doctrine of Marcion was at this time troubling the East. to Auto 28. His principal work, however, and that which has His Treatise alone come down to us, is his Treatise to Autolycus, a book lycus, of singular elegance, and which, considering its extreme 1 A list of the works of S. Theophilus is given by Eusebius, H. E. IV. 24, and Nicephorus, Iv. 9: see Grabe, Spicileg. 11. 220, 221. The four books of Allegorical Commentaries on the Gospels, extant under the name of S. Theophilus, seem to be considered by Grabe as probably genuine. 2 The editions of Bishop Fell (Oxford, 1684), Wolf (Hamburg, 1724), and the Benedictine (1722, Paris), are all' good; but the best and most convenient is that of Mr Humphry (Cambridge, 1852). There is an English translation by Joseph Betty (Oxford, 1722). Book I. antiquity and its intrinsic merits, has scarcely obtained the attention which it deserves. The three books of which it is composed were not written at the same time: the third is clearly, from its very commencement, of a later date, and is referred to as a separate treatise by Lactantius. Autolycus, it seems, had been amusing himself with some of the usual jokes against the name and the tenets of Christians: and, more particularly had made the usual heathen demand, "Shew me your God."-Hence the bishop takes occasion to commence his treatise. He demonstrates that GOD cannot be seen with the bodily eye, nor yet by the mental vision, unless it be purged and purified from sin: that to image Him under any form would be to be guilty of a representation which must necessarily do Him dishonour: that although GOD cannot be discerned by the eye, even in this world He can be perceived by His Providence and by His works: and that He will then be seen perfectly and eye to eye when this mortal shall have put on immortality. Hence arises the question of the Resurrection of the Dead. Faith, argues the bishop, is necessary in the pursuance of human art and science: how much more is it due to GOD by whom we are created?" Are you not aware that faith precedes as leader in all things? What husbandman would ever reap, unless he first committed the seed to the earth? who could pass the sea, unless he first trust himself to the bark and to the pilot? What sick man can be healed, unless he first confide himself to the physician? Who can learn any art or science, unless he first give himself over to, and trust, the master? If then the husbandman trusts the earth, the voyager the ship, the patient the physician, will not thou trust in GOD, from whom thou hast so many pledges?" Hence he takes the opportunity of relating the characters and enormities of the gods,—and more especially the superstitions of Egypt and contrasts them with the character, as allowed by all, of Christianity. Autolycus had said that, could he see any one who had risen from the dead, then, and not till then, would he believe. Theophilus expresses his doubt whether, even in that case, belief would be the result: reminds him of the legends of Hercules and Esculapius, and argues from the analogy of the changes of night and day, the reflorescence of trees, the renewal of flowers, the waning and waxing of the moon, the restoration of the sick to pristine health and vigour. "Be not thou," he says, "faithless, but believe. I once disbelieved that this would ever take place: but now, after having diligently considered it, I believe, at the same time having happened upon the holy writings of the Divine Prophets, who through the HOLY GHOST related in what way things past took place, in what way things present are being done, in what way things future shall be completed. When therefore I have received a demonstration from the occurrence of those things which were predicted, I disbelieve not: but I believe in obedience to GOD; to whom do thou also, if thou wilt, obey, lest if thou shouldest be unbelieving now, thou shouldest believe hereafter in eternal punishment." A clear proof that the eloquent bishop of Antioch had himself been a convert from heathenism. 29. In the second book our author returns to the follies Book II. of Gentile superstition: and remarks that, as statuaries attach no especial reverence to their work while in hand, but, when once it is placed in a temple, they fall down and worship it; so mythologists confess that the beings whom they have set forth as gods were originally mortals like ourselves. Why, he argues,-has the generation of Divine beings ceased? Why are the ravines and peaks of Ida silent and solitary, when they ought to be alive and peopled with divinities? Thence he turns to the self-contradictions of poets and philosophers: some denying the very existence of a God, some affirming that every man's only god was his own conscience. This discrepancy he compares with the one and uniform tenor of the sacred narrative; which, commencing with Adam, he follows to the curse of Cain and the inventions of his posterity. He dwells on the historical and geographical knowledge which we obtain from Holy Scripture, and that at a time when the narratives of profane writers are a chaos of contradictory accounts. He dwells on Book III. the maxims of the prophets as indicative of Divine wisdom, and quotes the Sibylline Oracles in further illustration of his subject. : 30. In the third, which, as I said, appears a later production, and of which one MS. only is extant, Theophilus proceeds to the defence of Christian doctrine. Autolycus fluctuated between a truer belief and the assertions of those who charged it with promiscuous concubinage and banquets of human flesh. Both charges he retorts on heathen philosophers: Zeno, Diogenes, Cleanthes, had taught the latter eminently Plato, a community of wives: Epicurus had defended and even applauded incest. After dwelling on the various abusive theories, he next comes to Christian doctrine: the Unity of the Godhead: the Providence by which He supports, and the laws by which He rules the world: the Ten Commandments: the injunction of hospitality: the commendation of penitence, justice and charity: and, in the New Testament, the avoidance of vainglory, and the duty of obedience being exhorted. Could men, living in obedience to such laws, be guilty of the horrible crimes vulgarly laid to their charge? Next follows a long chronological dissertation, -not always perfectly accurate-that the superior antiquity of the Christian Scriptures may be demonstrated;—and the work is concluded with an attempt to assign the reasons why the Hebrew writings have found so little mention in Grecian literature. The date of the work is sufficiently settled by a passage in this last book: where the chronology ends with the death of Verus. It was therefore published, in all probability, at the commencement of the reign of Commodus-or in A.D. 181. 31. The mystical meanings in which, even in addressing a heathen, our bishop delights, are still more prominently brought forward in the fragments which we possess of his commentary1 on the Gospels, and of the Song of Solomon. He seems to have survived the publication of his treatise to Autolycus about five years. From his own writings we 1 Grabe, Spicileg. 11. 228. learn that he was a native of Chaldæa; he nowhere mentions his bishoprick: but accidentally mentions another work of his, a "First Book on Histories?." Baronius speaks of his books as altogether divine. Natalis Alexander calls them a treasure-house of profane and divine learning3. His acquaintance is profound with the heathen poets and philosophers and his love of mystical interpretations gives a peculiar charm to his style. It must be confessed, however, that some passages regarding the eternal generation of the SON OF GOD have what would now be called an unorthodox sound, although he no doubt taught the same doctrine, though in a more loose and less theological language, which the Arian heresy obliged the Church to express in more definite and formal terms. Yet he is clearly one of the authors who stood in need of the greatest amount of charitable explanation from our own Bull. So far as the remains of antiquity enable us to discover, S. Theophilus is the first writer who employed the term of the Trinity. The Church celebrates him7 on the 18th of October. He was MAXIMIsucceeded in the see of Antioch by Maximinus, of whom Patr. IX. nothing is recorded but that his episcopate lasted thirteen A.D. 186. years. 32. The deepest uncertainty rests over the early bishops of Seleucia, so far as the dates of their accession and the period of their episcopates are concerned. James was succeeded by Achadabues, who is said to have been his son. This, if we may believe Amru, and I confess that his explanation appears to me as probable as any-was in A.D. 190. Achadabues was sent, along with an ecclesiastic by name Kam-Jesus, after the ancient rite, to Antioch, with a request that the bishop of that see, who must, according to our 1 Lib. II. 24. OUTO (the Tigris and Euphrates) γειτνιῶσιν ἕως τῶν ἠμετέρων κλιμάτων. 2 Lib. II. 30. 3 Vol. v. p. 46. 4 Tillemont, Vol. I. p. 51. 5 Petavius, Theolog. Dog. Vol. 11. Cap. 3. 6 Lib. I. Cap. 7. 7 So the Martyrologies of Ado and Usuard; by the Eastern Church he does not seem to be commemorated. 8 Euseb. H. E. iv. 24. 9 Assem. B. O. 11.396. J. A. Assem. Cath. Chald. 5. NUS, of Antioch, |