{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13433/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13433","id":"gutenberg_13433","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13433","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Fathers of the church","Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, 1828-1889. Essays on the work entitled Supernatural religion","Miracles"],"text":"PRODUCTION NOTES:\nA Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays\nby Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)\nOriginally published anonymously in 1889.\nTranscribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS\n\nBY THE AUTHOR OF \"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION\"\n\n\n\n\nLONDON\n1889\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nI sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent\nillness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his\nrepublication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided\nevidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may\nbe possible, however little we may agree on other points.\n\nIt was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving\nthe more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost\nhim so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion\nof his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and\nattractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to\nmany. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and\nof temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence\nand conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,\nwhich is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt\nto discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious\nargument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.\nI cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.\nPersonally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,\nand it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part\nwhich purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play\nin stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first\nmoment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even\nbelow the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated\ntheologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should\nnot only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,\nis at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.\nAnything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:\nany misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.\nElaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the\neffective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.\nIn the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed\nlikely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor\nquestions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst\nDr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes\nhis original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of\nhis Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so\nlittle to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the\ncomplete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more\npalpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of\nhis objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these\nEssays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental\nproposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised\nnotes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:\nbut as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and\nthe reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute\nblank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have\nfrankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.\nThey have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,\ncrumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose\nthe feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's\nEssays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of\n_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the\nreply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and\nothers rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the\nmore important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.\nThose who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to\nbe solved really is will not get any help from his volume.\n\nThe republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me\nthe necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of\ntheir appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,\nand others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural\nReligion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the\nportions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that\nreaders will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is\npublished with the view of affording a convenient form of reference\nfor those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those\nEssays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such\nfurther explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my\nstatements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments\nmust still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I\ntrust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his\nallegations and their bearing on my argument.\n\nI have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any\nalteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the\nfirst time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to\nwind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show\nthe inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been\nmoved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier\nreach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not\ncontain them.\n\nDr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that\nI am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but\nI may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very\nserious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the\npossession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave\nthe Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon\nthe basis of reason and not of reputation.\n\n\n\n\n\n       CONTENTS\n\n\n   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON \"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION\"\n\n  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES\n\n III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA\n\n  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS\n\n   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES\n\n  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL\n\n VII.  TATIAN'S \"DIATESSARON\"\n\nVIII.  CONCLUSIONS\n\n       [ENDNOTES]\n\n       INDEX.\n\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\n_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON \"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.\"_\n[Endnote 1:1]\n\n\nThe function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,\nthat it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work\nshould receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his\nremarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible\nthat a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge\nfairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and\nin every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws\nand mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose\nperception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained\napplication. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel\notherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes\nwhich can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing\nmore than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which\nmay be fallacious.\n\nReluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of\nsilent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the\nface of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the\ncase is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of\nthe Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the\nDecember number of the \"Contemporary Review.\" Whilst delivering severe\nlectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance\nand moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,\nfalls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to\nme by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his\nimpartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I\nfail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold\nso justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and\nI trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat\nDr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.\nI should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his\nattack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience\nand divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general\ndetraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be\npronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the\nthreadbare maxim: \"A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney,\" remains\nin force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still\nis. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in\ntranslation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with\nwhich Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well\nfounded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of\nsuch a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of\nthe kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not\nweaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has\nbeen exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of\nSupernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,\nhowever, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there\nis the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which\nhave \"a vital bearing\" upon the question at issue, arguments \"wrecked\"\nwhich are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change\nthe aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once\nto reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to\nsap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the\nweakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has\nthe \"misfortune\" \"to dispute not a few propositions which 'most\ncritics' are agreed in maintaining.\" He will probably find that \"most\ncritics,\" for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune\nto differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many\npoints, from most critics.\n\nThe first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is\nregarding \"a highly important passage of Irenaeus,\" containing a\nreference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers\nthat I am \"quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive\nand indicative;\" a point upon which \"any fairly trained schoolboy\"\nwould decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf\nin the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words\n\"say they,\" and \"they taught,\" in rendering the oblique construction of\na passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,\nin the total absence of the original, that these special words were\nsupplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of\nTischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.\nWestcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what\n\"the presbyters say\" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and\nhe then proceeds (\u00a7 2) with indirect construction, indicating a\nreference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in\nquestion, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This\npassage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of\nPapias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of\nHierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:\n\"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears\nto have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;\" [4:1] and in a\nnote on an earlier page: \"The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the\nElders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of\ninterpretation;\" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the\nindirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of\n\"they taught.\" [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the\nslightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing\nthis testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having \"a vital\nbearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel.\"\nThe reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the\njustness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not\nacquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical\nopinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,\nunderstand the real position of the case.\n\nNow the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole\npassage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he\nwas followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion\nto the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom\nI remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,\nnow seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated\ntreatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against\nDorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there\nis not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate\nthe words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is\nno evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing\nthe evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers\nto this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in\nitalics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as\nRouth conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points\nout the great caution with which these quotations from \"the presbyters\"\nshould be used. He says, \"Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo\ncautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab\nIrenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,\nutrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet.\" Meyer,\n[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether\nthese presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the\nsaying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it\nmerely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and\nonly claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the\nfirst half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the\ntranslator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,\nbrings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the\ncircle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly\nseparates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that\nthey may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,\n[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does\nnot attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but\nmerely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it\nformed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does\nnot go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that \"it is\nimpossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.\n150,\" refers to this passage, and says: \"It is precarious to infer with\nTischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters\nfrom Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back\nto the termination of the apostolic times;\" and he concludes: \"Is it not\nevident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without\nan exact idea of the persons he meant?\" [6:3] In another place Dr.\nDavidson still more directly says: \"The second proof is founded on a\npassage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of\nthe eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the\nApostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, \"In\nmy Father's house are many mansions.\"' Here it is equally uncertain\nwhether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and\nwhether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something\nborrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel.\"\n[6:4]\n\nWith these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his\nwhile to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the\nexternal evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in\ndiscussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do\napologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,\nThiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,\nGfr\u00f6rer, L\u00fccke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,\nalthough many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of\nZeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so\nindirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of\nEusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on\nneither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and\nwhilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with\nthe fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of\napologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.\nThose who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as\ntestimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly\nhave produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken\nfrom the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any\nof the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the\npassage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject\ngenerally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in\nwhich the quotation is discussed.\n\nThis is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the \"misfortune to\ndispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in\nmaintaining.\" I have no objection to his disputing anything. All\nthat I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there\nis anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely\ndiscover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of\nDr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what\nI objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But\nalthough I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who\nsays \"that there is this distinction of dwelling,\" &c., I did what\nwas possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,\na fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a \"fairly\ntrained schoolboy.\" I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,\nthe commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,\nbut actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai\nde t\u00ean diastol\u00ean taut\u00ean t\u00eas oik\u00ease\u00f4s], for the express purpose of\nshowing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point\nis evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make\nany objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,\nbeyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and\nthat I proceed to argue that \"the presbyters,\" to whom the passage\nis referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the\nwork of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended\nto maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation\nmade to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had\nbeen misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately\nwithdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different\nfrom what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my\nargument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which\nDr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it\nas well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this\nwas already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,\nand before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]\n\nWith regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is\npractically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.\n\"Tischendorf's words,\" he says, \"are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der\nHerr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'\nbecause the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact\nthat the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition.\" Writing\nof a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: \"But he has not\naltered any idea which the original contains.\" [9:1] I affirm, on the\ncontrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he\nhas warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted\nto point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct\nassertion \"that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,\nthose high authorities of Papias.\" The German apologist, therefore, not\ngiving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of\nmost critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the\n\"habe,\" quietly inserts \"say they,\" in reference to these \"high\nauthorities of Papias,\" without a hint that these words are his own.\n[9:2]\n\nMy argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the\npassage in question, with its reference to \"many mansions,\" was derived\nfrom the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a\nquotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these\nwords, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the\nGospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing\nmore than the exegesis of his own day.\n\nThe second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with\na discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage\nfrom Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:\n\"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes\nthat Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile\nbeen 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him\nas a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which\neverything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen\ndoes not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:\nepangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge\nwas plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say\n'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not\nwrite_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);\nnor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and\nfinished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language\nitself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with\nthe earlier passages in his work.\" [10:2] These remarks, and the\ntriumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here\n\"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar,\" convey\na totally wrong impression of the case.\n\nThe argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy\nbetween Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;\n[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the\npassage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary\nobservations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually\nfall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose\nrendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The\nmanner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this\npassage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself\nby Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick\nof his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words\nin a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments\nas follows: \"But here again we have to do with nothing else than a\ncompletely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's\npoverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen\nrests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words\nof Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition\nof the whole apology, run as follows\" [and here I must give the German]:\n\"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in\nseinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten\nBuche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'\n'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht\ngeschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so gen\u00fcgt es uns mit diesen\nacht B\u00fcchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch\njene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],\n'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'\"\n&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,\nbut deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words\nof Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon\nthese tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,\nbut by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]\nWhatever disregard of tenses and \"free handling\" of Origen there\nmay be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered\nas good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.\n\nInstead of depending on the \"strength of the passage so translated,\"\nhowever, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of\nthis or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point\nis only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than\nmy own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his\nadversary: and I add that \"it is almost impossible to avoid the\nconviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his\nimpressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became\nconsiderably modified.\" I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.\nIn the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that\nhis Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a\nlittle further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he\nis the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean\nactually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to\nwhether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians\nwhich he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as\na contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,\non the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other\nconsiderations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I\nproceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of\nLucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;\nbut, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus\nattacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the\ncircumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against\nChristians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated\nabout the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,\nscarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders\nit incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the\nGospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,\nwhich can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of\nDivine Revelation.\n\nI do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding\ntranslations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of\npassages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and\nexpressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main\nissue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural\ncontext to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as\nDr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot\ninterest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept\ncorrection even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite\ncontent to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair\nspirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in\nwhich Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely\nrises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.\n[13:1]\n\nI am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical\nerrors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and\nmagnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his\napologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as\n\"a highly important question of Biblical criticism.\" In speaking,\n_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the\n\"Age of Miracles,\" the words \"it is argued that\" were accidentally\nomitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,\n\"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation.\" [14:1]\nIn vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,\nI proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have\nOriginally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of\nsuch a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,\nin which \"only\" has been substituted for \"never\" in deciphering my MS.\nSince this is such a _common-place_ of \"apologists,\" as Dr. Lightfoot\npoints out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon\nthe error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.\nI can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him\nthe full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once\ndistinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition\n[Greek: ho Baptist\u00eas]. [15:1]\n\nI turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks\nme in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of\ndealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--\n\n    \"Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--\n\n    \"'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,\n    as well as St. Mark, was \"an interpreter of St. Peter.\"' ('Canon,'\n    p. 264)\n\n    \"The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's\n    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating\n    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of\n    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark\n    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of\n    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author\n    remarks--\n\n    \"'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading\n    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,\n    in the introduction after \"Glaucias\" of the words \"_who, as well as\n    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter.\" The words in italics\n    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only\n    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact\n    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition\n    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers\n    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the\n    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been\n    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and\n    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal\n    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the\n    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the\n    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)\n\n    \"Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.\n    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.\n    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed\n    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage\n    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be\n    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself\n    would have thought of.\" [16:1]\n\nIn order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to\nquote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott\nsays: \"Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,\nit is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian\ndoctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration\nwas still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary\nprophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror\ninto the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar\nviews. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,\nwho, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]\nand he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which\nclaimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'\n[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a\n'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or\n'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth\nof all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them\nas Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony\nof Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.\nIn the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain\nreferences to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c.\"\nAnd in a note Dr. Westcott adds, \"The following examples will be\nsufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c.\" [17:1]\n\nNot a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary\nstatements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to\nbe good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.\nSetting aside here the important question as to what the \"gospel\"\nof Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a\n\"Life of Christ,\" or \"Philosophy of Christianity,\" without a shadow\nof evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,\nthat the statement that Basilides \"admitted the historic truth of\nall the facts contained in the canonical gospels\" rests solely upon\na sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,\nafter his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according\nto the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they\nare written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed\nby an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the\n\"canonical gospels\"--there certainly were no \"canonical\" gospels\nin his day--\"as Scripture,\" that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'\nbooks is comprehensive and clear, and that \"in the few pages of\nhis writings which remain there are certain references\" to those\ngospels, which show \"his method of quotation,\" is not based upon\nany direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages\nin an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,\nnot ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a\nmere indefinite [Greek: ph\u00easi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the\nvein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of\nthe fact, which completes the separation of these passages from\nBasilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that\nof Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that\nperiod, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,\nas it might seem, by the use of an indefinite \"he says,\" sentiments\ninto the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed\nby his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values\nthe testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch\napologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of\na heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the\nfourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as \"certain references\"\nto it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: \"But to this is opposed\nthe consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original\nsystem of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the\n'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,\nin the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect\nresponsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,\nso that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel\nin the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the\npart of the founder himself.\" [18:1]\n\nIt is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides\nregarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did\nnot know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,\nsupplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the\nheretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,\nthe additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before\nus. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single\nsentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileid\u00eas\nkan Glaukian epigraph\u00eatai didaskalon, h\u00f4s auchousin autoi, ton Petrou\nherm\u00eanea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement\nexactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order\nto show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much\nstress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott\nsays: \"At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,\nwho, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]\nNow we have here, again, an illustration,\" &c.; and then follows the\npassage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words\nof Clement, and the introduction of the words \"as well as St. Mark,\"\nseem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides\nwhich I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see\nany special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,\nlet me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the\nstrength of which he accuses me of \"manipulating\" a passage, and\nthen founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after\nthe direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted\ncommas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,\nand in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well\nindicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,\nthat Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He\nhas been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed\nto perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful\nillustration that he \"exemplifies the elaborate looseness which\npervades the critical portion of this (my) book.\" [19:3] It rather\nexemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.\n\nDr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that \"Dr. Westcott's honour may\nsafely be left to take care of itself.\" It would have been much better\nto have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such\nadvocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would\nbe the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in\nthe most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any\nother have I had the most distant intention of attributing \"corrupt\nmotives\" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,\nand for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost\nthat I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly\npossessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in\nparticular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and\nunconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which\nshould be more impartially made.\n\nDr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the\narguments of my adversaries. \"The author,\" he says, \"does indeed single\nout from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and\non these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines\nof reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in\nthe same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes.\" [20:1]\nI am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion\nupon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me\n\"samples\" of the \"weightier facts and lines of reasoning\" of apologists\nwhich I have ignored.\n\nThe first of these with which he favours me is in connection with\nan anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being\nspoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested\nregarding him \"and those who are with him;\" whereas in an earlier\npassage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--\n\"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found\nin any common source of information, that when the Latin version\n(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated\ninto the original language, [Greek: tois sun aut\u00f4], the 'anachronism'\naltogether disappears?\" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently\nattach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for\nnot troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,\nmay find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on\n\"Christian Literature and Doctrine,\" says: \"In the ninth chapter\nIgnatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians\nof patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information\nwith regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur\nonly in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the\ndifficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words\n'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:\nperi ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,\n'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish\nparticulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could\nnot be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is\nno reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty\npresented by a comparison with the ninth chapter.\" [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,\nhowever, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn\ntranslations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling\nthe tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.\nHere it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is \"wrecked upon this rock\nof grammar.\"\n\nThe next example of the \"weightier facts and lines of reasoning\" of\napologists which I have ignored is as follows:--\n\n    \"Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion\n    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by\n    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict\n    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in\n    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,\n    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already\n    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,\n    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and\n    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main\n    question at issue.\" [22:1]\n\nI reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced\nwithout a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias\nhimself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much\nmore practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords\nany evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our\nbelieving in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they\nare the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it\ncannot be, that Papias actually had \"written documents\" before him,\nthe cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch\nas it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;\nand the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so\nclearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written\ndocuments with which he was acquainted. However important such a\ndiscussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,\nit is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of\nDivine Revelation.\n\nThe next \"sample\" of these ignored \"weightier facts and lines of\nreasoning\" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:\n\n    \"Again, when he reproduces the T\u00fcbingen fallacy respecting 'the\n    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the\n    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer\n    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the\n    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these\n    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of\n    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that\n    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as\n    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the T\u00fcbingen\n    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which\n    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'\n    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration.\" [23:1]\n\nI reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I\nmerely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single\nsentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation\nin Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: \"This, however, does not concern us here, and\nwe have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus\nopposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'\" &c., this being, in\nfact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does\nhe not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that\nHegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,\ninstead of being the \"single notice\" from which the view of the\nanti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based\nupon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?\nIt was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling\nagainst Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I\nhave to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts\nof the Apostles.\n\n\"And again,\" says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored\nweightier lines of reasoning,\n\n    \"in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical\n    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book\n    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are\n    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention\n    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's\n    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the\n    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the\n    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_\n    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when\n    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,\n    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot\n    be said that these are unimportant points.\" [24:1]\n\nNow the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of\nJustin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;\nand when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what\nseemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.\n[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are\nderived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the\nvery numerous citations in his writings \"does Justin profess to give\nthe exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'\" [24:3] The reason why I do\nnot feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott\nhere mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note\nquoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right\nto omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is\nput in italics: \"For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader\nmay be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.\nDr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations\nare different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his\nvariations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that\nso long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no\nproof of identity is possible_.\" [24:5] It will be observed that\nalthough I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those\nwho desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his\nwork. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the\nwritings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to\nwhat documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether\nthey afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which\ncan warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous\ncontents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for\ninstance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous\nquotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which\nhas an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our\nGospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old\nTestament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of\nDivine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I\nprobably go much further into the examination of Justin's \"Memoirs\"\nthan was at all necessary.\n\nSpace, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,\nregarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: \"In every instance which I have\nselected\"--and to which I have replied--\"these omitted considerations\nvitally affect the main question at issue.\" [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had\ndevoted half the time to mastering what \"the main question at issue\"\nreally is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might\nhave spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If\nsuch considerations have vital importance, the position of the question\nmay easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to\nsuppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,\nbecause I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic\nreasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have\nrejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the\nfourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of \"apologetic\"\nwriters, and he represents my work as \"the very reverse of full and\nimpartial.\" \"Once or twice, indeed,\" he says, \"he fastens on passages\nfrom such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main\narguments remain wholly unnoticed.\" [26:1] I confess that I find it\nsomewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said\nto \"make capital\" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as \"their\nmain arguments,\" if I am to judge by the \"samples\" of them which he\ngives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the\nSynoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited\nto a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and\nJerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus\nbetween Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three\nyears, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:\n\n\"Why then,\" he asks,\n\n    \"does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as\n    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...\n    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the\n    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate\n    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not\n    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested\n    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.\n    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall\n    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day\n    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as\n    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more\n    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while\n    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical\n    import.\" [27:1]\n\nNow it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry\ninto the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape\ncharges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations\nof ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like\nthis, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;\nand \"if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world\nitself could not contain all the books that should be written.\" It is\nvery right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any\nother reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but\nis it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not\nexhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not\nonly unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his\nwork? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship\nof the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the\nexplanations offered.\n\nLet me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: \"Why,\nwhen he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character\nof the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of\nLuthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that\nthe whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?\" [27:2]\nNow my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and\nfourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: \"The language in\nwhich the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New\nTestament;\" [28:1] and further on: \"The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and\nabrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of\nGalilee.\" [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: \"Instead of the Hebraistic Greek\nand harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and\nignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the\npurest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of\nthe third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and\nbeauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world,\" &c. [28:4]\nIn another place I say: \"The language in which the Gospel is written, as\nwe have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other\nGospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according\nto Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost\ninvariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is\ndistinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this\nrespect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels.\" [28:5] I\nbelieve that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language\nof the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost\nwholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth\nGospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,\nand that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be\nsupported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of\n\"wholly ignoring\" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,\nI will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: \"The difference of the\n_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,\nof course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the\nGospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek.\" He\nargues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,\nand that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse\nwrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written\notherwise. \"The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional\nemancipations from the rules of grammar\" (!), in imitation of ancient\nprophetic style. Presently he proceeds: \"If, then, on the one hand, the\nApocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author\nwas able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the\nGospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and\nPalestinian.\" Luthardt maintains \"that the style of the Gospel betrays\nthe born Jew, and certainly not the Greek,\" but the force which he\nintends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the\nconclusion at which he finally arrives, that \"the linguistic gulf\nbetween the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable.\" [29:1] This\nresult from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic\ncharacter of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different\nfrom my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an\napologist as Bleek: \"The language of the Apocalypse in its whole\ncharacter is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents\ngrosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst\nthe language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond\ncomparison more grammatically correct.\" [29:2] I am merely replying,\nto the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding\nthe language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different\narguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma\nwhich I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely\ndependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the\naggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the\none hand and the Gospel on the other.\n\nSpace only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.\nLightfoot says--\n\n    \"If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes\n    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._\n    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting\n    altogether to notice others.\"\n\nIn a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--\n\n    \"Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar\n    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not\n    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that\n    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Such\u00e1r]), and apologetic\n    ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is\n    altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in\n    the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or\n    Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La G\u00e9ographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our\n    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.\n    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the\n    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_.\"\n    [30:3]\n\nI may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which\nI have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible\nfor an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers\nof the \"Contemporary Review,\" at least, for this style of criticism,\nto which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.\nThere is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and\nhe accuses me of \"literary browbeating\" and \"subtle intimidation;\"\nI do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the\narticle of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he\nrejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently\nbecause I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously\nasserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]\n\nMy statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place\nas Sychar--I ought to have added, \"except by apologists who never admit\nanything\"--but I thought that in saying: \"and apologetic ingenuity is\nseverely taxed to explain the difficulty,\" I had sufficiently excepted\napologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are\nadvanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which\nidentifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's\nsupposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a\nsecretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,\nand that Sichem is meant, and I state the \"nickname\" hypothesis of\nHengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of\nsome vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not\nidentical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place\nbearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The\nordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find \"in any common\nsource of information,\"--Dr. Smith's \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" for\ninstance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: \"Sychar was either a\nname applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place.\"\nThis authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,\nfor it continues: \"The first of these alternatives is now almost\nuniversally accepted.\" Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere\nalteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.\nHe found a reference in the Talmud to \"_Ain Socar_,\" and with great\nhesitation he associated the name with Sychar. \"May we not venture\"\nto render it \"the well of Sychar\"? And after detailed extracts and\nexplanations he says: \"And now let the reader give us his judgment\nas to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation\nwith our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side.\" Wieseler,\nwho first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,\nargues: \"In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:\nSuchar] Sichem is meant,\" and he adds, a few lines after: \"Regarding\nthis there is no controversy amongst interpreters.\" He totally rejects\nthe idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,\nwhich he says is \"unprecedented.\" He therefore concludes that in\n[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits\nthis, however, as \"a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,\"\n[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot\nand Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,\n[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]\nand others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and\nEwald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town\nof Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]\nMeyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct\nfrom, Sichem. L\u00fccke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the\nextraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably\nreceive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of\nSichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned\nin the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is \"very doubtful,\" and he\nseems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into\nSychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such\nan explanation. Ewald condemns the \"Talmudische Studien\" of Delitzsch\nas generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and\nhis views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that\nSychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the\nsite of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.\n[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another\nplace:--\n\n    \"That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at\n    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally\n    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is\n    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east\n    of Napl\u00fbs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand\n    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other\n    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomen\u00ea] does not indicate, here any\n    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.\n    or Flavia Neapolis.\" [33:3]\n\nMr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,\nsays:--\n\n    \"The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title\n    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.\n    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the\n    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is\n    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the\n    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,\n    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not\n    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to\n    Jacob's Well.\"\n\nTo quote one of the latest \"travellers and apologists,\" Dr. Farrar says:\n\"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:\nlegomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'\n'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village\nnearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El\nAskar.\" [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion\nmay be substantially given in a single sentence: \"La Mischna mentionne\nun endroit appel\u00e9 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-\u00eatre le Sychar\nde l'Evangile.\" He had a few lines before said: \"Il est donc plus\nlogique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem.\" [34:2] Now, with\nregard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect\nSychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from\na \"common source of information:\"--\n\n    \"On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of\n    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which\n    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and\n    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These\n    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading\n    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,\n    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not\n    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be.\" [34:3]\n\nMr. Grove is very right.\n\nI have been careful only to quote from writers who are either\n\"apologetic,\" or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not\nperfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably\nidentified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel\nmentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have\nbeen such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for\nit. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there\nwas no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have\nnot since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.\n\nWith regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes\nconstitute a \"subtle mode of intimidation\" and \"literary browbeating,\"\nCanon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those\nwho maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support\nme. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,\nthat I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall\nvery thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may\nbe good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,\nmy sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further\nto examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them\ndiscussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions\nwith perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by\nanyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made\nacquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and\nhonestly says: \"The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief\nrather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any\nstrong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,\nif they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would\nnot find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as\nthey appear to find it.\" [36:1]\n\nI shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks\nregarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to\ndiscuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his\nmisunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the\nSupreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the\npleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before\ncoming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I\nhave \"studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal\nFather, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God,\" it seems clear\nto me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has\nbeen writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own\nimagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,\nthe chapter on \"Anthropomorphic Divinity,\" [36:2] in which, on the\ncontrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such\na \"Personal God\" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter\nare my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish\nDivinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable\nlaws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and\nsecurity. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of\ninconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which\nview must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to\nsecure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the\nlast page of my work.\n\nDr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's \"Three Essays on Religion,\"\nbut he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess\nthat I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I\nhope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they\nare; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how\nsingularly that great Thinker supports the general results of\n_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement\nalmost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more\nclosely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:\n\"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first\npart, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat\nstrange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work\nshould be devoted to this needless task.\" [37:1] Now my argument in the\nfirst part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is\nquite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that\nmiracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,\nand appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the\namount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the\nevidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,\nalthough miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took\nplace. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main\nprinciple of my argument thus: \"A revelation, therefore, cannot be\nproved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of\nsupernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to\nprove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to\nprove them.\" [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the\noccurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after\nshowing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:\n\"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive\nevidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,\nthe positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that\nthis evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception\nequally certain with the rule.\" [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the\nevidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with\nmy results:\n\n    \"But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is\n    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence\n    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,\n    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in\n    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts\n    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent\n    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the\n    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be\n    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,\n    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely\n    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are\n    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by\n    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature.\" [38:2]\n\nIt is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to\nconfirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I\nenter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses\nfor miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous\nnature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to\nexamine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an\necclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should\nrepresent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the\nforks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he\naltogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend\nthe position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical\nenquiry. Instead of being \"altogether superfluous,\" my examination of\nwitnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been\nrepresented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the\nremaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some\ndegree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being\nalready bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of\nthe enquiry.\n\nI cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much\nwhich is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion\nof a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able\nand too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or\nfaults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and\ninstead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,\nit would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to\nrefute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid\nfair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,\ndiffering _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability\nattacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due\neven to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to\ncourteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever\nhe may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully\nto follow every serious line of argument than the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_.\n\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\n_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]\n\n\nThis work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but\nboth in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected\nto such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of\nopinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to\nreview some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express\nmy gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed\ngenerous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its\ncompletion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my\nconclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the\ncourtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must\nnecessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a\ncourse has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not\ndiminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.\n\nThere are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of\nargument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have\nobjected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition\nadvanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have\nbeen written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is\nonly necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now\nI contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the\nphilosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to\ncompleteness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation\nis not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently\nincredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be\nantecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,\ntherefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent\nincredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that\ncertain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry\ninto the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third\nparts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until\nother witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...\n\nThe second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has\nfrequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to\nprove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of\nthe second century. This error is of course closely connected with that\nwhich has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how\nanyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of\nthe argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The\nfact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the\nGospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,\nso far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in\nthe actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently\nincredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the\nGospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to\nhave occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and\ntruth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish\nsome special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument\nhas not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at\nthe decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as\nevidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear\nand indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for\nthe canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary\nrequirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of\nserious consideration.\n\nIt has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special\ngospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in\nexistence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief\nas the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without\nshaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,\ntotally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious\nbelief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the\nsufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors\nurge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual\noccurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out\nof a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took\nplace, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious\nage, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful\ninvestigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,\nequally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture\nto say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring\ncan have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the\nrelation of miracles to the order of nature.\n\nThe last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the\nstatement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences\nprecisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,\nif no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four\nGospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the\nsecond century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as\nIrenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account\nfor this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature\nin the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready\nacceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment\nregard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century\neither as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which\nconcerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but\nthe beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of\nIrenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and\nOrigen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as\npersonal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are\nshown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct\ntrace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses\nfor miracles.\n\nAfter having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced\nagainst this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the\ntruth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able\ndivines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main\nargument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by\ninference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have\nprofessedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically\nattacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth\ndefence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have\nshown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable\nbreach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference\nto the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no\nsense of my own individual share in its maintenance.\n\nI must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,\nwith great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most\nelaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and\nofficial zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot\nand Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my\nbook. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of\ncourse could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in\nreply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has\nassailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,\nalthough I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so\nin a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of\nhostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or\nerror has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main\nargument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.\nLightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at\nall weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to\ndetails, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent\nagainst the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed\nagainst notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such\nwords as \"misstatements\" and \"misrepresentations\" along the line may\nhave given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render\nit worth while once for all to meet it in detail.\n\n\nThe first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by\nDr. Lightfoot regarding the \"SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.\" [45:1] I had called\nattention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,\nunder certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious\nlimitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as\nsingularly descriptive of the state of the case: \"In one province more\nespecially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence\noccupies a prominent place.\" Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this\n\"mysterious oracle,\" and he considers that \"the response elicited will\nnot be at all ambiguous.\" I might again agree with him, but that\nunambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for\nthe Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only\nthe eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere\nthat, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or\nsay anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that\nthey were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and\nauthoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present\nat least, limited to Eusebius.\n\nThe point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole\nof the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete\nblank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal\nworks and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I\nsupplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of\nCorinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their\nlost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not\ncontain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary\nthat a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main\nargument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has\nexpended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,\nand his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose\nthat it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot\nsays, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of\nEusebius:--\n\n    \"This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis\n    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how\n    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to\n    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his\n    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he\n    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether\n    neglected to do.\" [46:1]\n\nTowards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his\nbelief that his \"main conclusions are irrefragable,\" he further says:--\n\n    \"If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part\n    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces.\"\n    [46:2]\n\nI do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must\nallow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the\nimportance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the\nrepresentations made in the above passages are a very strange\nexaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with\ncriticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and\nstrength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,\nand which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an\namount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that\nvital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,\nproved that I have omitted to dot an \"i,\" cross a \"t,\" or insert an\ninverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it\nwas. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument\nwhich is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding\nsome lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be\nwithdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is\nto discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers\nregarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of\nthree writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not\nfind any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works\nmentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing\nGospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in\nthis does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact\nthat Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers\ncontained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have\nwe any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of\nDr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius\nwarrants the inference that, because he does not state that these\nwriters made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical\nbooks, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend\nto interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was\nthe purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,\nwhich I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose\nthat I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any\nkind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?\nSimply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and\nDionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The\nreader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement\nDr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural\nReligion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has\nasserted.\n\nWe may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He\ncarefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared\nintention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention\nor use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of\nthe Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,\nmerely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his\nstatement into three paragraphs. He says:\n\n    \"Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings\n    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.\n\n    \"(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any\n    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:\n    tines hopoiais kechr\u00eantai]);\n\n    \"(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only\n    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell\n    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri t\u00f4n endiath\u00eakon eir\u00eatai]). Any\n    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the\n    others ([Greek: t\u00f4n m\u00ea toiout\u00f4n]), will be recorded.\n\n    \"(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will\n    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise.\"\n    [48:1]\n\nIn order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we\ncan differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to\npoint out mere quotations of the books which he considered\nundisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in\nthe case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,\nwhich he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be\nundisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he\nomitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in\nthe Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to\nthe Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down\nas much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did\nmention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged\nhimself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much\nmight be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little\nimportance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing\nit. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise\ninclude the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations\nof the \"undisputed\" books, they are so far from limited to this very\nsubsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it\naltogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had\noccurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they\ncould have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book\nquoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done\nnothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the\nevidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully\nhave received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely\nany other evidence, but something much more definite is required to\nestablish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this\npoint be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?\nWe are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the\nGospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of\nCorinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other\nhand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.\n\nThe only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius\nis precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his\npromise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient\nwriter \"has something to _tell about_\" the Gospels, \"any _anecdote_\nof interest respecting them,\" Eusebius will record it. This is the\nonly information of the slightest value to this work which could\nbe looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing\nthe destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural\nReligion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,\nDr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of\nEusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.\n\n    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under\n    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of\n    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the\n    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have\n    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that\n    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the\n    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he\n    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the\n    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements\n    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the\n    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the\n    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say\n    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact\n    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or\n    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot\n    says that Eusebius \"restricts himself to the narrowest limits which\n    justice to his subject will allow,\" and he illustrates this by the\n    case of Irenaeus. He says: \"Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal\n    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,\n    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain\n    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the\n    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the\n    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.\n    11, 1).\" [51:1] I must explain, however, that the \"interesting\n    statement\" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,\n    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only\n    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it\n    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well\n    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: \"Thus too when he\n    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the\n    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits\n    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important\n    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared\n    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus\n    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the\n    apparent chronology of the Synoptists.\" [51:3] Nothing, however,\n    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to\n    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one\n    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an\n    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy\n    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular\n    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three\n    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after\n    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the\n    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not\n    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the\n    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the\n    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could\n    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although\n    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the\n    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.\n\nIt being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to\nrecord when any ancient writer has something to \"tell about\" the\nundisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant\nwritings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the\nconclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three\nwriters with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the \"silence\nof Eusebius.\"\n\nI need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high\nestimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that\nhe not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.\nEusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the\nmartyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for\nthe statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,\nCleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of\nJoseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by\nreference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story\nregarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who\nwere brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the\nmartyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early\nChurch; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of\nHegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the\nstatement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of\nEleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions\nhis observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about\nthe Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general\nstate of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I\nmention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them\nin turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have\nescaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works\nwere used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these\nwas the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a\nsingle remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate\ninference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus\ndid not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as\nEusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of\nwhom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in\nconfirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the\ncomposition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as\nwell as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that\nEusebius would have omitted to record any information given by\nHegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he\nspeaks with so much respect.\n\n    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted\n    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to\n    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No\n    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care\n    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially\n    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any\n    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to\n    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles\n    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and\n    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having\n    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully\n    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently\n    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to\n    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of\n    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.\n    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the\n    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution\n    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in\n    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the\n    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the\n    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command\n    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as\n    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the\n    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded\n    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the\n    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,\n    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He\n    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,\n    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his\n    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan\n    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from\n    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account\n    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must\n    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly\n    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he\n    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his\n    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,\n    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three\n    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did\n    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this\n    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings\n    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very\n    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully\n    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at\n    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably\n    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.\n    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking\n    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and\n    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings\n    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting\n    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,\n    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any\n    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so\n    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.\n\nIn regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius\nquotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,\n[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative\nregarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in\nconfirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose\nthat, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not\nhave enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their\ninformation? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if\nPapias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of\nthe third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?\nCertainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not\nonly pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case\nwhich we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had\nto say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very\nreference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims\nof the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still\nmore certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth\nGospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have\nhad something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The\nfirst quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop\nof Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the\nwords of the Presbyters, \"what John or Matthew or what any other of the\ndisciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,\ndisciples of the Lord, say.\" [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly\npoints out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the\nformer, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,\nevidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly\ndistinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this\nproves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of\nJohn in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the\nname of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second\nof the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.\nWhat an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the\nsubject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted\nwith both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very\nmoment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I\nam fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the\npeculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of\nEusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or\nfourth Gospels.\n\nI need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning\nequally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words\nto say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended\nto be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the\nconstructive and, \"as a sober deduction from facts,\" makes the following\nstatement, which he prints in italics: \"_The silence of Eusebius\nrespecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in\nits favour_.\" [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by\nDr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,\nnot that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are\nwitnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply\nthat if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel\nby anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,\nclassed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does\nnot undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is\nvery small.\n\n\nProfessor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection\nwith \"THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES,\" [57:1] which is equally abortive and\nlimited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which\nthe article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that\nreaders may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy\nis carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of\nmisstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute\ncriticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression\nthat it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most\nright minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It\nis this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like\nthis, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not\npossible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course\nentitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even\nalive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a\nspirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be\naccurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown\nthat his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon\nhimself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to\nall such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with\nsome minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian\nEpistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which\nthey commit themselves.\n\nDr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon\nwhich he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its\ndifficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:\n\"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the\nstudent of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the\nconsiderations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.\nA writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of\nfamiliarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally\nexpects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with\nsome diffidence.\" [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions\nwith decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would\nhere point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for\nDr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question\nmake it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to\nrecognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult\nto establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.\nThe statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,\nand war is declared in the following terms:\n\n    \"The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use\n    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery\n    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references\n    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the\n    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon\n    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer\n    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies\n    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his\n    arguments.\" [59:1]\n\nThis sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play\na very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to\nthem--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not\nbe in the least degree affected.\n\nThe first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is\none of mere critical history. I wrote: \"The strongest internal, as well\nas other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led\n(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most\ngenuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted\nby most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the\nepistles.\" [59:2]\n\nUpon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--\n\n    \"No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results\n    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac\n    epistles than this.\" [59:1]\n\nIt will be admitted that this is pretty \"decided language\" for one\nwho is preaching \"diffidence.\" When we come to details, however,\nDr. Lightfoot admits: \"Those who maintain the genuineness of the\nIgnatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to\nbe almost evenly divided on this question of priority.\" He seems to\nconsider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or\nsix critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation\nof my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the\nfive names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles\nmay be added those of Milman, B\u00f6hringer, de Pressens\u00e9, and Dr. Tregelles,\nwhich immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he\nlimits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I\ncertainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the\nthree Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly\nof those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still\nconsider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the\nEpistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With\nregard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say\nthat \"most\" is a slip of the pen for \"many,\" which I correct in this\nedition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity\nprefer the Curetonian version. The T\u00fcbingen school are not unanimous\non the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,\nfor instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the\npriority of the Curetonian \"im h\u00f6chsten Grade wahrscheinlich.\" Volkmar,\nLipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:\n\n    \"The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this\n    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of\n    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,\n    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike.\" [60:2]\n\nDr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has\nonly withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,\nwhilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are\nspurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He\nfirst announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:\n\"An dem relativ gr\u00f6ssern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegen\u00fcber der\nk\u00fcrzeren griechischen halte ich \u00fcbrigens nach wie vor fest.\" [61:1] In\nthe very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says\nquite distinctly: \"Ich bin noch jetzt \u00fcberzeugt, dass der Syrer in\nzahlreichen F\u00e4llen den relativ urspr\u00fcnglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.\nmeine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff).\" [61:2] With regard\nto the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only\nmatter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny\nthe authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.\n\nDr. Lightfoot, however, goes on \"to throw some light upon this point\" by\nanalysing my \"general statement of the course of opinion on this subject\ngiven in an earlier passage.\" [61:3] The \"light\" which he throws seems\nto pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather\ntempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his\nattention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the\naccuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error\nand misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is\nas follows:--\n\n    \"These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest\n    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be\n    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not\n    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,\n    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider\n    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As\n    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were\n    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed\n    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and\n    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully\n    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,\n    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth\n    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although\n    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.\n    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller\n    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have\n    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise\n    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,\n    and that they can only be considered later and spurious\n    compositions.(4)\" [62:1]\n\nIn the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, B\u00f6hringer,\nCureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot\nproceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his\nexplanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both\nto call more immediate attention to the point:\n\n          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.\n                                     |\n_Many of the ablest critics have     | \"These references, it will be\npronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate\nauthentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps\nwhilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that\nthat even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that\nemanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian\nprefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters\nseven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still\nthem the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of\nletters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider\n                                     | them the most ancient form of the\n                                     | letters which we possess.'\" [62:2]\n\n\nIt must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this\nsentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian\nEpistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that\nsentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether\nof those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative\npriority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main\nstatement of the text which the note illustrates, and then \"throws\nlight\" upon the point by the following remarks:--\n\n          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.\n                                     |\n_Cureton, Bunsen, B\u00f6hringer, Ewald,  | \"The reader, therefore, will\nMilman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that\nmaintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers\ngenuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters\n_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves\ndistinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some\nin any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to\nEpistles, he says: \"Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight\nEchtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the\nkeineswegs sicher.\" He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian\npriority of the Curetonian \"in the   | letters.\" [63:1]\nhighest degree probable.\"            |\n                                     |\n_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |\nas I have already said, but          |\nmaintains the priority of the        |\nSyriac.                              |\n\n\nDr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of\nthe facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.\nNot one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but\nwould receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note\nwas totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.\n\nContinuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the\nground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so\nearly as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed\nregarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,\nand that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared\nthem to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: \"The criticisms of\nCalvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the\nLong Recension alone.\" [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at\nthat time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections\nwere not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]\nThis is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of\nCalvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:\n\n    \"The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz\n    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the\n    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says\n    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen\n    the position of the Papal power, &c.'\" [64:4]\n\nPearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for\nChemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles\nas evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts\nof them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg\nCenturiators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing\nthem to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the \"Long Recension were\nbefore Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:\n\"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece\nleguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non\nreferunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas\nepistolas, vel inde colligitur.\" He then shows that quotations in\nancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius\nare not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: \"De Epistolis\nigitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:\ntransformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum\nregni Pontificii.\" [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he\n\"damns them with faint praise.\" The whole of the discussion turns upon\nthe word \"fully,\" and is an instance of the minute criticism of my\ncritic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade\nmore or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received\nfrom the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.\n\nDr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and\nhere again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as\nfollows:\n\n    \"(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,\n    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.\n    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae\n    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix.\"\n\nUpon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--\n\n    \"But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they\n    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted\n    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the\n    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'\" [65:2]\n\nAs Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is\n\"the most important point of all,\" it is a pity that, throughout the\nwhole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he\npersistently ignores my very careful definition of \"the purpose for\nwhich they are quoted.\" It is difficult, without entering into minute\nclassifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of\na great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course\nof critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large\nclass--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,\nillustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case\non my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,\ndecreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the\nEpistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did\nnot fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise\nthe part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that \"similar _doubts,\nmore or less definite_,\" were expressed by the writers referred to.\n\nDr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and\nwould probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,\nBasnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook\npronounces them \"either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.\" So\nfar, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in\nsuccession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey \"considers that they have\nbeen interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the\nmain.\" Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the\ntext, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of\nthe Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and\nall of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I\nshould not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed\n\"_doubts_ more or less definite,\" which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot\nsays that Socinus \"denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far\nas I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter.\" His very\ndenunciations, however, are certainly the expression of \"doubts, more\nor less definite.\" \"Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,\"\nDr. Lightfoot says, \"promises to defend the antiquity of some of the\nEpistles with new arguments.\" But I have never affirmed that he\n\"rejected them altogether.\" Casaubon died before he fulfilled the\npromise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he\nmight have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not\nnecessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to\nRivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a\nsubsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop\nUsher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to\n\"that form of the Epistles.\" [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by\nPearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the\nwriters referred to, says: \"Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius\nvarie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:\ntum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio\nEpistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio.\" He\nthen goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles\nand the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more\ndecided opinion to express than: \"ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio\nsit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus\nillustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit.\" [67:3]\n\nThe next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for\nconvenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it\nas follows:--\n\n    \"The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--\"'[Wotton, _Praef.\n    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,\n    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin,\n    _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex\n    Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_,\n    ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manich\u00e9e_, &c. 1734, i.\n    p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489;\n    [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in\n    Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._\n    1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341;\n    Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenm\u00fcller, _Hist.\n    Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.\n    in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.\n    condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.\n    p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11;\n    Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.\n    _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._\n    p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.\n    p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch\n    eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16;\n    J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch \u00fcb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._,\n    in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.\n    Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.\n    p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.'\n\n    \"The brackets are not the author's, but my own.\n\n    \"This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have\n    made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it\n    stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the\n    by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the\n    gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,\n    however, that every one of these references, except those which I\n    have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's\n    'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus\n    two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten\n    minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the\n    quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in\n    Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his\n    notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought\n    fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the\n    rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional\n    references on which it has no bearing?\" [68:1]\n\nI do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might\nsuffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is\nhere advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to\nthe unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask\nevery just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to\ninsinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references\nin a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and\nthus \"imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted\nreferences,\" and further to insinuate that I \"here and there transposed\nthe order\" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of\ncriticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and\nreverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's\nappendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from\nit, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly\nindicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The\nfact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but\nin every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note\n\"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading,\" it certainly\ndoes not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself\nacquainted with the \"by-paths of Ignatian literature.\" Now in analysing\nthe references in this note it must be borne in mind that they\nillustrate the statement that \"_doubts, more or less definite_,\"\ncontinued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much\nobliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name\nis the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list\non another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and\nwas by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose\ndoubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's\nfurther statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as\ngenuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the\nVossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the\nseven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: \"These\nthree Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an\nolder text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes\nfound in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the\ndoubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in\nwhich they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed.\nFor no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles\nattested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius.\" [70:1]\nThiersch, therefore, does express \"doubts, more or less definite.\"\nDr. Lightfoot then continues: \"Of the rest a considerable number, as,\nfor instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander,\nand Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or\nuncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus.\"\n[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my\nwords descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a\nleaning towards belief in a genuine \"nucleus\" on the part of some of\nthese writers, by no means excludes the expression of \"_doubts, more or\nless definite_,\" which is all I quote them for. I will take each name\nin order.\n\n_Lardner_ says: \"But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves\n    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a\n    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens\n    of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have\n    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult\n    question.\" The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:\n    \"it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_\n    the genuine epistles of Ignatius.\"\n\n_Beausobre_ says: \"Je ne veux, ni d\u00e9fendre, ni combattre l'authenticit\u00e9\n    des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas v\u00e9ritables, elles\n    ne laissent pas d'\u00eatre fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit\n    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont \u00e9t\u00e9 interpol\u00e9es.\"\n\n_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for\n    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, \"many doubts arise which make them\n    suspicious.\" He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and\n    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon\n    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these\n    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which\n    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are\n    interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent\n    observation: \"However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as\n    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages.\" In fact it\n    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly\n    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.\n\n_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express \"doubts more or less definite,\"\n    but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy\n    too much space.\n\n_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from\n    the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History\n    given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief\n    German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the\n    original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing\n    \"in favour of a genuine nucleus,\" Neander might well have been\n    classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian\n    Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who\n    merely express doubt. Neander says: \"As the account of the martyrdom\n    of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose\n    the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the\n    impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who\n    is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical\n    purpose is not to be mistaken.\" In an earlier part of the work he\n    still more emphatically says that, \"in the so-called Ignatian\n    Epistles,\" he recognises a decided \"design\" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and\n    then he continues: \"As the tradition regarding the journey of\n    Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me\n    for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which\n    presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me\n    with faith in their authenticity.\" [72:1] He goes on to state\n    additional grounds for disbelief.\n\n_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven\n    Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the\n    extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note\n    he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to\n    agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably\n    the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being\n    more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years\n    later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet\n    concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the\n    Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the\n    shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations\n    (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious\n    statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in\n    the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material\n    of the letters cannot be ascertained.\n\nDr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly\nunfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.\n\nHe proceeds to the next \"note (4)\" with the same unhesitating vigour,\nand characterises it as \"equally unfortunate.\" Wherever it has been\npossible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the \"purpose\"\nof my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain\nthis correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will\nput my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses\nthe note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement\nwhich he altogether disregards:--\n\n                                    |        DR. LIGHTFOOT.\n                                    |\n\"Further examination and more       | \"References to twenty authorities\ncomprehensive knowledge of the      | are then given, as belonging to\nsubject have confirmed earlier      | the 'large mass of critics' who\ndoubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian\nrecognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered\nnone_ of these Epistles _can be     | later and spurious compositions.'\"\nestablished_, and that they can     | [73:1]\nonly be considered later and        |\nspurious compositions.\"             |\n\n\nThere are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two\napproximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the\nEpistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming\nto establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively\npronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred\nto, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming\nwhat he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that\na reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot\nbe defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does\nnot. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the\nextant letters cannot be established without denying that there may\nhave been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may\nhave been based. I will analyse the six references.\n\n_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: \"Of these Bleek (already cited in a\n    previous note) expresses no definite opinion.\"\n\n    Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek\n    directly, but by \"Cf.\" merely request consideration of his opinions.\n    I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some\n    difficulties, he says generally: \"It comes to this, that the origin\n    of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful.\" He\n    refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the\n    Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he\n    does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, \"The\n    authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain,\" and,\n    next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. \"Whether this\n    Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek\n    is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree\n    probable.\" In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences\n    in the \"Ignatian Epistles,\" \"because it is still very doubtful how\n    the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these\n    Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which\n    we possess them.\" [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their\n    authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him\n    here at all.\n\n_Gfr\u00f6rer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite\n    this writer like the others, but by a \"Cf.\" merely suggest a\n    reference to his remarks.\n\n_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, \"avows that he must 'decidedly\n    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more\n    recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that\n    the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a\n    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well\n    as in the Long Recension.\"\n\n    This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with\n    Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: \"In this\n    case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is\n    _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have\n    the passage.\" He recognises that the completeness of the proof that\n    ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is\n    somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of\n    Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian\n    Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.\n\n_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, \"says that 'the external testimonies\n    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not\n    satisfied with either existing recension.\"\n\n    Now what Schliemann says is this: \"Certainly neither the Shorter and\n    still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles\n    can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,\n    without doubt suppose a genuine substratum,\" &c. In a note he adds:\n    \"The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine\n    substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his\n    Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from\n    Ignatius the contents sufficiently show.\"\n\n_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, \"commits himself to no opinion.\"\n\n    If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what\n    that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he\n    says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion\n    of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not\n    fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and\n    least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. \"But even\n    if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they\n    would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the\n    second century.\" These last words are a clear admission of his\n    opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.\n\n_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in\n    favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,\n    but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable\n    to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been\n    able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal\n    improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed\n    journey, which make it \"still more improbable that Ignatius himself\n    can really have written these Epistles in this situation.\" Lechler\n    does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;\n    and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the\n    possession of \"certainty and cheerfulness of conviction\" of the\n    inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly\n    justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be\n    established.\n\nNow what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon\nmy notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with\nwhat is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian\nliterature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name\ntotally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been\nremoved by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and\nconsequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose\ndoubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in\ndealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more\nor less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly\nexpressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only\ntoo glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks\nsuch references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of\n\"misstatement\" and \"misrepresentation,\" was bound to be accurate, and I\nhave shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,\nbut unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be\nable to make use of his own words and say: \"I may perhaps have fallen\ninto some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but\nthe main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable.\" [78:1]\n\nThere are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must\nbriefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with\nunhesitating boldness:\n\n    \"One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,\n    from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that\n    this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been\n    felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has\n    raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)\n    maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially\n    bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most\n    formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the\n    world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later\n    work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown\n    to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,\n    or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian\n    question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of\n    Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not\n    less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_.\"\n    [78:2]\n\nNow first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the\nCuretonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal\nopinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general\ndeclaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my\ndiffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have \"any value as\nevidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning\nof the third century, even if they have any value at all.\" I merely\nrepresent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot\nvery greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian\nversion, and I call special attention to the passages in the above\nquotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture\nto say emphatically that, so far from being considered the \"key\nof the position,\" this version has, with some exceptions, played\na most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and\nas Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will\nstate how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn,\nMerx, and Zahn certainly \"more or less prominently\" deal with them.\nDenzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which\nappeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press,\nin a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian\nquestion, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the\nArmenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's\nwork, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So\nmuch for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.\n\nAs for \"the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question\nduring the last quarter of a century:\" Cureton apparently did not think\nit worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of\nPetermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments\nin a few pages of his \"Hippolytus;\" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against\nBunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's\nrepresentation, should have found this \"the most formidable argument\"\nagainst them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even\nallude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,\n[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian\nmanipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his\ntext; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele\n[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar,\nTischendorf, B\u00f6hringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them\nworthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other\nwriters of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into\nthe controversy at all.\n\nThe argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag\ninto a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the\nreader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the\nfollowing lines:\n\n    \"But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven\n    Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text\n    is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac\n    idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply\n    proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must\n    have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the\n    Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,\n    and not an interpolated and partially forged one?\" [80:3]\n\nDr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the\nground that \"a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the\nCuretonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital\nproblem of which it was bound to give an account.\" Now all this is sheer\nmisrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian\nEpistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek\nEpistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.\n\nPassing on to another point, I say:\n\n    \"Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all\n    equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that\n    number were mentioned by Eusebius.\" [81:1]\n\nAnother passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a\nlittle further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon\nthis he writes as follows:--\n\n    \"This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius\n    with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented\n    themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the\n    important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century\n    after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and\n    there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious\n    Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The\n    confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven\n    Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven\n    Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long\n    Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms\n    which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their\n    composition.\" [81:2]\n\nAlthough I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are\nadvanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to\nits simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,\nif not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first\nreason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical\nadmission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles\nare put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,\ndoes not betray any knowledge of them, but the \"silence of Eusebius,\"\nthe earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely\nreceives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.\nSuppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how\nchanged their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would\nhave attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has\nconferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the\ncontroversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the\n\"prae-\" and \"post-Eusebian,\" making him the turning-point of the\ncontroversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: \"The\ntestimony of Eusebius first differentiates them.\" [82:1] The argument\n(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and\ninterpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same\naccusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian\nEpistles.\n\nThe fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second\nparagraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which\nI have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is\nthis:--\n\n    \"It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned\n    by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These\n    Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient\n    Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to\n    be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal\n    honour.\" [82:2]\n\nI will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with\nthe statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and\northodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--\n\n          DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.\n                                  |\n(4) \"It is not strictly true that | \"It is a mistake to think of _seven_\nthe seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having\nwith the confessedly spurious     | been _transmitted_ to us, for no\nEpistles. In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through\nMSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by\nversion, the spurious Epistles    | _editors_ from the Medicean MS.\ncome after the others; and the    | which contains so much that\ncircumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;--a fact\nfacts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a\nshows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of\naddition, borrowed from the Long  | _seven_ have overlooked.\" [83:2]\nRecension to complete the body    |\nof Ignatian letters.\" [83:1]      |\n\n\nI will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot\nadvances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the\ntestimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own\nstatement. Cureton says:\n\n    \"Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us\n    to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of\n    St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient\n    Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles\n    presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed\n    up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.\n    Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same\n    footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only\n    ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been\n    the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of\n    any mention of the others.\" [83:3]\n\n    \"The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour\n    of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the\n    Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which\n    have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both\n    Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two\n    distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to\n    Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two\n    recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the\n    circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its\n    reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies\n    of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,\n    Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...\n    In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the\n    former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and\n    there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of\n    the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed\n    one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice\n    result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to\n    Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others\n    in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological\n    order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,\n    at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had\n    despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence\n    of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the\n    recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the\n    rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained.\"\n    [84:1]\n\nProceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly\nshow the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the\nprincipal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin\nversion of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which\nwas at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined\ntable I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod.\nVat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a\nGreek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at\nthe same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third\n(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published\nby Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean\nMS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646.\n[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14.\n[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:\n\n        A.        |      B.       |       C.        |       D.        |\n     FABER STAP.  | VAL. PACAEUS. |     USHER       |    VOSSIUS.     |\n                  |               |                 |                 |\n  1. Trallians    | _Mar. Cass._  | Smyrn.          | Smyrn.          |\n  2. Magn.        | Trallians     | Polycarp        | Polycarp        |\n  3. _Tarsians_   | Magnes.       | Ephes.          | Ephes.          |\n  4. _Philip._    | _Tarsians_    | Magnes.         | Magnes.         |\n  5. Philad.      | _Philip.      | Philad.         | Philad.         |\n  6. Smyrn.       | Philad.       | Trallians       | Trallians       |\n  7. Polycarp     | Smyrn.        | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |\n  8. _Antioch._   | Polycarp      | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |\n  9. _Hero_       | _Antioch.     | _Tarsians_      | _Tarsians_      |\n 10. Ephes.       | _Hero_        | _Antioch._      |                 |\n 11. Romans       | Ephes.        | _Hero_          |                 |\n 12.              | Romans        | _Mart. Ign._    |                 |\n 13.              |               | Romans          |                 |\n\nI have given the order in MSS. containing the \"Long Recension\" as well\nas the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,\nthe variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have\nan undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is\nobvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and\nthe spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not\ncontain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle\nto the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression,\n\"embedded in the Martyrology,\" which is as spurious as any of the\nepistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which\nDr. Lightfoot contradicts.\n\nI must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn\nfor a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I\nhave to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out\nserious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my\nreferences, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before\nproceeding to them I may make one or two general observations.\nDr. Westcott says:--\n\n    \"I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite\n    capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his\n    while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,\n    arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many\n    cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress\n    the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics\n    are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by\n    evidence and by argument and not by authority.\" [86:1]\n\nNow the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have\nalmost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in\nthis work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the\nChurch, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted\nreverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a\nvery great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned\nand independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of\nlittle more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,\ntherefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these\nquestions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical\nauthority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to\nworks where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add,\nthat I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to\ncritics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is\nright that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and\nrecognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as\nthey have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as\nEnglish divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott,\nhowever, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who\noppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.\n\nDr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to\ninvestigate. He says:\n\n    \"Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion\n    which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than\n    this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One\n    example will show that I do not speak too strongly.\" [87:1]\n\nDr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I\nshall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.\nThe idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by\na single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed\ncontradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he\ndoes, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely\nworthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be\nunfair. The example selected is as follows:\n\n    \"'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at\n    all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,\n    A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the\n    amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by\n    the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)\"\n    [87:2]\n\n    \"'The references in support of these statements are the following:--\n\n    \"'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,\n    p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.\n    N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,\n    _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,\n    _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die \u00e4lt. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,\n    50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.\n    pp. 121 f., 136.\n\n    \"'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;\n    _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. T\u00fcb. Zeitschr. f.\n    Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.\n    p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die\n    \u00e4lt. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._\n    1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. V\u00e4ter_, p, 214.'\"\n\nUpon this Dr. Westcott remarks:\n\n    Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot\n    but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are\n    quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their\n    testimony as to the two points affirmed.\" [88:1]\n\nDr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact\nthat, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes\ndiffer in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being\nabsent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do\nnot appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the\nplace referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed\nbeing significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to\nVolkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar\ntransposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are\nmade in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the\ndate occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4,\nplaced at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is\nmade. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but\nwhich I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,\nalthough it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that\nthere has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only\nas to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have\nin every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my\nomission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.\nThe fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add\nto the note: \"The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or\n115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a\nmajority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later\ndate.\" Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the\ntext with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at\nthe head of note 3, with reference to \"A.D. 115\" in the text, but\nunfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of\nthis intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the\nwriters quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite\nregret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,\ntherefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in\nAntioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred\nto them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references\n[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two\nnotes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.\n\n                   NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.\n\n   DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.       |     THE TRUTH.\n                                    |\n                                    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., T\u00fcb.\n                                    | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149,\n                                    | Anm.) Baur states as the date of\n                                    | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's\n                                    | visit to Rome, \"during which the\n                                    | above order\" (the sentence against\n                                    | Ignatius) is said to have been\n                                    | given, A.D. 115 and not 107.\n                                    |\n\"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., T\u00fcb.   | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm.\nZeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155,     |\nAnm. In this note, which is too     | After showing the extreme\nlong  to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances\nso far as I see, _in any way        | under which the letters to the\nbearing_ upon the history [90:1]    | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said\nexcept a passing supposition 'wenn  | to have been written, Baur points\n... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn       | out the additional difficulty in\n[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...'         | regard to the latter that, if\n                                    | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his\n                                    | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him\n                                    | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D.\n                                    | 116, he must have become bishop at\n                                    | least in his 35th year, and\n                                    | continued so for upwards of half\n                                    | a century. The inference is clear\n                                    | that if Ignatius died so much\n                                    | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves\n                                    | the still greater improbability\n                                    | that Polycarp must have become\n                                    | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his\n                                    | 26th year, which is scarcely to be\n                                    | maintained, and the later date is\n                                    | thus obviously supported.\n                                    |\n                                    | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_,\n                                    | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.)\n                                    |\n                                    | Baur supports the assertion that\n                                    | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in\n                                    | Antioch, A.D. 115.\n                                    |\n\"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same.\np. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui |\ncirca annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' |\n                                    |\n\"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144      | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144.\n[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den       |\nBriefen des Ignatius Bischofes von  | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome\nAntiochien, der unter Trajan gegen  | under Trajan, A.D. 115.\n115 _zu Rom_ als M\u00e4rtyrer starb.'   |\n                                    |\n\"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i.      | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148.\np. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the     |\nedition which I have used].         | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under\n'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien  | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed\n(Euseb. \"H.E.\" iii. 36), _welcher_  | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116.\nwegen seines standhaften            |\nBekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan |\n115 _nach Rom gef\u00fchrt, und hier 116 |\nim Colosseum von L\u00f6wen zerrissen    |\nwurde_ (vgl. \u00a7 23, i.)' [where the  |\nsame statement is repeated].        |\n                                    |\n\"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I    | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f.\nhave not been able to see the book  |\nreferred to, but in his Lectures    | \"He (Ignatius) may have filled his\n'Die christliche Kirche der drei    | office about 40 years when the\nersten Jahrhunderte,\" [91:1] 1853   | Emperor, in the year 115 (according\n(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions   | to others still earlier), came to\nthe difficulty which has been felt  | Antioch. It was during his war\nas to the execution at Rome, while  | against the Parthians.\" [Hagenbach\nan execution at Antioch might have  | states some of the arguments for and\nbeen simpler and more impressive,   | against the martyrdom in Antioch,\nand then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former\nand passes on with 'Wie dem such    | of which he seems to consider more\nsei.']                              | probable.]\n                                    |\n\"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i.     | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19.\np. 19. 'All [the Epistles of        |\nIgnatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite.\nhimself, who was not thrown to the  |\nwild beasts in the amphitheatre at  | These \"peremptory statements\" are\nRome by command of Trajan, but at   | of course based upon what is\nAntioch on December 20, A.D. 115.   | considered satisfactory evidence,\nThe Epistles were written after     | though it may not be adduced here.\n150 A.D.' [For these peremptory     |\nstatements no authority whatever is |\nadduced].                           |\n                                    |\n\"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._  | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._\np. 79. '... Ignatius, _der          | p. 79.\nsp\u00e4testens 117 zu Rom den           |\nM\u00e4rtyrertod litt ..._'              | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome\n                                    | at latest A.D. 117.\n                                    |\n\"8. Scholten, _Die \u00e4lt. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die \u00e4lt. Zeugnisse_,\np. 40, mentions 115 as the year of  | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date\nIgnatius' death: p. 50 f. The       | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he\nIgnatian letters are rejected       | repeats this statement, and gives\npartly 'weil sie eine M\u00e4rtyrerreise | his support to the view that his\ndes Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on\nschon fr\u00fcher erkanntes              | the 20th December, A.D. 115.\nungeschichtliches Wesen durch       |\nVolkmar's nicht ungegr\u00fcndete        |\nVermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher   |\nwird. Darnach scheint n\u00e4mlich       |\nIgnatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl    |\ndes sanftm\u00fcthigen Trajans, sondern  |\nzu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines |\nam dreizehnten December 115         |\neingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer  |\neines abergl\u00e4ubischen Volkswahns am |\nzwanzigsten December dieses Jahres  |\nim Amphitheater den wilden Thieren  |\nzur Beute \u00fcberliefert worden zu     |\nsein.'                              |\n                                    |\n\"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52  | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52,\n[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I     | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch,\nhave not been able to consult, but  | 20th December, 115.\nfrom secondary references I gather  |\nthat it repeats the arguments given |\nunder the next reference.]          |\n                                    |\n\"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._\npp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der     | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom\nGemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius,    | at Antioch, 20th December, 115.\nwurde, w\u00e4hrend Trajan dortselbst    |\n\u00fcberwinterte, am 20. December den   |\nThieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der   |\ndurch das Erdbeben vom 13. December |\n115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi]       |\nerweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer      |\nzugleich der Siegesfeste des        |\nParthicus, welche die Judith-       |\nErz\u00e4hlung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio     |\n(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt  |\n...'                                |\n                                    |\n\"P. 136. The same statement is      | Ibid. p. 136. The same\nrepeated briefly.\" [93:1]           | statement, with fuller\n                                    | chronological evidence.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the\nlater date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in\nwhich Dr. Westcott finds \"nothing in any way bearing upon the history\nexcept a passing supposition,\" really advances a weighty argument for it\nand against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,\nthat argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not\nperceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as\nstatements of evidence.\n\nTo sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine\nwriters support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,\nthree of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to\nRome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is\ndoubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the\nmartyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the\npurpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,\nand the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,\nregarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of\nthe journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which\nI shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's\nstatements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention.\n\n                               NOTE 4.\n\n  DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.      |           THE TRUTH.\n                                  |\n1. Volkmar: see above.            | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._\n                                  | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.\n                                  |\n                                  | It will be observed on turning to\n                                  | the passage \"above\" (10), to which\n                                  | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes\n                                  | a single sentence containing merely\n                                  | a concise statement of facts, and\n                                  | that no indication is given to the\n                                  | reader that there is anything beyond\n                                  | it. At p. 136 \"the same statement\n                                  | is repeated briefly.\" Now either\n                                  | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most\n                                  | serious charge against my work, based\n                                  | upon this \"one example,\" has actually\n                                  | not taken the trouble to examine my\n                                  | reference to \"pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,\"\n                                  | and p. 50 ff., to which he would\n                                  | have found himself there directed,\n                                  | or he has acted towards me with a\n                                  | want of fairness which I venture to\n                                  | say he will be the first to regret,\n                                  | when he considers the facts.\n                                  |\n                                  | Would it be divined from the words\n                                  | opposite, and the sentence \"above,\"\n                                  | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate\n                                  | argument, extending over a dozen\n                                  | closely printed pages, to prove that\n                                  | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,\n                                  | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch\n                                  | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,\n                                  | probably as a sacrifice to the\n                                  | superstitious fury of the people\n                                  | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited\n                                  | by the earthquake which occurred on\n                                  | the thirteenth of that month? I shall\n                                  | not here attempt to give even an\n                                  | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall\n                                  | presently reproduce some of the\n                                  | arguments of Volkmar and others in a\n                                  | more condensed and consecutive form.\n                                  |\n                                  | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.\n                                  |\n                                  | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which\n                                  | he had fully argued in the above\n                                  | work and elsewhere.\n                                  |\n2. \"Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc.,    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., T\u00fcb.\nT\u00fcb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3,   | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.\np. 149 f.                         |\n                                  |\n\"In this passage Baur discusses   | Baur enters into a long and minute\ngenerally the historical          | examination of the historical\ncharacter of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of\nhe considers, as a whole, to be   | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian\n'doubtful and incredible.' To     | Epistles, and pronounces the whole\nestablish this result he notices  | to be fabulous, and more especially\nthe relation of Christianity to   | the representation of his sentence\nthe Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He\nwhich he regards as inconsistent  | shows that, while isolated cases of\nwith the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under\nand the improbable circumstances  | occurred during Trajan's reign may\nof the journey. The personal      | justify the mere tradition that he\ncharacteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no\nhistory of Ignatius, are, in his  | instance recorded in which a\nopinion, all a mere creation of   | Christian was condemned to be sent\nthe imagination. The utmost he    | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;\nallows is that he may have        | that such a sentence is opposed to\nsuffered martyrdom.\" (P. 169.)    | all historical data of the reign of\n                                  | Trajan, and to all that is known of\n                                  | his character and principles; and\n                                  | that the whole of the statements\n                                  | regarding the supposed journey\n                                  | directly discredit the story. The\n                                  | argument is much too long and\n                                  | elaborate to reproduce here, but I\n                                  | shall presently make use of some\n                                  | parts of it.\n                                  |\n\"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_,   | \"Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,\n1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1.          |  i. p. 440, Anm. 1.\n                                  |\n\"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_  | \"The reality is 'wohl nur' that in\nund die Abf\u00fchrung dazu nach Rom   | the year 115, when Trajan wintered\n... mag auch unter Trajan nichts  | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered\nzu ungew\u00f6hnliches gewesen sein,   | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a\naber ... bleibt ie Geschichte     | sacrifice to popular fury\nseines M\u00e4rtyrerthums auch nach    | consequent on the earthquake of\nder Vertheidigung derselben von   | that year. The rest was developed\nLipsius ... h\u00f6chst                | out of the reference to Trajan for\nunwahrscheinlich. Das Factische   | the glorification of martyrdom.\"\nist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J.  |\n115, als Trajan in Antiochien     |\n\u00fcberwinterte, in Folge des        |\nErdbebens in diesem Jahr, in      |\nAntiochien selbst als ein Opfer   |\nder Volkswuth zum M\u00e4rtyrer        |\nwurde.'                           |\n                                  |\n4. Davidson: see above.           | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.\n                                  |\n                                  | \"All (the Epistles) are posterior\n                                  | to Ignatius himself, who was not\n                                  | thrown to the wild beasts in the\n                                  | amphitheatre at Rome by command of\n                                  | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December\n                                  | 20th, A.D. 115.\"\n                                  |\n5. Scholten: see above.           | Scholten, _Die \u00e4lt. Zeugnisse_,\n                                  | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are\n                                  | declared to be spurious for various\n                                  | reasons, but partly \"because they\n                                  | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius\n                                  | to Rome, the unhistorical character\n                                  | of which, already earlier recognised\n                                  | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,\n                                  | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;\n                                  | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.\n                                  | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.\n                                  | V\u00e4ter_, p. 210 ff.; R\u00e9ville,\n                                  | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is\n                                  | made all the more probable by\n                                  | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.\n                                  | According to it Ignatius is reported\n                                  | to have become the prey of wild beasts\n                                  | on the 20th December, 115, not in the\n                                  | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of\n                                  | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch\n                                  | itself, as the victim of superstitious\n                                  | popular fury consequent on an\n                                  | earthquake which occurred on the\n                                  | 13th December of that year.\"\n                                  |\n6. \"Francke, _Zur Gesch.          | \"Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,\nTrajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative\n[A discussion of the date of the  | reference to establish the important\nbeginning of Trajan's Parthian    | point of the date of the Parthian\nwar, which he fixes in A.D. 115,  | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.\nbut he decides nothing directly   | Dr. Westcott omits the \"Cf.\"\nas to the time of Ignatius'       |\nmartyrdom.]                       |\n                                  |\n7. \"Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. V\u00e4ter_,  | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. V\u00e4ter_, p. 214 ff.\np. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld   | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's\npoints out the objections to the  | argument which is referred to\nnarrative in the Acts of the      | above, and while declaring the\nMartyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more\nrefers to the period between      | especially the journey to Rome,\nEusebius and Jerome: setting      | incredible, he considers the mere\naside this detailed narrative he  | fact that Ignatius suffered\nconsiders the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding\nof the general statements in the  | which the possibility has been made\nletters. The mode of punishment   | out. He shows [97:1] that the\nby a provincial governor causes   | martyrology states the 20th\nsome difficulty: 'bedenklicher,'  | December as the day of Ignatius'\nhe continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were\nandre Punct, die Versendung nach  | buried at Antioch, where they still\nRom.' Why was the punishment not  | were in the days of Chrysostom and\ncarried out at Antioch? Would it  | Jerome. He argues from all that is\nbe likely that under an Emperor   | known of the reign and character of\nlike Trajan a prisoner like       | Trajan, that such a sentence from\nIgnatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite\nfight in the amphitheatre? The    | unsupported and inconceivable. A\ncircumstances of the journey as   | provincial Governor might have\ndescribed are most improbable.    | condemned him ad bestias, but in\nThe account of the persecution    | any case the transmission to Rome\nitself is beset by difficulties.  | is more doubtful. He shows,\nHaving set out these objections   | however, that the whole story is\nhe leaves the question, casting   | inconsistent with historical facts,\ndoubt (like Baur) upon the whole  | and the circumstances of the\nhistory, and gives no support to  | journey incredible. It is\nthe bold affirmation of a         | impossible to give even a sketch of\nmartyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over\nDecember, A.D. 115.'\"             | five long pages, but although\n                                  | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer\n                                  | to the theory of the martyrdom in\n                                  | Antioch itself, his reasoning\n                                  | forcibly points to that conclusion,\n                                  | and forms part of the converging\n                                  | trains of reasoning which result in\n                                  | that \"demonstration\" which I\n                                  | assert. I will presently make use\n                                  | of some of his arguments.\n\nAt the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:\n\n    \"In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments\n    in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the\n    references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,\n    what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'\" [98:1]\n\nIt is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of\nthe fact than the assertion that \"Volkmar alone offers any arguments in\nsupport of the statement in the text,\" and it is incomprehensible upon\nany ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate\nidea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but\nI hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to\nDr. Westcott's remark on the \"alleged 'demonstration,'\" it must be\nevident that when a writer states anything to be \"demonstrated\" he\nexpresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity\nof opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer\nto writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to\nbe demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.\nA critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,\nbut he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all\nwhen the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld\nis referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:\n\n    \"It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.\n    Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,\n    agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which\n    runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous\n    and misleading\"--[99:1]\n\nDr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his\nown criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is \"frivolous and\nmisleading,\" and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has\nbeen, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy\nof my references.\n\nAs Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in\nregard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,\nand complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme\nbrevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and\nmust now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to\nsuppose that soldiers such as the \"ten leopards\" described in the\nEpistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing\nChristianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his\njourney, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as\nwell as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various\nChurches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding\nthe Roman procedure in cases that are said to be \"known.\" These cases,\nhowever, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is\nassumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should\nreceive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything\nbut extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many\ncases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of\nIgnatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai\neuergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,\nthe \"ten leopards\" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the\nleniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described\nby the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing\napproaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be\npointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,\neven if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very\ndifferent; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the\nextant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the\ncontrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.\n\nDr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a\nChristian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who \"writes\nletters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with\nChurches and individuals as he desires.\" [101:1] It is scarcely possible\nto imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and\nPaul, as narrated in the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" although doubtless the\nstory of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the\nlatter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a\nChristian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a\nRoman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly\ndeclared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds\n(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he\nhad appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one\nwhich secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius \"fights with\nbeasts from Syria even unto Rome,\" and is cruelly treated by his \"ten\nleopards,\" but Paul is represented as receiving very different\ntreatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come\nand minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is\nsaid that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,\ngave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome\nhe was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him\n(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house\n(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under\nwhich the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.\n\n\"But the most powerful testimony,\" Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, \"is\nderived from the representations of a heathen writer.\" [101:2] The case\nof Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate\nthan that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know\nlittle or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as\nserious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,\na cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,\nfound it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his\ntravels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,\naccording to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his\nhands, so that he became in his own person \"prophet, high-priest, and\nruler of a synagogue,\" and further \"they spoke of him as a god, used him\nas a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man.\" [102:2] After a time he\nwas put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real\nservice to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in\nprison he is said to have received those services from Christians which\nDr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the\nGovernor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,\nliving in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last\nthey quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some\nforbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself\ninto the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An\nearthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out\nfrom the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,\nPeregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by\nthe fire.\n\nNow this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct\nsatire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, \"a parody of the\nhistory of Jesus.\" [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any\nof the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is\nobvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to\nprisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to\nPeregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of\nthe satire.\n\nThere is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account\nof Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as\nevidence for them. [103:1] \"The singular correspondence in this\nnarrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking\ncoincidences of expression,\" they argue, show \"that Lucian was\nacquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters.\"\nThese are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in\nreferring to this argument, by the words \"if it be true,\" and does not\nexpress his own opinion; but he goes on to say: \"At all events it is\nconclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners\nwere treated in the very way described in these epistles.\" [103:2] On\nthe contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true\nthat Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles\nand Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as\nindependent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the\ntreatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be\nshown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical\nvalue. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man\nconfined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and\nnot pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius\ncondemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,\ncruelly treated by the \"ten leopards;\" and further the liberty of\npseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of\nPeregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free\nintercourse as they represent.\n\nI will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of\nthe writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,\nin which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,\ndemonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered\nmartyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into\nthe matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and\nI will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the\nsource of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when\nnecessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies\nset forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at\nleast, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch\nduring the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in\nthe amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,\nhe is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more\ndifficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by\nhimself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to\nsecure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but\nall the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he\n\"fights with beasts.\" Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely\nreceives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being\nmolested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to\naccompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,\nbut he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,\nwhich, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words\nwhich might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled\nwith advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the\nepiscopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions\nof the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.\n\nWhen we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by\nhistorical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known\nof the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as\nof the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that\nIgnatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a\nprovincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.\nIt is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of\nChristians, although there may have been instances in which prominent\nmembers of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular\nfury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom\nof Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not\ncondemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the\npurpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In\nfact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although\nChristians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is\nno instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to\nRome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of\nTrajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by\nBaur, says: \"As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere\nfanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined\nwith clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open\ndemonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by\npersecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and\nthe matter by degrees come to an end.\" [106:1] This was certainly the\npolicy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this\nsevere sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation\nexcited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a\nlong journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some\nof the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various\nChristian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the\nfervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have\nbeen a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and\nenthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results\nof impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to\naccept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole\ntradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. \"We do not recognise the\nEmperor Trajan in this narrative\" (the martyrology), he says, \"therefore\ncannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well\nas that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild\nbeasts.\" [106:2]\n\nIf, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan\nhimself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,\nthe story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that\nsuch an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition\nto the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor\ndid pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in\nAntioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the\nmore conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the\nclement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_\nwould have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is\nbesides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,\nof Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome\nis in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that\nIgnatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death\nduring this reign, more especially if the event be associated with\nsome sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,\nto which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not\nwithout indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.\n\nIt is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is\nA.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake\noccurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to\nexcite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here\nthe account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he\nmentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still\nassociates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:\n\"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with\nsingular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch\n... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and\ndestructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most\nappalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for\nthe Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings\nfrom all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;\nhouses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:\nthe Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped\nthrough a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some\ndays in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of\nthe Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards\nthe end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,\nwas arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of\npublic calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the\npanic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe\nthat, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by\nthe infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,\nthe execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome.\"\n[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution\nin Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the\nearthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took\nplace on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His\nremains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,\ninterred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the\nonly part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome\nbut in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against\nthe [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.\n\nI will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just\nmade, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first\nplace he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.\nI will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important\nstatement. He says:--\n\n    \"The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing\n    in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the\n    earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop\n    of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:\n    emartur\u00ease]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was\n    exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'\" [109:1]\n\nDr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.\nHe argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,\nand, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece\nof information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere\nmay record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish\nstories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything\nelse stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are\ndisposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot\nalso assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced\nby Volkmar \"receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who\ngives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to\nthe Emperor.\" [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts\nit, for Ignatius can only have \"reviled\" Trajan when brought before\nhim, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by\nthe fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the\nBishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas\nis in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the\nmain, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually\nmakes use of the following extraordinary argument:--\n\n    \"But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is\n    capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some\n    earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.\n    The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used\n    especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,\n    including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression\n    [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either\n    'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A\n    blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either\n    expression.\" [110:1]\n\nThis is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not\nsufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his\nlanguage. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:\nmarturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,\nwere not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius\nwhich Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express\nmartyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in\nthe first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so\nimplicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.\n\"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify\n'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]\nonly the execution.\" [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's\nown rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such\nquibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems\nexcellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.\n\nThat the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the\nFathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that\nnone of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian\nEpistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,\nOrigen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and\nChrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is\nthe first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and\ndifferent authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to\nRome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas\nlived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is\nobjected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet\nhe repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against\nMalalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of\nEpistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,\nand had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,\nsome two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly\nhave accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have\nbeen written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have\nshaped the prevailing tradition.\n\nThe remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,\nlong remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the\ntime of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and\nceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had\npreviously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that\nthe relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum\nand carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some\ncenturies, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome\nto Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch\nto Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead\nof this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in\nAntioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they\nhad been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which\nreconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend\nof the Ignatian Epistles.\n\nThe 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in\nthe Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is\nundeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated\non that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin\nChurch it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that\nthis was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was\nevidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively\ncontradict the views of his own Church, says: \"Ignatii festum Graeci\nvigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta\ntestantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus\nreliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat.\" [112:3] Zahn\n[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was\ncelebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance\nwhich prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]\n\nOn the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess\nregarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that\nIgnatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and\nall the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles\nthemselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in\nAntioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the\nstatement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based\nupon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in\ndiscussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And\nwhat is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles\nand martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,\nare \"the one more fabulous than the other.\" There are fifteen Epistles\nall equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down\ntogether in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin\nonly, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of\nwhich there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven\nthere are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,\nknown as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected\nas shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics\nassert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.\nBesides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,\nthe Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine\nletters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal\nand external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.\nThe second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I\nventure to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous\nthan in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the\nsimple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample\njustification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,\nthat \"the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification\nand fraud.\" Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as\ngenuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this\nmass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents\nwhich lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove\nanything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the\nvalue of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in\nfavour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.\n\nI have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their\nattacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,\nand I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of\n\"misrepresentation\" and \"misstatement,\" so lightly and liberally\nadvanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is\nimpossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,\nto escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but\nI have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to\nthink that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the\nactual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has\nbeen made.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\n_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._\n\n\nIn my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by\ncritics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and\nI more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide\nthat it is either spurious or interpolated.\n\nThat an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts,\nbut the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual\nEpistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of\ncourse assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part\nof it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that\nsupposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom\nof Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly\nbelieved. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167,\nand he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius\nQuadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia\nMinor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided\nthat Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp\nwas martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death\nmust have taken place in one of those years.\n\nHaving said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of\nPolycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been\nexpected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing\nthe epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and\ntheir sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels\nrecord. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find\nsmall faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having\narrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and\ndoes not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of\nGospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which\nother apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural\nReligion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest\nform for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses\nexpressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in\nour Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are\nreferred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their\nauthorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could\nbe established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could\nthis do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the\nreality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels\nwould be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in\nthe actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty\nquite untouched.\n\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\n_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._\n\n\nDr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,\nalthough with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.\nI need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject\nfully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to\nrefer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is\nmerely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few\nwords on the fundamental question at issue.\n\nPapias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of\nwhom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the\nfirst writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have\nwritten a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little\nweight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,\nhis remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.\n\nEusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] \"Exposition of the Lord's\nOracles\" ([Greek: Logi\u00f4n kuriak\u00f4n ex\u00eag\u00easis]), Papias wrote as follows:\n\n    \"And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter\n    of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,\n    without, however, recording in order what was either said or done\n    by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;\n    but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his\n    instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of\n    giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]\n    ([Greek: all' ouch h\u00f4sper suntaxin t\u00f4n kuriak\u00f4n poioumenos logi\u00f4n]\n    or [Greek: log\u00f4n).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus\n    wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his\n    one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any\n    false statement therein.\" [118:1]\n\nThe first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here\ngiven correspond with the Gospel \"according to Mark\" which we now\npossess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed \"without\nrecording in order what was either said or done by Christ\"? A negative\nanswer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar\nenquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has\nconsequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that\nthere has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to\na work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.\nHowever, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of\nargument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the\nvalue of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our\nsecond Gospel.\n\nIn the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who\nis said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the\ncircumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that\nhe merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.\nIt is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy\nof Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false\nstatement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one\nsupposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented\nwhat he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can\nbe received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.\nThe testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,\nconfessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to\nattest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his\ninformation from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal\nevidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.\nBecause some person, whose very identity is far from established, says\nso, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of\nthe early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the\nGospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so\nLuke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with\nPaul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason\nwhatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the\ncontents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render\nmore probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as\nit lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not\nhere go.\n\nSetting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability\nof the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have\nbeen written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly\nappreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required\nas to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself\nseen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer\nexamination of the supposed evidence.\n\n    \"But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:\n    'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles\n    in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'\"\n    [119:1]\n\nDr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing\nthat this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the\nPresbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with\nhim in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the\nstatement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,\nDr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so\nfar as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but\nfor the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. \"But it does not follow\nthat his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have\nbeen. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he\nsaid.\" [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always\nexercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with\nthe conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what\ninference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general\ncorrectness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this\ndoubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as\nevidence?\n\nI cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground\nof possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt\nas to what the actual statement was. \"Matthew composed the Oracles in\nthe Hebrew language,\" and not in Greek, \"and each one interpreted them\nas he could.\" The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our\nfirst synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the\noriginal composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at\nthe best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,\nbecause it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our\nsynoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if\nit be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a\ntranslation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and\nno one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may\nbe, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.\n\nThe inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw\nfrom the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his\nsevere handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.\nPapias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of\nMatthew that \"each one interpreted them as he could.\" The use of the\nverb \"interpreted\" in the past tense, instead of \"interprets\" in the\npresent, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias\ncontemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one\ninterpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the\nnecessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives\nat the conclusion: \"In other words, it implies the existence of a\nrecognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek\nSt. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all\nconsiderations of historical probability to suppose that it was any\nother than our St. Matthew.\" [121:1] It is very probable that, at the\ntime when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the\n\"Oracles\" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the\nwords imply a \"recognised\" version which was necessarily \"our St.\nMatthew\" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth\nwhile again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to\ninterpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot\nwell be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the\nsubstitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and\nDr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that\nour first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have\nbeen translated from the Hebrew at all: \"If he had said that it is not\na homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would\nhave been nearer the truth.\" [122:1]\n\nThat Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid\nof at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that\nhe has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have\nbeen correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not\nknow exactly what Papias said. \"He may have expressed himself in\nlanguage quite consistent with the phenomena.\" How unlimited a field\nfor conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias\nsaid than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may\nhave said something more, which may have been consistent with any\ntheory we may advance. \"Or, on the other hand,\" Dr. Lightfoot\ncontinues, \"he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which\nsome later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the\nHebrews was the original of our St. Matthew.\" [122:2] Who would think\nthat this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me\nfor pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of\nvague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot\ncontinues: \"In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to\nconjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion\nunfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of\nthe document itself.\" [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself\nany support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,\nand set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly\ndemonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the\nFathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions\nupon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.\n\nIn admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel\nof the Hebrews \"for the original of our St. Matthew,\" Dr. Lightfoot,\nin his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,\nhas perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general\nflavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,\nthe obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,\nPapias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation\nwhich Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been \"recognised,\" and which\nhe declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least\nthat, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our\npresent Gospel \"according to Matthew\" than to any of the other three,\nit very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could\nquietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel\nof the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we\nare entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents\nof the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius\nthat he relates \"a story about a woman accused of many sins before the\nLord\" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's\nGospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), \"which the Gospel according to the Hebrews\ncontains.\" [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could\nnot confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes\nof Dr. Lightfoot's argument?\n\nDr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,\naccepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and\ncalled the \"Oracles\" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic\nas we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of\nDiscourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,\n[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some\npoints of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion\nwith so much vigour as might have been expected. \"The theory is not\nwithout its attractions,\" he says; \"it promises a solution of some\ndifficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would\njustify its acceptance.\" [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it \"is\nencumbered with the most serious difficulties.\" Dr. Lightfoot does not\nthink that only [Greek: logoi] (\"discourses\" or \"sayings\") could be\ncalled [Greek: logia] (\"oracles\"), and says that usage does not warrant\nthe restriction. [124:3] I had contended that \"however much the\nsignification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])\nbecame afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as\nwell as sayings,\" and that \"there is no linguistic precedent for\nstraining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond\na collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine.\"\n[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any\nforce it involves one or both of the two assumptions: \"_first_, that\nbooks which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be\ncalled 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine\nsayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,\ncould not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike\nare contradicted by facts.\" [125:1] The second point he considers\nproved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the\ndiscussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.\n[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's\nGospel was, at that time, considered \"Scripture,\" but, on the contrary,\nthat there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.\n\nRegarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:\n\n    \"The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for\n    instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that\n    they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we\n    suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures\n    by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books\n    of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such\n    fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?\n    Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of\n    the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the\n    wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21\n    _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next\n    chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings\n    than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews\n    refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his\n    meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine\n    teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts\n    of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament\n    writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with\n    their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in\n    Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:\n    logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the\n    _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest\n    anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other\n    passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a\n    Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the\n    sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and\n    immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12\n    _sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine\n    precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later\n    Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of\n    the Lord.\" [126:1]\n\nHe then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and\nBasil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine\nmyself to that which I have quoted.\n\n\"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were\nentrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but\nthe Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?\" argues\nDr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not\nrefer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or\nrevelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately\nto the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,\naccording to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the\nDivine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to\nmankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,\nwhere Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on\nMount Sinai, \"who received living oracles ([Greek: logia z\u00f4nta]) to give\nunto us.\" Of this nature were the \"oracles of God\" which were entrusted\nto the Jews. Further, the phrase: \"the first principles of the oracles\nof God\" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as\nDr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own\nteaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly\nexplains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when\nhe says: \"God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,\nat the end of these days spake unto us in His Son.\" Dr. Lightfoot also\nurges that Philo applies the term \"oracle\" ([Greek: logion]) to the\n_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo\nconsidered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and\nheld that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When\nhe applies the term \"oracle\" to any of these it is not to the narrative,\nbut to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained\nin it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant\nmanner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the\nexpression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, \"Let him speak as the oracles of God\"\n([Greek: h\u00f4s logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the\nNew Testament. He does point out the passage in the \"Epistle of Clement\nof Rome,\" than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell\nagainst him. \"Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the\noracles of God.\" The \"oracles of God\" are pointedly distinguished from\nthe sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are\ncontained in the \"sacred Scriptures,\" but are not synonymous with the\nwhole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much\n\"Polycarp\" included in the expression: \"pervert the oracles of the\nLord,\" but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus\nregarding \"a resurrection and a judgment,\" and not to historical books.\n\nIn replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I\nhave said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in\nconnection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have\nconcerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but\nhe has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not\nscrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in\nsuggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It\ncomes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account\nof the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we\nhave no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,\nwe have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or\nincorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards\nestablishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine\nRevelation.\n\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\n_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._\n\n\nThroughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most\ncomplete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the\nevidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in\n_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands\nand misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes\nincreasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully\ndenominates: \"the later school of St. John.\" He evidently considers that\nhe is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the\nwritings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius\nApollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected\ndocuments like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter\nof the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of\nChristianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He\nreally seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is\nclear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these\nparticular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do\nnot suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that\nour four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during\nthis period of the second century. It is a very different matter to\nexamine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin,\nauthenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of\nmiracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.\n\nI cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by\nany obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other\napologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my\nargument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few\nsentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to\nrestore the discussion to its proper lines.\n\nIn winding up the first part of the work, which was principally\nconcerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--\n\n    \"Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to\n    embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and\n    the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by\n    supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion\n    complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be\n    any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the\n    Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being\n    clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free\n    from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly\n    to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts\n    have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to\n    miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and\n    conclusive.\" [130:1]\n\nBefore commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was\ncareful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to\nproceed. I said:\n\n    \"Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,\n    authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a\n    few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of\n    criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to\n    the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but\n    simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of\n    ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,\n    certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely\n    conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively\n    as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for\n    information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged\n    indications of their use ... It is still more important that we\n    should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels\n    existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most\n    of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than\n    refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement\n    of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:\n    polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the\n    things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,\n    evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar\n    works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity\n    of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that\n    many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each\n    other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,\n    for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to\n    the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with\n    quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with\n    passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,\n    however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the\n    similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof\n    that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from\n    some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially\n    not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from\n    sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our\n    Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources\n    cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would\n    suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious\n    that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot\n    in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is\n    unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic\n    times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of\n    our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.\n    Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence\n    of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these\n    Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal\n    to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any\n    circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and\n    a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity.\"\n    [132:1]\n\nDr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has\nmade the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his\nessay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling\nattention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have\nbeen better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these\ncanons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which\nhe can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has\nadopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after\nall, with many it is quite as effective.\n\nIt may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for\nsuch canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be\ndone very simply from our own Gospels:\n\n    \"Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its\n    due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,\n    discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,\n    to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it\n    stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment\n    suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the\n    'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works\n    of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an\n    unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de\n    pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are\n    few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send\n    forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):\n    behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of\n    wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and\n    others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a\n    compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first\n    Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his\n    disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois math\u00eatais autou]), The harvest,'\n    &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: eg\u00f4]) send you forth as\n    sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'\n    &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It\n    would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a\n    continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the\n    probability of a different source, and still more so to point out\n    that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,\n    might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the\n    first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation\n    was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,\n    is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,\n    had been lost.\n\n    \"Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might\n    find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to\n    yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which\n    is hypocrisy ([Greek: h\u00eatis estin hupocrisis]). For there is\n    nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be\n    revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,\n    be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of\n    our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very\n    immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory\n    words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a\n    part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,\n    'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the\n    Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukai\u00f4n]), and Matt. x. 26,\n    '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:\n    kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not\n    be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of\n    Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in\n    separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it\n    is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly\n    established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a\n    combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according\n    to Luke,' xii. 1-2.\" [133:1]\n\n    \"If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which\n    differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.\n    Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source\n    assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the\n    work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiket\u00eas])\n    can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the\n    other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye\n    cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed\n    as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly\n    corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,\n    [Greek: oiket\u00eas], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident\n    and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the\n    first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word\n    from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to\n    Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third\n    Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed\n    source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the\n    Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:\n    philount\u00f4n]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the\n    synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,\n    and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater\n    damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation\n    from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a\n    couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.\n    46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic\n    critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not\n    derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more\n    instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer\n    extant, and that in some early work there existed the following\n    passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:\n    trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the\n    kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from\n    memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of\n    the substitution of [Greek: trup\u00eamatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It\n    would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25.\"\n    [134:1]\n\nIllustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to\nanyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and\nvariations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it\nmust be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels\nexisted (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from\ncirculation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the\nlaws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to\nothers in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived\nfrom these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is\nnot necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,\nbut the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring\nevidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.\n\nComing now more directly to the essay on \"The later school of St. John,\"\nit is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the\naccount of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the\nmore than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a\nnote that \"the objections which have been urged against this narrative\nare not serious.\" [135:1] They have been considered so by men like\nKeim, Sch\u00fcrer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need\nto be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.\nDr. Lightfoot points out that an \"idea of literal conformity to the\nlife and Passion of Christ runs through the document,\" [135:2] and\nit is chiefly on the fact that \"most of the incidents have their\ncounterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by\nthe synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John,\" that he\nrelies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that\nnot only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document,\nis it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single\nGospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship\nand trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot\nin connection with this document further on.\n\nThe same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed\n[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is\nunnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially\nas Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing\nwhich materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments\nattributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot\nchiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full\nknowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the\nfour canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of\nthe fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted\nacquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply\nenquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis,\nin the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly\nversed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our\nfour Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the\nfact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not\nadd one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their\ncomposers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.\nIf his words regarding the \"Books of the Old Testament\" imply \"a\ncorresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books\nof the New Testament,\" [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even\nin that case \"we cannot,\" as Dr. Lardner frankly states, \"infer the\nnames or the exact number of those books.\" As for adding anything\nto the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached\nby Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for\nwhich his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of\nvehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings\nmerely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if,\nwhen to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence\nof Melito to greater account. [136:2]\n\nNor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris,\n[137:1] whose \"Apology\" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract\npreserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of\nwhich all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the\nwriter in connection with the Paschal Festival says that \"they affirm\nthat Matthew represents\" one thing \"and, on their showing, the Gospels\nseem to be at variance with one another.\" [137:2] If, therefore, the\npassage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic,\nand by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the\ncomposition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show\nthat they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we\nconsider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really\ncontributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a\njot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of\nDivine Revelation.\n\nWith regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius\npreserves a passage from a letter which he wrote \"in the closing years\nof the second century,\" [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force\nthe Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In\nthis he uses the expression \"he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,\"\nwhich occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the\nmeagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a\nphrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the\nslightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when\nthe importance which is attached to them is taken into account.\n\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\n_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._\n\n\nA severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus\nAurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an\naccount of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter\nfrom the persecuted communities, addressed \"to the brethren that are in\nAsia and Phrygia.\" This epistle is in great part preserved to us by\nEusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents\nthat Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for\nthe sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the\nGospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in\n_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and\na half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how\nexceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those\ndocuments. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is\ndirectly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any\nsupposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity\nto passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness\nwhich I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the\nobject and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course,\nindignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect\ncoincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere\nfully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions\nof his essay here.\n\n    \"Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,\n    though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder\n    Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai t\u00ea tou presbuterou Zacharious\n    marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the\n    commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have\n    the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias\n    and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was\n    filled with the Holy Ghost.'\" [140:2]\n\nDr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression\n\"the testimony of Zacharias\" ([Greek: t\u00ea Zachariou marturia]), which he\npoints out \"might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'\n_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'\n_i.e._ his martyrdom.\" By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, \"to\" was\naccidentally substituted for \"by\" in my translation of this passage in\na very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was\nalmost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.\nDr. Lightfoot seizes upon the \"to\" in the early copy which I had sent\nto him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the\ninterpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon\nthe rendering \"by\" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could\nnot extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the\npassage in my complete edition:\n\n    \"The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian\n    community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first\n    of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that\n    time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--\n    martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the\n    martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,\n    we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the\n    word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere\n    description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer.\"\n\nThis is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld,\nand many eminent critics.\n\nIt will be observed that the saying that he had \"walked in all the\ncommandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,\" which is supposed to\nbe taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth,\nthe father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say\nanything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in\nLuke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to\nanother Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.\n\n    \"Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,\n    the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are\n    supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable\n    to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which\n    likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in\n    the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,\n    although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any\n    narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the\n    Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered\n    an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of\n    his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written\n    narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first\n    chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth\n    recognisable book.'\" [141:1]\n\nNo apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can\nhave written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where,\nthen, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited\nto himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the\nprologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work,\nwould lead us to infer a written source.\n\n    \"The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the\n    history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in\n    which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also\n    the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the\n    history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the\n    'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does\n    not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures\n    of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in\n    it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and\n    use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so\n    far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which\n    he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already\n    observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming\n    that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates\n    acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic.\"\n    [142:1]\n\nSuch being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader\nwhether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced\nwithout the slightest indication of the source from which they were\nderived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have\nbeen taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in\ncirculation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone\naccustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove\nthe existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.\n\n    \"But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third\n    Gospel in this way\" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), \"what will he say to\n    those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we\n    are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like\n    Stephen, the perfect martyr, \"Lord, lay not this sin to their\n    charge.'\" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them\n    another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he\n    supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical\n    with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been\n    taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter\n    case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.\n    Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?\"\n    [143:1]\n\nMy reply to this is:\n\n    \"There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and\n    the source from which the writers obtained their information about\n    Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of\n    the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,\n    the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may\n    well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings\n    then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,\n    Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts\n    derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does\n    not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never\n    was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story\n    must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,\n    then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the\n    use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus\n    indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the\n    Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of\n    Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown\n    upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor\n    its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be\n    in the slightest degree established.\" [143:2]\n\nApart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under\nexamination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that\nthe \"Acts of the Apostles\" was not in existence at this date. The only\ninterest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the\npaucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has\nbeen necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the\napologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that \"many took\nin hand\" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the\nbooks of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian\nliterature in circulation in the early days of the Church.\n\nI need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the\nfourth Gospel. \"There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you\nwill think that he doeth God service.\" The Gospel has: \"There cometh an\nhour when,\" &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain\nthat the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any\nother, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add\none iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the\nGospel. Dr. Lightfoot says \"The author of _Supernatural Religion_\nmaintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the\noutside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public\ndocument with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our\ncanonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels\ninstead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are\nactually found in our canonical Gospels.\" [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot\nbetrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns\nupon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular\ndocuments, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did\ncontain similar passages to those in debate.\n\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\n_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_\n\n\nI need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the\n_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what\nI had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may\nhere confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has\nappeared since the publication of my work.\n\nAn Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of\nEphraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as\n1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a\nLatin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and\nthis has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument\nregarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more\nimportant addition to critical materials was made by the publication\nin Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,\nwith a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before\nDr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only\nrefers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt\nas to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that\nthey establish the truth of the \"ecclesiastical theory\" regarding the\n_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.\n\nIn order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will\nbe well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius\nis the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I\ngive Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--\n\n    \"Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not\n    how ([Greek: ouk oid' hop\u00f4s]), of the Gospels, and called it\n    _Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some\n    persons) even to the present day.\" [146:1]\n\nI argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally\nacquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere\nhearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--\n\n    \"His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is\n    altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no\n    personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in\n    speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the\n    contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve\n    the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what\n    he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so\n    that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the\n    contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in\n    the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it\n    commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very\n    often to passages which he himself quotes in the context.\" [146:3]\n\nIf this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally\ncertain that [Greek: ouk oid' hop\u00f4s] is used to express ignorance,\nalthough Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget\nthe fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference\nfrom the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not\nspeak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom\nI may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and\nshould these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to\nZahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.\n[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian\nand gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.\n\nDr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the\n_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876\nby Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did\nnot overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value\nto require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine\nof Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle\nof the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty\nbe placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which\nit is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with\nthe Old Testament, \"the New of the _Diatessaron_.\" This is assumed to\nbe Tatian's \"Harmony of the Gospels,\" and I shall not further argue\nthe point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding\nof its character and contents?\n\nThe next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites\nthem, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the\ntwelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--\n\n    \"Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,\n    selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed\n    a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.\n    On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement\n    was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also\n    called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the\n    _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to\n    the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that\n    _Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed\n    this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several\n    things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and\n    rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met\n    with.\" [148:1]\n\nThis information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it\nremembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for\nthis we should not have known from any ancient independent source that\nEphraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It\nis important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by\nAmmonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius\nin his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a\nthird, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of\nthe _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:\n\n    \"It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of\n    Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four\n    Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of\n    Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving\n    its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages\n    from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;\n    of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could\n    confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.\n    Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in\n    his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same\n    place.\" [148:2]\n\nDoubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse\nthem, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen\nmore than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.\nThe statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of\nAmmonius \"took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its\ncontinuity,\" certainly does not tend to show that it was \"quite\ndifferent in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian,\" on the\nsupposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the\nwork of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,\nin preference to making any statement of my own:--\n\n    \"On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this\n    Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon\n    on the Mount to the Last Supper (\u00a7\u00a7 30-134) that Tatian, like his\n    brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his\n    work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.\n    Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out\n    of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other\n    hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,\n    in complete defiance of chronological order.\" [149:1]\n\nThis is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_\nof Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--\n\n    \"He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the\n    corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a\n    necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was\n    destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading.\" [149:2]\n\nThe next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.\n453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes\nthe suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,\nwhich were in use \"not only among persons belonging to his sect, but\nalso among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine,\" who did not\nperceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and\nother passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David\nafter the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn\npoints out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these\npassages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]\nas they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite\ninformation which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond\nthe opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered\nworks.\n\nI need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some\ncalled Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\nEpiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same\nignorance as to its character.\n\nIt is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding\nthe _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: \"We should\nnot be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it\ntold us something reliable about itself.\" [150:2]\n\nWe may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the\nArmenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.\n1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of\nwhich it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the\njudgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the\nfifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be\nreceived with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the\nauthor of the \"Harmony,\" and the question is open as to whether the\nauthorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In\nany case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.\n\nThe Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of\nTatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one\nbelonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from\nEgypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.\nstates, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic\ntranslation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the\npresbyter Ab\u00fb-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have\nflourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of\nthese notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,\nwhich leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end\nof the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the\noriginal work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only\nground for connecting Tatian's name with the \"Harmony.\"\n\nSo little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the\nlanguage in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name\nwould, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek\ncomposition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere\nfact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and\nthat it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of\nTheodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it\nwas written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can\nbe produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the\noriginal. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,\neven supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the\n_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the\noriginal, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to\na restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.\nBetween doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,\nthe original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.\n\nIt is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of\nthe _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the\ncomposition and its object. We have met with three works of this\ndescription and it is impossible to say how many more may not have\nexisted. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain\nthat, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the\nfirst idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it\nwas the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of\ncorrecting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if\nsuch a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style\nand invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already\ncurrent, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in\ndetails of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its\nauthorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of\nan arranger's name?\n\nAn illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of\nCapua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.\n\n    \"Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an\n    anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence\n    to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of\n    such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the\n    canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the\n    _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that\n    the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in\n    favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew\n    continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as\n    Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in\n    the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin\n    dress.\n\n    \"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the\n    authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general\n    plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke\n    i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore,\n    at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius.\"\n    [153:1]\n\nHow this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as\nhe might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the\nwords, \"In the beginning was the Word\"! The most instructive part is\nstill to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:\n\"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,\"\n&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to\nthe newly-discovered works, he adds: \"On the relation of Victor's\n_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of\nTatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_.\" [153:2] On turning to\nProfessor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is\ndiscovered:--\n\n    \"It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year\n    543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels\n    without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at\n    once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have\n    already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he\n    was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was\n    generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to\n    have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a\n    better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to\n    point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem\n    fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve\n    to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari\n    passu_.\" [153:3]\n\nBut how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing\ncould more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about\nsuch works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right\nabout the reading _Diapente_?\n\nI have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing\nhow little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the\nCommentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not\nat present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the\nrecently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,\nI may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the\nassumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the\n_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or\nless corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the \"Harmony\"\nitself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of\nany of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information\ngiven as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these\nworks were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the\nCommentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more\ncredible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of\nDivine Revelation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some\narguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the \"Letter of\nthe Smyrnaens,\" giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]\n\n    \"The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an\n    objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all\n    the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised\n    at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the\n    supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early\n    Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with\n    notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more\n    recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of\n    Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which\n    ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.\n\n    \"The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is\n    the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this\n    might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances\n    it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.\n    But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent\n    reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which\n    had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice\n    from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (\u00a7 9).\n    But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.\n    The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.\n    This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human\n    utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr\n    like a sail swelled by the wind (\u00a7 15). But this may be explained as\n    a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been\n    witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the\n    martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet\n    scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (\u00a7 15); but this\n    phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the\n    fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In\n    another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions\n    at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are\n    told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, \u00a7 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they\n    stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet\n    odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had\n    been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: h\u00f4ste enious doxai\n    kai mur\u00f4 kosmik\u00f4 kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no\n    burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must\n    have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican\n    martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more\n    startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.\n\n    \"More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the\n    _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this\n    amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was\n    accomplished and will be accomplished' (\u00a7 16). But the future tense,\n    'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not\n    the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification\n    as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his\n    forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example\n    of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his\n    burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo\n    martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,\n    when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common\n    instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a\n    prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'\n    is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is\n    sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to\n    a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any\n    Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at\n    least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,\n    is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,\n    relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his\n    master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac\n    dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque\n    postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)\" [156:1]\n\nI am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written\nlong after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents\nDr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity\nof congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards\nfreedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of\nsupernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the\nauthenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with\nwhich he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into\nnaturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without\ndoubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of\nmiracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and\ninsufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to\nexplain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which\nhe has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but\nvery sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the\nimagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,\nI resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.\n\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nCONCLUSIONS.\n\n\nWe have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or\nconceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we\ncould not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which\nare essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested\nin any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.\nIt is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the\nspecific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of\nwhich is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its\ndoctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be\npronounced \"the wildest delusions.\" \"By no rational being could a just\nand benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing\nannouncements.\"\n\nOn examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine\nRevelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the\nsupposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would\nbe destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to\none source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are\nperformed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and\nare not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive\nand for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are\nbeyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the\nhuman intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a\nnature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the\nChristian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of\nperforming.\n\nThe supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is\nnot only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common\nalso to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or\ndetails. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first\npromulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for\ncenturies after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has\nflowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed\nthrough the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has\nentered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and\ncommonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian\nmiracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to\nconvince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The\nselection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more\ncharacteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.\n\nThe true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that\ntheir supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance\nand superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or\nplace where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and\nascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There\nis not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate\nthe supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so\nfreely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the\nwitnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of\nknowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No\nmiracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent\nreality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of\nimagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,\nconnected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all\nmiraculous pretension.\n\nThere is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural\ninterference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have\nsprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a\nsingle valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,\nwherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure\noccurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely\nacknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and\n'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as\nknowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural\ninterference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles\nhave ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the\npresent and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and\nphenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of\nnatural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken\norder. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for\never annihilated them.\n\nTo justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite\nPersonal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution\nof which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is\nargued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate\ncauses, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this\nInfinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the\nDivine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably\nmaintained.\n\nThe assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and\nunlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can\npossibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working\nmiracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order\nof nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is\nfurther inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is\navowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other\nspiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to\nprove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not\nwith the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of\nRevelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived\nfrom the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise\nthe assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as\narguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine\ndesign, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and\nopposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any\ntheory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the\nhuman race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of\ncreation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as\ninconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed\npunishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them\nare opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially\ninadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.\n\nWhatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena\nmust at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute\nknowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and\nit is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of\nnature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously\ngreater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On\nthe other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of\nthe senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only\npossible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of\nphenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more\nespecially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and\nsuperstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only\nreaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the\nprobability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of\nmiracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the\norder of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation\nand testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the\ncircumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are\nexamining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which\nwholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.\n\nWhen we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian\nmiracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising\nthe preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case\nturns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere\nnarratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years\nago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force\nand validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should\nbe placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable\nof estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,\nhowever, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now\ndistinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works\nthemselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the\nwriters to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are\neven said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and\nthird Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor\neye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we\nare wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding\nthe authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.\n\nIn examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite\nprinciples. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the\ndate or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the\nFathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for\ninformation regarding the composition and character of these works and\neven for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these\ncould prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the\ndate of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were\nguided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based\nupon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the\nFathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a\ncomplete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and\ncharacter of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition\npreserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details\nof which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second\nSynoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been\ncomposed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever\ndirectly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to\nwhom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no\nvalue in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence\nfrom the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With\none exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a\nhalf, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous\nuse of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,\ndoes not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually\nin existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere\nsuggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence\nshows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to\nwhich we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our\nthird Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the\nexistence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest\ninformation as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against\nit of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to\nits infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end\nanonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not\nthemselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from\nthe ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the\ninferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor\ncontradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to\nreconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth\nGospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be\npronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by\nunknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous\noccurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They\ncannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of\nDivine Revelation.\n\nApplying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar\nresults. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the\nthird Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.\nThere is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,\nbut, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with\nmiraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the\nnarrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for\nit any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are\ncompared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with\nauthentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it\nbecomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been\nsupposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be\nregarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends\nto establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so\nsuspiciously abound.\n\nThe remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate\nexamination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional\ntestimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief\nin such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is\nunquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles\nbelieved in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so\nsupersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic\nEpistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of\nfour Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders\nit superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters\nattributed to him.\n\nThe general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church\nis brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After\nelaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating\nconclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the\nunconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with\nwhich erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into\nsupernatural occurrences.\n\nAs a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the\ncardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of\nJesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of\nthese events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict\nand exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such\nstupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the\nstatements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,\nwhich is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an\nApostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries\nof Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.\nHis so-called \"circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the\nbelief in the Resurrection rested\" consists merely of vague and\nundetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the\nstatements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare\nfact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he\nhad not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the\nrisen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal\ntestimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which\nwe have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.\nConsidering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of\nwhich he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation\nin deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in\nall probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The\ntestimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to\necstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an\nearnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active\npersecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the\ncase of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the\nfact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is\nnot an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the\nevidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly\ninadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must\nconsequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or\neven conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting\nthe religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be\naccepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in\nthe case of any common question of property or title before a legal\ntribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be\nestablished, the more complete must be the proof required.\n\nIf we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,\nwe find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing\noriginal in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,\nand nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,\nor in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.\nThere has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst\nmen which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written\nbooks of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There\nis not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not\nsubstantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single\nphase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous\nconception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and\nascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.\nHeaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held\nan important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The\nsame may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated\nprecepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had\nalready suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated\nby ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality\nof Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity\nhas arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,\nand confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could\npractically interest us now.\n\nThere is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which\ncan be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the\nsalvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a\nsingle nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for\nwhom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost\nunanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to\nbe repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the\npresent day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of\nsalvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a\nthird of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction\ncould now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as\nSupernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical\nposition. S\u00e2kya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to\nJesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even\nnow almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries\nnever sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme\nDivinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human\nrace and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself\nincarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the\ncross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be\nregarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate\nfor a system of elevated morality.\n\nWe shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher\nmay through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances\nhave suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to\nhim, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;\nbut no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by\nthe absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It\nis to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we\nowe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and\npeople. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the\ndoctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.\nThe great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had\nnever seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after\nit had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the\nEast constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the\ndevelopment of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most\ninstructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas\nwere expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents\nseveral stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had\npassed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,\nwho had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,\npiously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and\nhumility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate\nstructure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of\nhuman superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,\ndisplaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which\ncommenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of\nthe Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of\nchurchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have\nnaturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate\nConception and Papal Infallibility.\n\nIt is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such\nconclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but\nremove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before\nexisting belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a\nsubstitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or\nsilence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth\ncannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by\nconsiderations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and\nsuitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be\npremature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a\nhumiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality\nis concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,\nalthough of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,\nhave promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and\neven in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and\ncivilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far\nChristianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here\nventure adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that\nwhatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not\nto its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic\nTheology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.\nWherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has\nbeen judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of\nGenesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards\nenlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema\nof the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been\ntacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.\n\"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not\nenter into the kingdom of heaven,\" has been the favourite text of\nDoctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of\nassimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological\nresistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early\nenunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to\nthe simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the\nworld; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher\nprinciples do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals\nsufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating\nrules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine\ninstitution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than\nit must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of\nsocial experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological\nquestion, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have\nfinally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and\nmodified its injunctions according to social requirements, will\nnecessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent\non religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed\nto say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right\nprinciples, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,\nfor such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation\nwhich can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever\nbeen really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any\ndegree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the\ntrue and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,\nwe shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and\npunishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as\nessential to Christianity.\n\nAs to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by\nsuch an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any\nmeans be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The\nRevelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an\nillusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and\nits contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the\ntraveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and\ngreen shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool\nfountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his\nwearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.\nRather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the\ndesert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not\nvainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other\nhorizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to\necclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search\nelsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of\nthe man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make\nfour from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose\nfault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is\nit that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five\nthan to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who\nrepresent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special\nillusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a\nformer belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of\nexistence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we\nbelieve it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to\nrepine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at\nleast we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.\n\nThe argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is\nnecessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation\nare required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived\nfrom the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing\nabsolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must\nour moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the\nexpectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through\nnatural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished\nas supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we\ndesire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to\ncomplaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To\nattain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should\nbe our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be\ncertain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is\nas unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires\nto know.\n\nWe gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human\ninvention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the\nincubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine\ngovernment which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the\nplace of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic\nvisions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of\nunseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered\nfrom quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: ai\u00f4nios], and our\neternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured\nin hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of\nlife there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light\nof apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable\nhorror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless\nvictims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous\nrepresentations at all as part of the contents of \"Divine Revelation,\"\nit was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways\nof the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the\nperfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call\nwrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now\nthe reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns\nto the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.\n\nAs myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be\nbaseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass\naway, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although\nit cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for\nso long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can\nrightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish\nbetween what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from\ncharacterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.\nThat mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply\nan impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which\nexcludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.\n\n\n\n\n\n[ENDNOTES]\n\n\n[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.\n\n[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.\n\n[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.\n\n[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, \"Indeed, from the\nsimilar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards\nreferred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this\ninterpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_.\"\n\n[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.\n\n[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.\n\n[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.\n\n[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.\n\n[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.\n\n[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.\n\n[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.\n\n[5:6] _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,\nAnm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., \"Die Evangelien,\" p. 339, Anm. 4.\n\n[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.\n\n[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.\n\n[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.\n\n[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.\n\n[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with\nsuch alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part\nitself.\n\n[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.\n\n[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._\np. 4, n. 4.\n\n[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the\nexample of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he\nintroduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within\nbrackets.\n\n[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.\n\n[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.\n\n[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.\n\n[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.\n\n[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as\nTischendorf's, except that he has \"promises\" for \"has promised,\" which\nis of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is\ntreated as a contemporary.\n\n[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.\n\n[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation\nattacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho\nlogos ed\u00ealou], \"Scripture declares,\" introducing an isolated phrase\nfrom Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is\nsurely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that\nPrudentius Maranus renders the words \"... scripturam declarare,\" and\nOtto \"... effatum declarare.\" They occur in reference to passages from\nthe Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is\n[Greek: kata korrh\u00eas prop\u00ealakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is\nrendered \"to inflict a blow on one side,\" but this is not the case. The\nphrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'\nhostis se rhapisei epi t\u00ean dexian sou siagona, strepson aut\u00f4 kai t\u00ean\nall\u00ean], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata\nkorrh\u00eas prosp\u00ealakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein t\u00eas kephal\u00eas\nmeros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of\nthe linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), \"but to\nthose who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other\nside, _of the head_,\" &c., inserting the three Greek words after\n\"side,\" to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the\nsake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.\nDr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at \"side.\" The passage\nfrom Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the\nuncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression \"videtur,\" for which\nreason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into\nthe text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and\nmeaning of \"quem caederet,\" but I ventured to paraphrase the words and\ntheir context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,\nthe \"mutilation hypothesis\" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian\nproceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel\nof Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the \"videtur\" with the\nassurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could\nhave doubted that Luke is represented as one of the \"Commentatores.\"\n\n[14:1] I altered \"certainly\" to \"probably\" in the second edition,\nas Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of\nexaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that\nI had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting\nthe critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence\nof the words given above.\n\n[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my\nhaving been misled by the \"nur\" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic\nmight have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,\nbut also to _De Wette_, who has \"... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Ta\u00fcfer wie\nder Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptist\u00eas] giebt\" (_Einl. N.T._\np. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, \"nicht ein einziges Mal\" (_Beitr\u00e4ge_,\np. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.\n\n[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.\n\n[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above\nreference, but does not quote the passage.\n\n[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.\n\n[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.\n\n[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by\nTischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.\n\n[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.\n\n[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, \u00a7 106.\n\n[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.\n\n[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].\n\n[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].\n\n[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].\n\n[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not\nrefer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.\n\n[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]\n\n[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].\n\n[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.\n\n[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]\n\n[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.\n\n[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.\n\n[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].\n\n[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, \"can hardly\nsuppose\" that \"I had read the passage to which I refer.\"\n\n[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].\n\n[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].\n\n[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that\nsuch a passage as \"Ye are of your father the devil\" and the passage\nMatt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the\ncontrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the\nallusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even\nby his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the \"pillar\"\nApostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument\nregarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)\nsufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.\n\n[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].\n\n[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].\n\n[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.\n\n[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.\n\n[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.\n\n[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.\n\n[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.\n\n[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.\n\n[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.\n\n[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being\nsilent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the\nApocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point\nout its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,\nand I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the\ndoctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it\nhad already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the\ncomposition of that work.\n\n[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.\n\n[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]\n\n[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more\nespecially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, \"Nur zwei neuere\nAusleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit.\"\n\n[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.\n\n[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.\n\n[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.\n\n[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.\n\n[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.\n\n[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to\nthe sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).\n\n[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.\n\n[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.\n\n[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.\n\n[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.\n\n[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.\n\n[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._\nviii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.\n\n[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.\n\n[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.\n\n[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.\n\n[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.\n\n[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.\n\n[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.\n\n[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: \"This may perhaps be called the\ncurrent explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who\ndeny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.\nKeim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with\nEl Askar, &c.\" _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,\nnote 1.\n\n[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.\n\n[34:2] _La G\u00e9ographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.\n\n[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.\n\n[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.\n\n[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.\n\n[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]\n\n[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.\n\n[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.\n\n[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.\n\n[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.\n\n[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.\n\n[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)\n\n[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.\n\n[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].\n\n[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].\n\n[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].\n\n[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.\np. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used\nthe word \"quotation\" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and\nnot in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this\nedition I have made my meaning clear.\n\n[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.\n\n[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.\n\n[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.\n\n[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.\n\n[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].\n\n[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.\nHaer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.\n\n[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.\n\n[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.\n\n[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.\n\n[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.\n\n[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.\n\n[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.\n\n[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.\n\n[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.\n\n[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.\n\n[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.\n\n[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.\n\n[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.\n\n[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.\n\n[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.\n\n[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.\n\n[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.\n\n[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.\n\n[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.\n\n[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to\nthe accidental insertion of the words \"and the Apocalypse\" (_S.R._ i.\np. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and\nthe error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.\n\n[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.\n\n[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].\n\n[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59\nff.]\n\n[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].\n\n[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].\n\n[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of\nreference.\n\n[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: \"The reading 'most' is\nexplained in the preface to that edition as a misprint\" (p. 63, n. 2).\nNot so at all. \"A slip of the pen\" is a very different thing.\n\n[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].\n\n[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.\n\n[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have\nadded that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the\ntext, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.\nvol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this\nappears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.\n\n[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].\n\n[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.\n\n[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]\n\n[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.\n\n[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.\nLightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,\nwhere he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian\nEpistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages\nfurther on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the\nauthenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority\nof these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].\n\n[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: \"Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii\nnomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum\nimpudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt\" (_Inst. Chr.\nRel._ i. 13, \u00a7 39).\n\n[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.\n\n[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.\n\n[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].\nDr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).\n\n[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).\n\n[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].\n\n[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.\n\n[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.\np. xxxviii.\n\n[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 \u00a7 1, edit.\nVenetiis, 1757, vol. vii.\n\n[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]\n\n[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.\n\n[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]\n\n[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.\n\n[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].\n\n[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.\n\n[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].\n\n[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].\n\n[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.\n\n[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.\n\n[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.\n\n[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.\n\n[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in\nthe _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight\nlines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)\n\n[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.\n\n[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.\n\n[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].\n\n[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].\n\n[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.\n\n[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]\nDr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: \"The\nRoman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is\nembedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection\nin the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before\nthe MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles\ncome together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles\nin the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are\ntogether, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,\n_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111.\"\n\n[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.\np. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.\n\n[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.\n\n[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.\n\n[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.\n\n[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.\n\n[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.\n\n[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.\n\n[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.\n\n[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;\nJacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,\nAmstel. 1646.\n\n[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.\n\n[86:1] \"A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'\" pref. to _Hist. of the\nCanon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.\n\n[87:1] \"A Few Words on 'S.R.,'\" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.\np. xix f.\n\n[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.\n\n[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.\n\n[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first\nquoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second\nnote, but accidentally left out of note 3.\n\n[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call\nattention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.\n\n[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an\nextended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der\nersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is\npart of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth\ncentury.\n\n[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,\nbut I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to\n'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different\nobject of the two notes.\n\n[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.\n\n[97:1] P. 213.\n\n[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a\nnote, \"It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display\nof learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second\nedition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn.\" I might\nreply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had\nreached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which\nreference was necessary.\n\n[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.\n\n[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._\n1631, p. 152.\n\n[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.\n\n[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].\n\n[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].\n\n[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether\ninauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.\n\n[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.\n\n[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.\n\n[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.\n\n[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.\nTextes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,\n1873, p. 517 ff.\n\n[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].\n\n[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.\n\n[105:1] Dean Milman says: \"Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the\nalmost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the\nChristians.\" In a note he adds: \"Excepting of Ignatius, probably of\nSimeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of\nTrajan.\"--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.\n\n[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.\n\n[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.\n\n[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.\n\n[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352\n[_ibid._ p. 79].\n\n[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].\n\n[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].\n\n[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].\n\n[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.\n\n[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these\nrelics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards\ntranslated to Antioch.\n\n[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.\n\n[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.\n\n[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of\nthe martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.\n(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)\n\n[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.\n\n[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in\nChrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere\nallusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that \"recently\"\nthe feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been\ncelebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is\nnothing else to establish it.\n\n[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.\nCf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)\n\n[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in\nthese essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.\n\n[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.\n\n[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for \"lost work\"]\n\n[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.\n\n[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.\n\n[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.\n\n[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.\n\n[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.\n\n[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.\n\n[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.\n\n[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.\n\n[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.\n\n[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.\n\n[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.\n\n[124:4] i. p. 463 f.\n\n[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.\n\n[125:2] i. 236 ff.\n\n[125:3] Note.\n\n[125:4] Note.\n\n[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ \u00a7 53, \u00a7 45; ibid. 173 f.\n\n[130:1] I. p. 210 f.\n\n[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.\n\n[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.\n\n[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.\n\n[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.\n\n[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.\n\n[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.\n\n[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.\n\n[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,\nDr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the\nfollowing words: \"They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except\nthat of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,\nis worthless.\" The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,\nand now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume\nthat the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: \"They have\nno attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is\nunknown, and which is, therefore, worthless\" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If\nDr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the\npress, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable\nto those who have none.\n\n[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.\n\n[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.\n\n[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.\n\n[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.\n\n[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.\n\n[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.\n\n[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.\n\n[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257\n\n[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.\n\n[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.\n\n[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.\n\n[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)\n\n[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a\nnote.\n\n[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.\n\n[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.\n\n[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.\n\n[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.\n\n[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.\n\n[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.\np. 159 sq.\n\n[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.\n\n[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.\n\n[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by\nDr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).\n\n[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.\n\n[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.\n\n[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.\n\n[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.\n\n[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.\n\n[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.\n\n[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.\n\n[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.\n\n[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.\n\n[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.\n\n[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different\nreligions is estimated as follows:\n\n   Parsees                          150,000\n   Sikhs                          1,200,000\n   Jews                           7,000,000, being about \u00bd per cent.\n                                             of the whole.\n   Greek Catholics               75,000,000      \"       6   \"    \"\n   Roman Catholics              152,000,000      \"      12   \"    \"\n   Other Christians             100,000,000      \"       8   \"    \"\n   Hindus                       160,000,000      \"      13   \"    \"\n   Muhammedans                  155,000,000      \"      12\u00bd  \"    \"\n   Buddhists                    500,000,000      \"      40   \"    \"\n   Not included in the above    100,000,000      \"       8   \"    \"\n                                -----------\n                              1,250,350,000\n\nWe have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an\nexcellent little work recently published by the Society for the\nPropagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nActs of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164\nAddai, Doctrine of, 147\nAmmonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148\nAnger, 5\nAntioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f.\nAphthonius; see Elias of Salamia\nApocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff.\nApollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137\nAristion, 55\nAscension, evidence for, 165\nAubertin, 65, 66\nAucher, 145\n\nBaronius, 112 n. 3\nBar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f.\nBasnage, 65, 66\nBaumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72\nBaur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79;\n     date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.;\n     on Peregrinus Proteus, 102\nBeausobre, 70, 71\nBleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93\nBlondel, 65, 66\nBochart, 65, 66\nB\u00f6hringer, 59, 62, 63, 80\nBunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79\n\nCalvin, 64\nCampianus, 64\nCasaubon, 65, 67\nCelsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146\nCenturiators, Magdeburg, 64\nChemnitz, 62, 64, 65\nChristianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.;\n     history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.;\n     census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f.\nChrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f.\nCiasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f.\nClement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f.\nCleophas, 52\nCook, 65, 66\nCriticism, attitude towards, 1\nCureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f.\nCuretonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.\n\nDallaeus, 62\nDavidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of\n     Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96\nDelitzsch, 30, 31, 32\nDenzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1\nDiatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff.\nDiatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff.\nDiatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's\n     commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and\n     Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.;\n     Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.;\n     Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the\n     genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed\n     in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the\n     Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify\n     it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated\n     from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151;\n     original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts\n     in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of\n     Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.;\n     case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace\n     says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154\nDionysius of Corinth, 56\nDoctrine of Addai, 147\nDonaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150\nDorner, 4\nDressel, 79\n\nEbrard, 7\nElias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons\n     of Eusebius, 148\nEphraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.;\n     date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date\n     of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.;\n     Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154\nEpiphanius, 150\nEusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence\n     of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.;\n     his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137;\n     on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.;\n     on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus,\n     148 f., 152\nEwald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141\n\nFarrar, Dr., 34\nFrancke, 97\n\nGfr\u00f6rer, 7, 75\nGlaucias, 15, 18, 19,\nGobarus, Stephanus, 23\nGodet, 32\nGospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2;\n     Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.;\n     Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.;\n     evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135;\n     alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137;\n     alleged evidence of Polycrates 137;\n     supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144;\n     Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.;\n     insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.;\n     its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f.\nGospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.;\n     object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels\n     circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not\n     necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.;\n     evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of\n     Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of\n     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence\n     is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff.\nGreet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2\nGrove, 34\nGuericke, 7, 90 f., 93\n\nHadrian, 12\nHagenbach, 91, 93\nHarless, 75\nHase, 76\nHebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150\nHefele, 80\nHegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius,\n     52 ff.; on Simeon, 52\nHemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_?\n     146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149;\n     its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153\nHengstenberg, 31\nHilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79;\n     place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and\n     Matthew's Hebrew \"Oracles,\" 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142;\n     Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.\nHippolytus, 17 f.\nHoltzmann, 135, 147\nHug, 32\nHumfrey, 66\n\nIgnatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of\n     his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.;\n     his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.;\n     compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to\n     martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.;\n     remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f.\nIgnatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of\n     Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles,\n     67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian\n     Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as\n     evidence, 113 f.\nIrenaeus, 3 ff.\n\nJacobson, 65\nJerome, 110 f.\nJohn, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.;\n     double use of name, 55 f.\nJustin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.\n\nKeim, 135\nKestner, 70, 71\nKirchhofer, 7\n\nLange, 32\nLardner, 70, 136\nLechler, 76 f.\nLightfoot, 32, 33\nLightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f.,\n     13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f.,\n     36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of\n     Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott\n     on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.;\n     on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on\n     Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations,\n     23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character\n     of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar,\n     30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.;\n     the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.;\n     silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on\n     Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements\n     regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian\n     Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey\n     and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's,\n     100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on\n     John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his\n     Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116;\n     on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on\n     Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of\n     Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the\n     Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can\n     Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument\n     of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of\n     Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on\n     Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on\n     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the \"testimony of Zacharias,\"\n     140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference\n     to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's\n     mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine\n     of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius\n     Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of\n     Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.;\n     similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of\n     Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.;\n     Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens,\n     154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.;\n     practically justifies procedure of \"Supernatural Religion,\" 156\nLipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of\n     Polycarp, 135\nLogia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff.\nLogos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1\nLucian, 12, 101 f.\nLuke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne\n     and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153\nLuthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of\n     Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.\n\nMagdeburg Centuriators, 64\nMalalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff.\nMarcus Aurelius, 105 f.\nMark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter\n     of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in\n     _Diatessaron_, 149\nMatthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in\n     Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_\n     of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f.\nMatthias, 16, 18\nMayerhoff, 91, 93\nMelito of Sardis, 135 f.\nMerx, 78, 79\nMeyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82\nMill, on miracles, 36 ff.\nMilman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f.\nMoesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150\nMozley, on belief, 35 f.\n\nNeander, 70, 71 f., 105 f.\nNeubauer, 30, 34\nNicephorus, 111 n. 1\n\nOlshausen, 7, 32\n\"Oracles,\" meaning of, 124 ff.\nOrigen, on Celsus, 10 f.\n\nPapias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of\n     his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of\n     the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to \"John,\" 55 f.; he had\n     nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.;\n     on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the\n     Gospels, 127 f.\nParker, 65, 66\nPaul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius,\n     100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165;\n     his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.\nPearson, 67\nPeregrinus Proteus, 102 ff.\nPerpetua, Saturus and, 100\nPetau, 65, 67\nPetermann, 78 ff.\nPhillips, 147\nPolycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115\nPolycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with\n     the miraculous elements, 154 f.\nPolycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137\nPressens\u00e9, de, 60\nProtevangelium Jacobi, 142\nQuadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115\n\n\"Religion, Supernatural,\" argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons\n     of criticism, 130 ff.; the \"testimony of Zacharias,\" Epistle of\n     Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with\n     Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically\n     justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.;\n     evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles\n     as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence\n     not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true\n     character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in\n     supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles,\n     159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of\n     Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.;\n     evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which\n     evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for\n     Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence\n     of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.;\n     results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of\n     Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.;\n     history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.;\n     census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was\n     misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.;\n     alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not\n     valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to\n     man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology\n     to be mere human inventions, 173 f.\nResurrection, evidence for, 165 f.\nReuss, 147\nRiggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32\nRitschl, 62, 63\nRivet, 64, 65, 67\nRouth, on passage of Irenaeus, 4\nRuinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112\nRumpf, 60\n\nSanday, 33\nSaumaise, 65, 66\nSchleimann, 75 f.\nScholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147\nSchroeckh, 70, 71\nSch\u00fcrer, 135\nShechem, 30 ff.\nSimeon, 52, 105 f.\nSmyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f.\nSocinus, 65\nStephen, 142 f.\nSychar, 30 ff.\nSynoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f.\n\nTatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron\nTheodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81\nThiersch, 7, 70\nTholuck, 7\nTischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.;\n     does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80;\n     \"testimony of Zacharias,\" in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142;\n     it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142\nTrajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff.\nTregelles, 60, 82 f.\n\nUhlhorn, 78, 79\nUssher, 67\n\nVienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the \"testimony of\n     Zacharias,\" 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of\n     evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155\nVolkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice\n     Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place\n     of martyrdom, 94 ff.\nVossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f.\n\nWace, Dr., 153\nWaddington, 115\nWeiss, 62, 63, 78, 79\nWeissmann, 69 f.\nWestcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.;\n     on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on \"Supernatural Religion,\"\n     44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly\n     acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147\nWette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32\nWieseler, 31, 32\nWotton, 68, 69\n\nZacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.\nZahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1,\n     101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112;\n     did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages\n     regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged\n     Armenian version, 150\nZeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5","title":"A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by the Author of \"Supernatural religion\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":59892}