having mentioned the troubles which Pilate met with, and his tragical end, he adds: This is related by Greek writers who have 'published olympiads, with a history of events, and the times when they happened.' Whether Phlegon was here intended cannot be said: he is not mentioned; nor has this any connection with the passage of Phlegon, which we are now considering. Nicephorus, going over again this same history, is not more particular than Eusebius. He mentions not Phlegon by name, nor any other writer of olympiads. In his Chronicle, under the reign of Caligula, Eusebius, recording the death of Pilate, who laid violent hands upon himself, says: This is related by • Roman historians.'

с

Nor is Phlegon's eclipse any where taken notice of by Jerom, in any of his numerous and learned works, excepting only in his Latin version of Eusebius's Greek Chronicle, above quoted by us. Scaliger observes that Jerom seems to refer to this author, and his Olympiads, in his Commentary upon Habakkuk, ch. iii. 9, 10. But Phlegon is not there named: nor does he there speak of his eclipse, but of quite other things. I have transcribed below the passage referred to more distinctly, from the Benedictine edition of Jerom, than it is quoted by Scaliger. Doubtless Jerom has several times spoken of the darkness and other extraordinary events at the time of our Saviour's passion: as in his Commentary upon Amos viii. 9, 10. And in his Commentary upon Matt. xxvii. 45, he says: They who have written against the gospels suspect that the disciples of Christ, through ignorance speak of an ordinary eclipse of the sun, which never happens except at the time of the new moon. But Jerom answers that there 'could be no ground for such a supposition; for our Lord suffered at the time of the Jewish passover, when the moon was at full, as all know. The darkness therefore must have been miraculous. Moreover, it lasted three hours; which is sufficient to remove all suspicion that it was a natural eclipse.'

f

So Jerom. But nothing is said of Phlegon, either here or elsewhere. The silence about Phlegon, in so learned a writer as Jerom, appears to me remarkable.

Nor does Phlegon appear at all in the Homilies, or other writings, of Chrysostom. In a homily, remarking upon Matt. xxvii. 45, he says that, darkness was not an eclipse, but a token of the divine displeasure, as is manifest from the time of it; for it lasted three hours: whereas, an eclipse of the sun is over in a moment of time. This all know who have seen an eclipse, as we have lately.'

h

Nor do I remember that Phlegon is mentioned by Augustine in any of his numerous writings. In that noble work, his Apology for the Christian religion, called Of the City of God, he observes that, the darkness at the time of our Saviour's passion, was not owing to an eclipse of the sun; for it was the time of the passover, when the moon was at the full: whereas all natural eclipses are at the time of the new moon.' But he does not call in Phlegon to bear witness to this. In like manner, in one of his epistles, he argues excellently well that the darkness at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion was miraculous and preternatural, and not owing to an interposition of the moon between our earth and the sun.' But neither does he here take any notice of Phlegon.

• Ισορεσιν Ελληνων οἱ τας ολυμπιαδας άμα τοις κατα χρονον πεπραγμένοις αναγράψαντες. Η. Ε. 1. 2, c, 7.

b Vid. Niceph. 1. 2, c. 10.

• Pontius Pilatus incidens in multas calamitates propriâ se manu interfecit. Scribunt Romanorum historici. Chron. p. 159.

De illo, ut alibi diximus, intelligebat Hieronymus, quum hæc scriberet Commentario in Habacuc, capite tertio. ' Le'gimus in his, qui de mirabilibus confecerunt volumina, et qui Olympiadas Græciæ ad nostram usque memoriam perduxere, exponentes quid in singulis annis novi acciderit in 'mundo, quod inter cætera terræ motu eruperint flumina, quæ ⚫ ante non fuerant, et rursum alia absorpta sint, et pessum 'ierint.' Scaliger Animadv. in Euseb. Et conf. Hieron. T. 3, p. 1628. Ed. Bened.

• Possumus hunc locum et in Domini intelligere, passione, quando sol horâ sexta retraxit radios suos, et pendentem in cruce Dominum suum spectare non ausus est. In Amos, P. 1442.

VOL. IV.

Qui scripserunt contra Evangelia, suspicantur, deliquium solis, quod certis statutisque temporibus accidere solet, discipulos Christi ob imperitiam super resurrectione Domini interpretatos? quum defectus solis nunquam nisi ortu lunæ fieri solet. Nulli autem dubium est, Paschæ tempore lunam fuisse plenissimam. Et, ne forsitan videretur umbra terræ, vel orbis lunæ soli oppositus, breves et ferrugineas fecisse tenebras, trium horarum spatium ponitur, ut omnis causantium occasio tolleretur, &c. In Matt. c. xxvii. Tom. 4, p. 139.

8 Οργιζόμενο γαρ επί τοις τολμωμενος ην το σκότος εκείνο. Ότι γαρ ουκ ην εκλειψις, αλλ' οργήτε και αγανακτήσις, εκ εντευθεν μόνον δηλον ην, αλλά και από καιρό. Τρεις γαρ ώρας παρεμεινεν. Ἡ δε έκλειψις εν μια καιρό γίνεται ροπη. Και ισασιν οἱ ταυτην τεθεαμένοι και γαρ επι της γενεας της ημετε pas ouven. Chr. in Matt. hom. 88. al. 89, p. 825. T. vii. h De Civ. Dei. 1. 3. cap. xv.

i Ep. 199. al. 80. ad Hesychium. cap. x. num. 34. Tom. 2. P. 2.

K

I might go on to mention Epiphanius, Leo the great, Gregory the first, Ambrose of Milan, Theodoret both an historian and a commentator, and other learned and voluminous writers of the fourth, fifth, and following centuries, who are all silent about Phlegon and his eclipse.

Nor is Phlegon named in Ecumenius, or Theophylact, both excellent commentators. But this last, in the eleventh century, in his note upon Matt. xxvii. 45, distinctly shews that the darkness, at our Saviour's crucifixion, was preternatural, and could not be an ordinary eclipse of the sun.

There are many historians, partly secular, partly ecclesiastical, who, as we may think, might have been led, either occasionally, or on set purpose, to mention Phlegon: such as Socrates, Sozomen, Orosius, Cassiodorius, Zonaras, Nicephorus, and others; who nevertheless take no particular notice of him or his eclipse.

a

Orosius indeed, near the beginning of the fifth century, rehearsing the affecting circumstances of our Saviour's sufferings, says: And divers writings of Greek authors confirm the 'evangelical history.' But he does not mention Phlegon, nor any other.

Nicephorus in like manner speaks of the darkness, the earthquake, and other wonderful concomitants of our Saviour's sufferings: but says nothing of Phlegon, or any other heathen authors.

This silence about Phlegon in many of the most judicious and learned ancient Christian writers, has induced me to think they did not reckon the passage of Phlegon very material. If it had been reckoned by them clear and important, we should have seen numerous quotations of it, and cogent arguments upon it. Indeed, if it had been clear, it must have been important. But not being, as I suppose, reckoned by them clearly to refer to the darkness in Judea, at the time of our Lord's sufferings, they did not esteem it of much moment, and therefore did not allege it.

Many people of our times, I believe, suppose that this passage of Phlegon is quoted and insisted upon by all ancient Christian writers in general. But so far is that from being the case, that it is to be found quoted in very few, one perhaps in a century or two, and those chiefly writers of Chronicles.

с

d

Petavius, speaking of Phlegon's eclipse, says: that this is the same which happened at the death of Christ, all the ancient fathers have declared, as with one mouth.' But what does Tillemont say to this? His remark is in these words: But Petavius makes use of an expression: which is rather too strong. For I think that all the fathers' are reduced to Jerom, who trans'lated Eusebius,' [meaning his Chronicle :] and if by fathers' he means ecclesiastical writers, 'it will not extend, perhaps, to more than four or five.'

I hope that what has been observed under this last particular may be of use to satisfy some, who may not be fully convinced by the foregoing considerations. None, I think, can much dislike my declining to insist upon a passage, as a testimony to the truth of the evangelical history, which has been so little regarded, and so seldom quoted by ancient Christian writers, remarkable for their diligence, as well as for their learning and judgment.

f

g

IV. Thallus, a Syrian author, is sometimes alleged by learned moderns, as bearing witness. to the darkness at the time of our Saviour's passion. Whether there be any good reason for so doing, may appear from a few observations.

In the fragments of Africanus, which are in the Chronicle of G. Syncellus of the eighth. century, and in the collections of Eusebius's Greek Chronicle, as made by Joseph Scaliger, that very learned ancient Christian writer says there was a dreadful darkness over the whole world, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many buildings were overturned in

i

d Note xxxv. sur N. S. Jésus Christ. p. 449. Mem. Ec. Et si, par les pères, il entend les auteurs ecclésiastiques, cela ne s'étendra peutêtre à plus de quatre ou cinq. Ibid. f Vid. Voss. de Hist. Gr. 1. 3.

8 Quos inter præcipua est Thalli auctoritas, quem libro Historiarum suarum tertio eamdem eclipsim memorare prodidit insignis temporum metator Africanus. Huet. Dem. Ev. Prop. 3. sect. viii. &c. See likewise Colonia, vol. i. p. 27. &c. h Ap. G. Syncell. p. 322.

i Euseb. Canon. Chron, Græce. p. 77.

a

Judea, and in other parts of the earth. This darkness Thallus calls an eclipse of the sun, in the third book of his histories: but as seems to me, very improperly; for the Jews keep the passover in the fourteenth day of the moon; at which time an eclipse of the sun is impossible.' Upon this passage I must observe, 1. That it appears only in the fragments of Africanus; whereas it often happens that, in collections of that kind, we do not find so much accuracy as might be wished. 2. The words of Thallus are not cited: for which reason we cannot presume to form a judgment concerning what he said. 3. This passage of Thallus is no where quoted or referred to by any other ancient writer that I know of. It is not in any work of Eusebius, excepting those Greek collections of his Chronicle, which are very inaccurate and imperfect: nor is there any notice taken of it in Jeron's version of the Chronicle.

I might rest here without adding any thing more. Nevertheless I shall proceed somewhat farther.

The time of Thallus seems not to be exactly known. If indeed there was any thing in his history relating to transactions in Judea in the time of our Saviour, he must have lived between that time and Africanus: but of that we want some farther proof.

In Eusebius's Evangelical Preparation is quoted a long passage of Africanus, from the third book of his Chronology; where are mentioned, all together, Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, and Phlegon. And afterwards Hellanicus and Philochorus, who wrote of the ⚫ affairs of Attica; Castor and Thallus, who wrote a history of Syria; Diodorus, and Alexander Polyhistor.' Whereby we learn that Thallus was a Syrian, who wrote in the Greek language. Thallus is quoted by divers ancient Christian writers. Justin Martyr, in his exhortations to the Greeks, allegeth Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor and Thallus, as bearing witness to the antiquity of Moses, the Jewish lawgiver.

f

g

e

Tertullian and Minucius Felix quote Thallus, and divers other authors, as acknowledging Saturn to have been a man who had lived on this earth.

Thallus and other writers are quoted with a like view by Lactantius.

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch about the year 180, in his letter to Autolicus, quotes Thallus, to prove that Belus lived long before the Trojan war; which passage is quoted again from Theophilus by Lactantius.

k

All these quotations of Thallus appear to be made properly; and he is so quoted with other writers of antiquity, that one might be apt to think that he lived rather before than after our Saviour's coming: nor is there any thing here said of an eclipse; which may induce us to think that the passage in the fragments of Africanus is not material. Indeed, if I was not unwilling to admit any thing disrespectful to the memory of so great and learned an ancient as Africanus, I should suspect that the eclipse mentioned by Thallus, (whenever it happened,) was a natural eclipse of the sun. For it is not likely that a learned historian, as Thallus was, should use that expression concerning any other darkness or obscurity. Consequently, what he said could not have any reference to the darkness in Judea at the time of our Saviour's last sufferings. Thallus is not quoted upon this occasion, either by Grotius, or " Dr, Clarke.

m

Leys for the ate of improvement in knowledge. And being is, with his friend

V. It has been often said that Dionysius the Areopagite, when a young man, went into

Apollophanes, when our Saviour suffered, they there saw a wonderful eclipse of the sun;

2 Τέτο το σκοτος εκλειψιν ήλιο Θάλλος αποκαλει εν τρίτη των ίσορίων, ως εμοι δοκεί, αλόγως. Εβραίοι γαρ αγαπί το waσya naтa σɛλyvus iš'. x. λ. Ap. Euseb. Chron. Gr. p. 77. b Pr. Ev. 1. x. cap. x. p. 487-493.

c Ib. p. 488.

Η Ελλανικος τε και Φιλόχορος, οἱ τας Ατθίδας, οἱ τε τα Σύρια, Κασωρ και Θαλλος. κ. λ. p. 489.

Ad Gr. Coh. p. 10. A. Par. p. 13. n. 9. Bened.

f Saturnum itaque, quantum literæ docent, neque Diodorus Græcus, aut Thallus, neque Cassius Severus, aut Cornelius Nepos, neque ullus commentator ejusmodi antiquitatum, aliud quam hominem promulgaverunt. Tertull. Ap. cap. 10. 8 Saturnum enim principem hujus generis .et examinis omnes scriptores vetustatis, Græci Romanique, hominem prodiderunt. Scit hoc Nepos et Cassius in historià: et Thallus, et Diodorus, hæc loquuntur. Minuc. Felix. cap. 22.

Omnes ergo, non tantum poëtæ, sed et historiarum quoque, ac rerum antiquarum scriptores, hominem fuisse consentiunt, qui res ejus in Italiâ gestas memoriæ prodiderunt; Græci, Diodorus et Thallus; Latini, Nepos, et Cassius, et Varro. Lact. Inst. 1. i. cap. 13.

i Ad Aut. 1. 3. p. 138, 139. Par. p. 399. n. 29. Bened. Theophilus, in libro de temporibus ad Autolycum scripto ait, in historiâ suâ Thallum dicere, quod Belus, quem Babylonii et Assyrii colunt, antiquior Trojano bello fuisse invenitur 322 annis, &e. Id. ib. 1. i. cap. 23. Conf. ejusd. Epit. cap. 24.

↑ Vide de Veritate Rel. Christian. 1. 3. cap. xiv.

m See his Sermons at Boyle's Lecture, the first ed. p. 325, the eighth edition, p. 357. A. D. 1732.

n Vid. Dionys. ep. ad Polycarp. T. 2. p. 88, &c. et Suidas V. Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης.

whereupon Dionysius said to his friend: "Either God himself suffers, or sympathizeth with the sufferer."

But, as all the works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite are now reckoned spurious, and are allowed not to have been composed before the fourth or fifth century, this story is disregarded by all learned men in general. I shall put below the judgments of Huet and Tillemont, who might be as likely to assert it as any, but do absolutely abandon and give it up as of no value. Colonia likewise, after a good deal of parade, declares it inconsistent with sincerity to allege it among genuine and authentic testimonies in favour of Christianity.

CHAP. XIV.

THE EMPEROR TITUS ANTONINUS THE PIOUS.

1. His time and character. II. That he was favourable to the Christians. III. His edict in their favour sent to the States of Asia. The genuineness of which is here asserted with remarks.

1. TITUS AURELIUS FULVIUS BOIONIUS ANTONINUS PIUS: or Antoninus, surnamed the pious, or the good, was born in the reign of Domitian, in the year of Christ 86. He succeeded Adrian on the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord 138, and died on the seventh of March in 161, in the twenty-third year of his reign.

He is much commended; and, indeed, seems to have been a man of as fair a character as any of the Roman emperors, not excepting the most admired. And, though he was above seventy years of age at the time of his death, he was as much lamented as if he had died in the1 prime of life.

When Xiphilinus made the epitome of Dion Cassius's History, the seventeenth book of that work, which contained the reign of this emperor, was wanting, excepting only a small part at the beginning. Having given a short account of that, Xiphilinus proceeds: It is agreed by all, ⚫that Antoninus was a good and mild prince, who was oppressive neither to any of his other subjects, nor to the Christians, whom he protected and favoured, even beyond what had been done by Adrian, as is shewn by Eusebius Pamphili.'