ny

of a writer that lived about a century after

the fact, and we shall fee how the difficulty of accounting for it increases. This teftimony is

as follows.

"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad "there happened an eclipfe of the Sun, greater "than any that ever had been known before: " and there was fuch a darkness at the fixth " hour of the day that the stars appeared in the *heavens. It was accompanied likewise with a great earthquake in Bithynia which overthrew a confiderable part of the city of Nice.

t:

e

From hence then may be deduced the following obfervations. First, that the darkness was as great as that of a total eclipfe, and that the most remarkable, that ever was known,

с

See

· Τῷ Δ ̓ ἔτει τῆς σβ Ολυμπιάδος ἐγένετο ἔκλειψις ἡλίν, μεγίση τῶν ἐγνωρισμένων πρότερον. καὶ νὺξ ὥρᾳ ἕκτη τῆς ἡμέρας ἐγένειο, ὥσε καὶ ἀσέρας ἐν ἐρανῷ φανῆναι. Σεισμός τε μέγας κατὰ Βιθυνίαν γενόμενα τὰ πόλλα τῆς Νικαίας ales pétalo. Eufeb. ap. Syncell.

The following is Jerom's translation.

Quarto autem anno cc11 Olympiadis magna et excellens inter omnes, quæ ante eam acciderant, defectio folis eft facta. Dies horâ fextâ in tenebrofam noctem verfus, ut ftellæ in cœlo vifæ fint, terræque motus in Bithynia Niccæ urbis multas ædes fubverterit. Hieron. Chron. Lat.

4

Secondly, that the day was clear and free from clouds, fo that when the darkness happened, the stars were seen in the heavens. Thirdly, that the darkness was not only as great as that of a total eclipse in degree, but likewise greater in extent, and likewise much greater still in duration. Fourthly, that this darkness had yet fomething more extraordinary than either it's degree, extent, or duration, as happening at a time when the moon was in the full. Fifthly, that there was a great earthquake accompanying it, which was felt in Bithynia, and overturned a great part of one of the most flourishing cities in that Kingdom.

Now this being the cafe, it is very natural to ask how it could poffibly happen, that a prodigy which must be seen by the greatest part of mankind, and would naturally strike them with the greatest wonder and astonishment, fhould yet be fo entirely overlooked, so as that no fingle Hiftorian or Writer of those times should mention it at all; and none in any future generation except a poor Compiler of Chronological Facts; amongst which he has recorded this, and recorded it in fuch a manner, as if he thought it not much fuperior to the others that he had collected.

The world in general was at this time full of learned Historians and able Writers; and Athens and Rome the two luminaries of it in particular abounded with a variety of Authors, who could not eafily pass over fo remarkable an event; fince the inhabitants of the former were curious and inquifitive about every thing new; and the latter were more than ordinarily attached to the relations of prodigy.

What therefore can be the reason, that a fact, fo manifeftly calculated to gratify both, should by both be fo utterly neglected? Why did Pliny and Solinus, thofe 'hunters after wonders, forbear to mention the greatest that ever happened? Why did Valerius forget it, who embarked in the fame defign of collecting strange things, and was nearer to the time of the fact? Why did not Plutarch, the great admirer of prodigies, embellish some of his narrations with one fo fuited to his tafte? How came Elian to overlook it in a history which from the very nature of it was calculated to take in every thing remarkable?

But

If they hunted after wonders fome may fay they esteemed them. nothing lefs; as is fhewn of the first of thefe Writers at large in the fixth Differtation.

But if it fhould be granted (what is by no means probable) that the reafon of their omiffion of it was because it did not fall in with their general plan; yet what must in this case be faid for those where it did? if a Pliny or Valerius may poffibly have fome excufe, yet where is there any for Suetonius, for Tacitus, for Dio, for Eutropius, for Aurelius Victor, for Sextus Ruffus, for Zofimus, who all have wrote something of the times of Tiberius, and all forgot the most remarkable occurrence of his reign?

It cannot farther be alledged that these Hiftorians did not think it worth while to record any prodigies; the whole fraternity give the lye to this: the more bulky Hiftorians Tacitus and Dio have very pompous relations on this head; and those who are the shortest and most concise in their accounts can yet find a place for a wonder.

Conftantine the Great is allowed but a page in the history of Eutropius, and yet the unnecef

• Denunciata mors ejus per crinitam ftellam quæ inufitatæ magnitudinis aliquandiu fulferit: eam Græci cometen vocant, atque inter divos meruit referri.

Eutrop. Rom. Hift. Epit, in Conflant.

neceffary relation of the appearance of a comet at his death makes up a part of it. Yet a comet, though it was a large one, was no extraordinary thing, and might eafily have been omitted without prejudice to his work; or at least if the account of a comet ought not to have been omitted, much less should fo grand and unusual a prodigy as the darkness at the crucifixion.

Neither can it be faid farther that Judea was a poor and inconfiderable country, and that the Romans would give themselves no trouble about what happened there; fince Tacitus has taken notice of the prodigies at the deftruction of Jerufalem; or if he had not, the objection could never be urged by men who suppofe the darkness to be univerfal,

This therefore is the grand objection that lies against their opinion, who maintain that the darkness mentioned by Phlegon is the darknefs at our Saviour's death; and though many have contended for this teftimony with fupe'rior learning and abilities; yet we may justly apply to them on this occafion what Pyrrhus did when he conquered the Romans, that such another victory would undo them.

Tacit. Hift. Lib. 5.