and does not appear till several decennia later, first in Cyril of Jerusalem (whose Epist. ad Constantium of 351, however, is considered by Gieseler and others, on critical and theological grounds, a much later production), then, with good agreement as to the main fact, in Ambrose, Chrysostom, Paulinus of Xola, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and other fathers. With all these witnesses the fact is still hardly credible, and has against it particularly the following considerations : (1) The place of the crucifixion was desecrated imder the emperor Hadrian by heathen temples and statues, besides being filled up and defaced beyond recognition. (2) There is no clear testimony of a contemporary. (3) The pilgrim from Bordeaux, who visited Jerasalem in 333, and in a still extant itinerarhtm (Vetera Rom. itineraria, ed. P. Wesseling, p. 593) enum- erates aU the sacred things of the holy city, knows nothing of the holy cross or its Invention (comp. Gieseler, i. 2, p. 279, note 37 ; Ediub. ed. vol. ii. p. 36). This miracle contributed very much to the increase of the superstitious use of crosses and crucifixes. Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that about 380 the splinters of the holy cross filled the whole world, and yet, according to the account of the devout but credulous Pauhnus of Xola (Epist. 31, al. 11), the original remained in Jerusalem undiminished ; — a continual miracle ! Besides Gieseler, comp. particularly the mi- nute investigation of this legend by Isaac Taylor, The Invention of the Cross and the Miracles therewith connected, in "Ancient Christianity," vol. ii. pp. 277-315. ■■' Comp. Gildemeister : Der heil. Rock von Trier, 2d ed. 1845 — a controversial work called forth by the Ronge excitement in German Catholicism in 1844. § 87. WORSHIP OF EELICS. DOGMA OF THE EESUERECTION. 451 always set upon by a throng of more and more foreign mat- ter." As Israel could not sustain the pure elevation of its divine- ly revealed religion, but lusted after the flesh pots of Egypt and coquetted with sensuous heathenism, so it fared also with the ancient church. The worship of relics cannot be derived from Judaism ; for the Levitical law strictly prohibited the contact of bodies and bones of the dead as defiling.' Yet the isolated instance of the bones of the prophet Elisha qnickening by their contact a dead man who was cast into his tonib,^ was quoted in behalf of the miraculous power of relics ; though it should be observed thai even this miracle did not lead the Israelites to do homage to the bones of the prophet nor abolish the law of the uncleanness of a corpse. The heathen abhorred corpses, and burnt them to ashes, except in Egypt, where embalming was the custom and was imitated by the Christians on the death of martyrs, though St. Antiiony protested against it. There are examples, however, of the preservation of the bones of distinguished heroes like Theseus, and of the erection of temples over their graves.^ The