{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18191/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18191","id":"gutenberg_18191","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18191","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics -- History -- 19th century","Cassels, Walter Richard, 1826-1907. Supernatural religion","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Fathers of the church"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the\ntext, and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and\nfootnote numbers.  Inconsistent hyphenations by the author (including\nco-extensive/coextensive, foot-notes/footnotes, hundred-fold/hundredfold,\nmis-statement/misstatement, re-written/rewritten, two-fold/twofold)\nhave been retained as printed.]\n\n\n\n\nESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED \"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION\"\n\nReprinted from _The Contemporary Review_.\n\nBY\n\nJ.B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.\nLATE BISHOP OF DURHAM.\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\nMACMILLAN AND CO.\nAND NEW YORK.\n1893\n\n\n_First Edition_, 1889.\n_Second Edition_, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis republication of Essays which were written several years ago has\nno reference to any present controversies. Its justification is the\nfact that strangers and friends in England and America alike had urged\nme from time to time to gather them together, that they might be had in\na more convenient form, believing that they contained some elements of\npermanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of\na Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more accessible to\nstudents. I had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which\nI shall explain presently; but a few months ago, when I was prostrated\nby sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became\nnecessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me. This\nvolume is the result. The kind offices of my chaplain the Rev. J.R.\nHarmer, who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references,\ncorrecting the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to\nattend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out sooner\nthan I had hoped.\n\nWhen I first took up the book entitled 'Supernatural Religion,' I felt,\nwhether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms were too loose and\npretentious, and too full of errors, to produce any permanent effect;\nand for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the Divine\nLife are best left alone. But I found that a cruel and unjustifiable\nassault was made on a very dear friend to whom I was attached by the\nmost sacred personal and theological ties; and that the book which\ncontained this attack was from causes which need not be specified\nobtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to break\nsilence; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to see that, though\nundertaken to redress a personal injustice, it might be made subservient\nto the wider interests of the truth.\n\nPaper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to cover the\nwhole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries\nto the New Testament Scriptures. But my time was not my own, as I was\nnecessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which\nclaimed the first place; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and\nmore arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to postpone\nindefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the\nwork.\n\nIn republishing these papers then, the only course open to me, in\njustice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to reprint them in\nsuccession word for word as they appeared, correcting obvious misprints;\nthough in many cases my argument might have been strengthened\nconsiderably. Recently discovered documents for instance have\nestablished the certainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's\n_Diatessaron_, to which the criticism of the available evidence had led\nme. Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully\nelsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had expressed\nindecision in these Essays. On the other hand on one or two minor\nquestions I might have used less confident language.\n\nWhat shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or\nthe divergence from my own views; though I cannot pretend to be\nindifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal\nHim, whom I believe to be not only the very Truth, but the very Life. I\nhave often learnt very much even from extreme critics, and have freely\nacknowledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from\nhis method) seemed to me, and not to me only [Footnote: See Salmon's\n_Introduction to the New Testament_ p. 9.], where it was a question of\nweighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical\ninvestigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the\nleast probable, which would enable him to score a point against his\nadversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any\npersonal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct\nfrom the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor\nhave I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know\nnot. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I\nam glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the\nresponsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.\n\nIn several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my\ncriticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent\nedition. In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this\nvolume to his later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last\nword. He is welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial\ncritics shall read my statements and his side by side, and judge between\nus. It is my sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found\n[Greek: sunergos te aletheia].\n\nBOURNEMOUTH,\n_May_ 2, 1889.\n\n\n\n\n      TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n                                                           PAGE\n   I. INTRODUCTION                                         1--31\n  II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS                             32--58\n III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES                               59--88\n  IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA                                  89--141\n   V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I.                            142--177\n  VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II.                           178--216\n VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN                        217--250\nVIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL                               251--271\n  IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON                               272--288\n\n      DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES  291--302\n      INDICES                                            303--324\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL RELIGION.\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION.\n\n[DECEMBER, 1874]\n\n\nIf the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by\nwithholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend\nthe circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in\nhis hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the\npen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was\nsecured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was\npromptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears\nof the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious.\nThe reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception)\nlavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition\nwas exhausted in a few months.\n\nNo words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this\nimputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this\nanonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to\nsuch an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler\nalike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his\nopinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived\nin the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath\nof suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities\nobliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years\npast had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less\nthan this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous\nauthor, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication\nof an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was\npreaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining\nChristian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt\nany misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men\ntalked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained\ngreat moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the\nrumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty\nof the basest fraud of which a man is capable.\n\nAnd all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this\nidentification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics\nof the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and\ncautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of\nresemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the\ntheological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch\nwriters was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions\nof this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a\nreputation is traduced on these grounds.\n\nI have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural\nReligion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers\nhave applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of\nPapias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this\nassumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested,\nit proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd.\nIt is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual\nreviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be\nconvinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this\nidentification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have\nread, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other\nfour are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same\nname and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics\nquite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me.\n\n1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in\nattributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order.\n'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has\nlearned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second,\n'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His\nscholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.'\n'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another\nplace, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third\nreviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the\nfirst part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect,\npraises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a\nfourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute\nscholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four\ndifferent quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already\nmentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among\nhis contemporaries as a scholar and a critic.\n\nNow, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are\nwritten almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be\nassumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an\nadequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom\nwhich will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the\nwork itself, which will throw any light on this point.\n\nThe example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important\npassage of Irenaeus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier\nauthority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded\nonly in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:--\n\n     'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the\n     abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights\n     of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city;\n     for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see\n     Him shall be worthy.'\n\nThen follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by\nour author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear\nimmediately, I place the two renderings side by side:--\n\n\n          WESTCOTT.            |      SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.\n                               |\n'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this\nthey taught, exists between    | distinction [4:4] of dwelling\nthose who brought forth a      | ([Greek: einai de ten diastolen\nhundred-fold, and those who    | tauten tes oikeseos]) of those bearing\nbrought forth sixty-fold, and  | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the\nthose who brought forth        | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of\ntwenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of\n                               | whom some indeed shall be taken up\n                               | into the heavens, some shall live\nAnd it was for this reason     | in Paradise, and some shall\nthe Lord said that _in His     | inhabit the City, and for that\nFather's House_ ([Greek: en    | reason ([Greek: dia touto]--\ntois tou patros]) _are many    | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared\nmansions_ (John xiv. 2).'      | many mansions to be in the (heavens)\n[4:3]                          | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou\n                               | patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.'\n\nOn this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one\nwho attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes\nhimself acquainted with the manner in which Irenaeus conducts his\nargument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the\nphrase we are considering is introduced by Irenaeus himself, and is in\nno case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the\nrelation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks,\nwhich I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the\nother point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel\nhimself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our\nauthor considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite\nunconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative,\nor in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so\nhe boldly translates [Greek: einai ten diastolen] as though it were\n[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: he diastole], and\n[Greek: eirekenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eireken ho\nKurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to\npersist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and\nbetween 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our\nauthor of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view\nby several other passages in which Irenaeus 'interweaves' his own\nremarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto],\nthough in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is\nused. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr\nWestcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],'\nbecause this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to\nshow that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St\nJohn is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of\nothers [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because\nI do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral\nmotives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that\nour author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would\nventure to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as\nmore seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an\nanonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty\nagainst a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least\ngiven to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.\nIt is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this\ngrammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two\nlater footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the\nreference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenaeus himself,\nand that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at\nall.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it\nwill be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which\n'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to\nfind that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of\ngrammar [6:3].\n\nThe passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at\nissue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall\ntake, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former\ninstance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is\nequally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who\nshows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date\ntherefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in\nthe preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this\nperson had been long dead ([Greek: ede kai palai nekron]). In his first\nbook again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is\ndisposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have\nflourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close\nof the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him\nthe work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he\nwrites (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as\nfollows:--\n\n     'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise\n     after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise\n     to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight\n     books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and\n     finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may\n     answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]\n\nOn the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that\nOrigen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been\n'considerably modified', and remarks that he now 'treats him as a\ncontemporary'. Unfortunately however, the tenses, on which everything\ndepends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say,\n'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_' ([Greek:\nepangellomenon]), _i.e._ in the treatise before him, for Origen's\nknowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And again, he does\nnot say 'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write', but 'If he\n_did not write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: egrapsen\nhuposchomenos]); nor 'if he _has commenced and finished_', but 'if he\n_commenced and finished_' ([Greek: arxamenos sunetelese]) [7:4]. Thus\nOrigen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict\naccordance with the earlier passages in his work.\n\nThese two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means\nthe worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an\nelaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is\ncurious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek\nsentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides\n(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.\np. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as\n[Greek; ho logos edelou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata\nkorres propelakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from\nsuch perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a\ntranslation of [Greek: ouden hemarte] in an important passage of Papias\nrelating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist,\nthough his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he\ndid record.\n\nNor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be\ninferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt\ncredentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of\nbelievers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of\nbelievers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is\nstill better illustrated by the following example:--\n\n'Nam ex iis commentatoribus      | 'For of the Commentators\nquos habemus, Lucam videtur      | whom we possess, Marcion seems\nMarcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,\nTertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2.     | which he mutilates.' _S.R._\n                                 | II. p. 99. [8:9]\n\nHere again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect\nsubjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same\ntime our author fails to perceive that the \"commentatores\" are the\nEvangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries\nof De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Caesar\n[9:1].\n\nHaving shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge\nwhich is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to\ninquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,\nwhich are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating\ntact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether\nagain he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and\nmight be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries\nago--without which qualifications the most painful study and\nreproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These\nqualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my\nsubsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for\nforming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to\nremark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to\ncontradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.\nYet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel\nat the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:\n'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it\nwas probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards\nthe end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely\nforgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the\nother side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did\noriginally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted\nfrom the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to\nmake the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why\nthe disputed words must have formed part of the original text.\n\nIt must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the\n_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural\nReligion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias,\nan extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of\ncritical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot\npossibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he\nsays that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and\ndoings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one\nmaintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our\nSecond Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological\nsequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which\nis forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able\nreviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical\nnineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that\nthey must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic\nand certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?\n\n2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to\nincrease as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also,\non which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the\nauthor as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.'\nOur fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with\nexcellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment\nmust rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony\nof the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same\ndirection. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer,\n'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The\naccount given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a\nperfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no\nsmall prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an\nerror may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and\nscholarly criticism.'\n\nNow this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author\ndoes indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of\n'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their\nweightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him,\nthough they often occur in the same books and even in the same contexts\nwhich he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly\nsubstantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a\nfew samples.\n\nOur author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism\n[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to\nbe dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is\nrequested regarding him \"and those who are with him.\"' Why then does he\nnot notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of\ninformation, that when the Latin version (the Greek is wanting here) 'de\nhis qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original language, [Greek:\ntois sun auto], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again,\nwhen he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias\n[11:3], why does he not even mention the view maintained by Dr Westcott\nand others (and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of\nPapias' own words), that this father's object in his 'Exposition' was\nnot to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and\nillustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written\ndocuments? [11:4] This view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of\nPapias to the written Gospels; and its discussion was a matter of\nessential importance to the main question at issue. Again, when he\nreproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of\nHegesippus against St Paul [12:1], and quotes the often-quoted passage\nfrom Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of\nHegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen, etc.',\nwhy does he not state that these words were employed by heretical\nteachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently\n'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as\nused by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according\nto the Tuebingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts\neverything else which we know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the\nview of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's\nconsideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin\nMartyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's\ncareful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most\nfavourable specimen of his critical work, our author frequently refers\nto Dr Westcott's book to censure it, and many comparatively\ninsignificant points are discussed at great length. Why then does he not\nonce mention Dr Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin\nMartyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as throwing some light on\nthe degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the\nGospels? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the\nreviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took\na much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A\nreader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ will have his\neyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind, when he turns to Dr\nWestcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, mis-names, and\nmis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these\nare unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these\nomitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.\n\nOur fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted,\n'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with\nspecial reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and\ncharacter of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen\nand solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had\nhis own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or\nhe may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear\npresently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as\nexplaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the\nreviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be\ncandid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any\nother sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The\narguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this\npart of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such\nwriters, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments\nremain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth\nGospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of\nThunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and\nlove,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to\nsuch passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of\nthis statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in\nthe Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion\nis undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them\nthat hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a\nstumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed\nto idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses\nthis same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers\nand free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the\nscandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct\nantagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on\nthis point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to\ndeny, the Hebraic [14:3] character of the Fourth Gospel, does he wholly\nignore the investigations of Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists'\nventure to think) show that the whole texture of the language in the\nFourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness\nof details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its\nauthenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the\n'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no\ndifficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the\nidentification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have\nbeen more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments\nas he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1];\narguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough\nnaturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle\nand inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the\nlocal colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on\nthe presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas,\nmore especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the\nlike. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in\nthe literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable\nprobability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which\n(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and\nuncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any\nevidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of\nromance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or\nthe extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he\nwould at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when\nhe is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth\nGospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic\nwriters' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to\nexist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3]\nwithout mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these\nanalogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in\nthese two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs\nmore than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel,\nbut again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the\nApocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the\nSynoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not\nmention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi.\n27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man\nknoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save\nthe Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me,\nall ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This\none passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the\nFourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our\nauthor says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the\nministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his\npreaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career\nculminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth\nGospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,\nSamaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and\nrefers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then\ndoes he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as\nMatt. xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...\n_how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the\nexpression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate other\nvisits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not recorded in\nthe Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested also that the\ntwice-repeated notice of time in the context of St Luke, 'I do cures\n_to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall be perfected,' 'I must\nwalk _to-day and to-morrow and the day following_,' points to the very\nduration of our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth Gospel\n[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does\nnot appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,\nwas aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought\nof this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here,\nas elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical\ndifficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the\ncourse of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their\nconfidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3].\n\nAgain: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second\ncentury as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one\noccasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not\nmention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be\nabsolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian\nPassover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,\ncommemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it\nnaturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main\ndispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the\nquestion whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th\nNisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus,\nthey claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This\nview may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the\nunusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to\nend, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan,\nas the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the\n_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were\ncertainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]\n\nThe same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic'\nwriters is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and\ngeographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he\ncondescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least\nlikely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of Sychar and\nShechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a\nrule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.\nOne instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring\nto the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes\nthis as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a\nfountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight\nknowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound\n[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam\nsignifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin\n_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?\nand if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark\non this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress\n(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not\nunimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence\ntransferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate\nupon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,\nready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases\nranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do\nnot intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn\nhis own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own\narmour is gaping at every joint.\n\nBut indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'\nwriters, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.\n\nThus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth\nGospel:--\n\n     'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests\n     principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other\n     Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and\n     also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the\n     appellation [Greek: ho baptistes], whilst he carefully\n     distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always\n     speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but\n     rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness\n     of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]\n\nNow the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes\nthis John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the\nother Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be\nnatural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay\ngreat stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because\nit lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle\nindication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a\nforger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author\nconsiders this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,\nwhen he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it\nis instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to\nwhom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer\nstating that the Fourth Evangelist\n\n     'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from\n     the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein\n     einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistes].' [19:2]\n\nSo then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his\nGerman has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error\nis instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a\ncommonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set\nright by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not\nconstrue Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the\nreviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the\nsubject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of\nmistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the\ncritics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of\nthe original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead\nauthority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual\n[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers]\nis sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1]\n\n3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third\npoint. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are\nconducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union\nwith a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our\nsecond reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this\npart may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they\nleave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had\nour _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He\nrebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity\nof the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.'\n\nNow whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which\nbristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,'\n'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic\ntruths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for\ninstance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not\nsavour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of\nthe judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the\nhighly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who\ndiffer from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a\nrighteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself\nwith confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at\nanother. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will\nnot take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which\nwe have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is\nsufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. Dr Westcott writes of\nBasilides 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.\"' [21:1]\n\nThe inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr Westcott's book.\nIt need hardly be said that Dr Westcott is simply illustrating the\nstatement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St Peter by\nthe similar statement of Papias and others that St Mark was an\ninterpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information,\none would suppose. On this passage however our author 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 are\n     the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only\n     have been inserted for one of two purposes: (I) to assert the fact\n     that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition\n     represented Mark to be; or (II) 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.' [21:2]\n\nDr Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. It\nstands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. I only\ncall attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr Westcott's\ninverted commas [22:1], and then founded on the passage so manipulated a\ncharge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their\nabsence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of.\nI will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate\nfalsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not\nbelieve that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this\nhighly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the\nelaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It\nillustrates the author's inability to look at things in a\nstraightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper\nof the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said,\n'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the\nprocesses of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would\nrender life intolerable and history impossible [22:2].\n\nIt is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all\nthis literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be\nconstrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as\nimpossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by\nan 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything\nwhich is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not\nthe Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the\nworks with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles\nand Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its\nhopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and\nwho, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such\nabilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest\nplace among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of\ndishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him.\n\nThere is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an\nimportant part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in\nthe notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the\nmode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author\nin the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and\nhave found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions\nto which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances,\nthese lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is\nstrange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of\nauthority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on\nhis readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a\npresumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on\nexamination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen\ncenturies is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of\nmen in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present\nthemselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit\nof the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past\ntimes, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the\nintellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance,\nwhether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been\naltogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of\nintellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was\nsetting strongly in one direction.\n\nThis comparison is not without its use. Here were men eminently learned,\npainstaking, minute; eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense,\neminently critical. In accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as\nlay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work,\nthe rabbis of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis\nof neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles for a\ntime; their work has not been without its fruits; many useful\nsuggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of\nlater ages; but their characteristic teaching, which they themselves\nwould have regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has long since\nbeen consigned to oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was\nconceived in a false vein; it was essentially unhistorical, and\ntherefore it could not live. The modern negative school of criticism\nseems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though in a different\nway; and therefore I anticipate for it the same fate.\n\nMr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing\ntendencies written by an English scholar, and using M. Renan as his\nmouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort\ncould never have come from Germany where there is a great force of\ncritical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him\nstraight.' [24:1] I confess that my experiences of the critical\nliterature of Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult,\nI think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass of\nabsurdities, which several intelligent and very learned German critics\nhave conspired to heap upon two simple names in the Philippian Epistle,\nEuodia and Syntyche; first, Baur suggesting that the pivot of the\nEpistle, which has a conciliatory tendency, is the mention of Clement, a\nmythical or almost mythical person, who represents the union of the\nPetrine and Pauline parties in the Church [24:2]; then Schwegler,\ncarrying the theory a step further, and declaring that the two names,\nEuodia and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the\ntrue yoke-fellow is St Peter himself [24:3]; then Volkmar, improving the\noccasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names,\nEuodia, or 'Rightway,' and Syntyche or 'Consort,' denoting respectively\nthe orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other\n[24:4]; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the New Testament\nare not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the Old,\nand maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs\nAsher and Gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one\nlanguage to another--and represent the Greek and Roman elements in the\nChurch, while the Epistle to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from\nthe Agricola of Tacitus [25:1]. When therefore I find our author\nsupporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of\n'Hitzig, Volkmar and others,' or of 'Volkmar and others,' [25:2] I have\nmy own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them\n[25:3].\n\nIt is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so\nfar as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training, that I\nwould rest the chief stress of my complaint. The whole tone and spirit\nof the school in its excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be\nfatal to the ends of true criticism. A reviewer of _Supernatural\nReligion_ compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts\nof certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to Sir G.C.\nLewis's objections to Niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of\nearly Roman history.' From one point of view this comparison is\ninstructive. We have no means of testing the value of that eminent\nwriter's negative criticisms of early Roman history. But where\nadditional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as,\nfor instance, respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic\nlanguage, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. It seems\nto be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has its proper function\nin scientific inquiry (though even here its excesses will often impede\nprogress), therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free\nfrom danger in the domain of criticism. A moment's reflection however\nwill show that the cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to\nmorals and history--in short, to human life in all its developments--\nwhere mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and where\nconsequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial\nfaculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as\ncredulity.\n\nThe author of _Supernatural Religion_ proposes to himself the task of\ndemonstrating that the miraculous element in Christianity is a delusion.\nThe work is divided into three parts. The first part undertakes to prove\nthat miracles are not only highly improbable, but antecedently\nincredible, so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections\nto them. As a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of\nevidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we should be\nlikely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought not to inspire\nconfidence. The second and third parts are occupied in examining the\nactual witnesses themselves, that is, the four Gospels; the second being\ndevoted to the Synoptists, and the third to St John. The main contention\nis that the four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to\nsatisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momentous\nimport of their contents. These portions of the work therefore are\nchiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the\nauthenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. In the case of St John the\ninternal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination.\n\nObviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first\npart, the second and third are altogether superfluous [27:1]. It is\nsomewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole\nwork should be devoted to this needless task. Impressed, as it would\nseem, by the elaboration of these portions, reviewers have singled them\nout for special praise, even when they have condemned the first as\nunsatisfactory. With this estimate of their value I find myself\naltogether unable to agree; and in the articles which will follow I hope\nto give my reasons for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the\ncritical fallacies of the modern destructive school, _Supernatural\nReligion_ well deserves examination.\n\nFor this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two\nlatter portions of the work, and more especially with the external\nevidences of the Gospels; but there is one point, affecting the main\nquestion at issue, which it is impossible to pass over in silence.\nAnyone who, with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory,\nwill turn to the final chapter, in which the author gives a confession\nof faith, must be struck with the startling dislocation between the\nprinciples from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it\nconcludes. Our author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or\nsupernatural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say to\n'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is meant the\nChristianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He will not even hear of a\nfuture life with its hopes and fears [27:1]. He will purge the Gospel of\nall 'dogmas,' and will present it as an ethical system alone. The\nextreme beauty, I might almost say the absolute perfection, of Christ's\nmoral teaching [27:2] he not only allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,'\nhe adds, 'was the essence of his system; theology was an after-thought.'\n[27:3] And yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two\nfundamental principles, Love to God and love to man.' He commends a\n'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of Divine\nLaw, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man,' as 'the highest\nconceivable by humanity.' [27:4] He speaks of the 'purity of heart which\nalone \"sees God.'\" [27:5] He enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher\nconceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being ... whose laws of\nwondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation\naround us.' [28:1] All this is well said, but is it consistent? This\nuniversal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most\ncomprehensive application? This 'Love to God' springing from the\napprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and the recognition of an\n'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,'--in short, this belief in a\nHeavenly Father, which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our\nLord's teaching, and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article\nin his own creed,--what is it but a theological proposition of the most\noverwhelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into\ninsignificance?\n\nAnd what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a dogma? In\nthe first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define\nhis position. He has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief\nin a universal Father or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God. If\nhe had done so, he would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the\nreasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in\nChristianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to the ground\nwhen this proposition is assumed. His arguments prove nothing, because\nthey prove too much: for they are equally efficacious, or equally\ninefficacious, against the doctrine of a Divine providence or of human\nresponsibility, as they are against the resurrection of Christ. The\ntruth is, that when our author closes his work, he cannot face the\nconclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are\ntoo startling for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked\ndeformity; and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas'\nto save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism.\n\nMr J.S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, as holding\nup the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own narrow premisses this\neminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless\nrigour. Our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis, and\ntruly enough finds no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed\nthere is none for any theory of a providential government. But at the\nconclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously assumes\na much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, he himself would\nhave been edged off his footing, and hurled down the precipice. A whole\npack of 'pursuing wolves' [29:1] is upon him, far more ravenous than any\nwhich beset the path of the believers in revelation; and he has left\nhimself no shelter. If he had commenced by defining what he meant by\n'Nature' and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency,\nthough he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed.\nAs it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of Nature. Nature\nin the first part, where he is arguing against miracles, is the\naggregate of external phenomena--the same Nature against which Mr Mill\nprefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice. But\nNature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral Governor\nand a beneficent Father; and this idea can only be introduced by opening\nflood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when\nit is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author has\nranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers,' of whom\nMr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has appealed, though he does not seem\nto be aware of it, to the inner consciousness of man, to the instincts\nand cravings of humanity, to interpret and supplement the teachings of\nexternal Nature; and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he\nhas made to believers in revelation by so doing.\n\nEven though we should close our eyes to all other considerations, it is\nvain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this\nmode of reasoning; for they are becoming every day more apparent. The\ndemand is made that we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which\nlogically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential\ngovernment of the world and in the moral responsibility of man. Young\nmen are apt to be far more logical than their elders. Older persons are\ntaught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses:\nconsciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of\ntheir logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own\nheart. But generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His\nteacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. The teacher\nbecomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, and speaks of 'an\ninfinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but the pupil insolently points\nout how\n\n          Nature, red in tooth and claw,\n          With ravin, shrieks against his creed.\n\nThe teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law\nis prospered and brought to perfection:' [30:1] and the pupil replies:\n'You have limited my horizon to this life, and in this life the facts do\nnot verify your statement.' The teacher says, Believe that you--you\npersonally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent\nimmutable power for which nothing is too great, nothing too\ninsignificant.' [30:2] The pupil says: 'My Christianity did show me how\nthis was possible; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a\ndelusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with the\nprinciples you have laid down for my guidance. I have done as you told\nme to do; I have \"ratified the fiat which maintains the order of\nNature,\" [30:3] and I find Nature wholly\n\n          Careless of the single life.\n\nI will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks of 'the\npurity which alone sees God;' and to him the expression has a real\nmeaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has\ncertainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy: but to the pupil it\nhas lost its articulate utterance, and is no better than sounding brass\nor a tinkling cymbal. Hence the pupil, having thrown off his\nChristianity, too often follows out the principles of his teacher to\ntheir logical conclusions, and divests himself also of moral restraints,\nexcept so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to\nthem. Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority\nof instances. The permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of\nteaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this\nnew philosophy, and (we may add also) the voice of an inward witness\nwhose authority is denied, but whose warnings nevertheless compel a\nhearing, all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their\nprinciples. The full moral consequences of the teaching would only then\nbe seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether under\nits influences.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.\n\n[JANUARY, 1875.]\n\n\n'It is very important,' says the author of _Supernatural Religion_, when\ncommencing his critical investigations, 'that the silence of early\nwriters should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to\nthe Gospels.' [32:1] In the present article I shall act upon this\nsuggestion. In one province more especially, relating to the external\nevidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place. This\nmysterious oracle will be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the\nresponse elicited will not be at all ambiguous.\n\nTo EUSEBIUS we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost\necclesiastical literature of the second century. This literature was\nvery considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in five books, and the\nEcclesiastical History of Hegesippus, likewise in five books, must have\nbeen full of important matter bearing on our subject. The very numerous\nworks of Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, of which Eusebius has\npreserved imperfect lists [32:2], ranged over the wide domain of\ntheology, of morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical\norder; and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured\non the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents\nof Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century,\nhowever important they may be from other points of view, give a very\ninadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the\nCanonical writings. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not\nfrom his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should\nexpect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point.\nIn works like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no\nauthority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for whom the\nnames of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he\nrefers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve.\nOn the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single\ninstance) had been preserved, we should probably have been placed in a\nposition to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the\nCanonical writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature,\nthe notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of\nprimary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly\ninterpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on us not to assume\nthat his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean. Eusebius made it\nhis business to record notices throwing light on the history of the\nCanon. The first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with\nwhat aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his\nwork.\n\nNow, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. His fundamental\nassumption is that where Eusebius does not mention a reference to or\nquotation from any Canonical book in any writer of whom he may be\nspeaking, there the writer in question was himself silent. This indeed\nis only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken\npossession of our author's mind. The argument from silence is\ncourageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is\nunnecessary to accumulate instances, where 'knows nothing' is\nsubstituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible terms;\nfor such instances are countless. But in the case of Eusebius the\napplication of the principle takes a wider sweep. Not only is it\nmaintained that A knows nothing of B, because he says nothing of B; but\nit is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say\nthat A says anything of B. This is obviously an assumption which men\nwould not adopt in common life or in ordinary history; still less is it\none to which a competent jury would listen for a moment: and therefore a\nprudent man may well hesitate before adopting it.\n\nWith what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position, will\nappear from the following passages:--\n\nOf Hegesippus he writes [35:1]:--\n\n     'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the use\n     of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety\n     to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render his\n     silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct\n     utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.'\n\nAnd again [35:2]:--\n\n     'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the\n     testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,\n     regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have\n     neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,\n     for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with\n     any opportunity.'\n\nAnd again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any\nCanonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second\nvolume he returns to the subject [35:3]:--\n\n     'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our\n     Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would\n     have been recorded by Eusebius.'\n\nSimilarly he says of Papias[35:5]:--\n\n     'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New\n     Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that\n     Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.'\n\nAnd again, in a later passage [35:8]:--\n\n     'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth\n     Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this\n     silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the\n     Johannine Gospel.'\n\nAnd a little lower down [35:10]:--\n\n     'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not\n     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth\n     Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11]\n\nSo again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:--\n\n     'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New\n     Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still\n     extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the\n     Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not\n     have omitted to do had they contained any.'\n\nAnd lower down [36:1]:--\n\n     'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New\n     Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.'\n\nOf this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author\nhas no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It\nis with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall\ntherefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the\nconsequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge\nhis trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism, where,\nfrom the nature of the case, no test can be applied. In the land of the\nunverifiable there are no efficient critical police. When a writer\nexpatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal\nGospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the present case,\nas it so happens, verification is possible, at least to a limited\nextent; and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity.\n\nIn the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what method he\nintends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. After enumerating\nthe writings bearing the name of St Peter, as follows;--(l) The First\nEpistle, which is received by all, and was quoted by the ancients as\nbeyond dispute; (2) The Second Epistle, which tradition had not stamped\nin the same way as Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon], 'included in the\nTestament'), but which nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been\nstudied ([Greek: espoudasthe]) with the other Scriptures; (3) The Acts,\nGospel, Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects\nas altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues [37:1]:--\n\n     'But, as my history proceeds, I will take care ([Greek: prourgou\n     poiesomai]), along with the successions (of the bishops), to\n     indicate what Church writers (who flourished) from time to time\n     have made use of any of the disputed books ([Greek:\n     antilegomenon]), and what has been said by them concerning the\n     Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon]) and acknowledged Scriptures, and\n     anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong\n     to this class. Well, then, the books bearing the name of Peter, of\n     which I recognise ([Greek: egnon]) one Epistle only as genuine and\n     acknowledged among the elders of former days ([Greek: palai]), are\n     those just enumerated ([Greek: tosauta]). But the fourteen Epistles\n     of Paul are obvious and manifest ([Greek: prodeloi kai sapheis]).\n     Yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons\n     have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was\n     disputed by the Church of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I\n     will set before (my readers) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata\n     kairon]) what has been said concerning this (Epistle) also by those\n     who lived before our time ([Greek: tois pro hemon]).'\n\nHe then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he 'had not received as handed\ndown among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had\nbeen spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among\nthe acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was\nused by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:--\n\n     'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ...\n     eirestho]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and\n     those which are not acknowledged among all.'\n\nThis statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is\nthoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows\nan appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is\nessentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision\nof a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the\nunqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in\nwhich our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not\nsettled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the\nwritings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question;\nbut there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about\nwhich differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore\nproposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways.\nThis is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he\npledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book\nbelonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrentai]); but as\nregards the undisputed Canonical books he only professes to mention\nthem, when such a writer has something to _tell about them_ ([Greek:\ntina _peri_ ton endiathekon eiretai]). Any _anecdote_ of interest\nrespecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek: ton me\ntoiouton]), will be recorded. But in their case he nowhere leads us to\nexpect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and\nhowever precise [38:1].\n\nThis statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter\nand St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings.\nThe Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as\nEusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the\nEpistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the\nhistorian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act.\nSomewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St\nJohn, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St\nJohn's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts\nat this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as\nfollows [39:1]:--\n\n     'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning\n     these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly\n     ([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata\n     kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been\n     said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them.\n     Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera])\n     of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among\n     our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients,\n     while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse\n     opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day,\n     among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall\n     receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from\n     the testimonies of the ancients.'\n\nAfter this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the\nresults at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage,\nimportant as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.\n\nHere again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is\nobserved. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes\nconcerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere\nreferences and quotations will be mentioned because they afford\nimportant data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical\nauthority.\n\nHitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which\nour author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question,\nafter all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he\nactually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with\nthe actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means\nof instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus\nand Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping\nassertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next\nto nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us.\nBut Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to\nthe Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of\nPolycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and, as these writings are still\nextant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a\ndefinite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this\ntest, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not,\nthen it is worthless.\n\nLet us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains\nseveral references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written,\nwhether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present\nto discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and\nmartyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself\nallows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ...\nmakes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than\nthis; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul\nand Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He\nsimply remarks that Clement, by\n\n     'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the\n     (Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it\n     word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the\n     document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5]\n\nThis is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and\ntoo close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the\nHebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is.\n\nThe IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of\ntheir genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven\nletters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension,\nwhether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read;\nand to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the\nwriter Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius\nthen presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels\n(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire),\n_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as\na dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that\nreceiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of\nSt John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it\ngoeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent\nHim,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of\nSt Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as\n'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in\nevery letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages\nwhich are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet\nof all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives\nrespecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this\none sentence [41:9]:--\n\n     'Writing to the Smyrnaeans, he has employed expressions (taken) I\n     know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--\n\n     \"And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after\n     the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him\n     ([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,\n     feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,\n     'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asomaton]]; and immediately they\n     touched Him, and believed.\"'\n\nIt should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of\nthis reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the\nHebrews [42:1].\n\nNow let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that\nwe interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our\nauthor applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.\n'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of\nthe deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He\naltogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,\nand he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new\nconfirmation of the Tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the\nChristian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic\nwriters must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this\nresult.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be\nhopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His\nChristology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares\nthe perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And\nhe denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is\nthe value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to\nconclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?\n\nFrom Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the\nEpistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it\nis confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In\nPolycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our\nGospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in\nthe Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he\nis directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious\nquotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,\nEphesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more\ndoubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So\nfar as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more\nthan that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: delotheise]) writing\n([Greek: graphe]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek:\npheromene]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the\nFirst (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a\nJudaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be\npartially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in\nan earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes\nfrom Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be\nmentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is\npurely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely\nignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language\nnevertheless this Epistle is saturated.\n\nWhen we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar.\nThis Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of\nEvangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical\nGospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without\nreferring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be\ndetected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these\nsayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of\nthe Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called\nGospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages\nrecall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again\nEusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New\nTestament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made\nmention ([Greek: memnetai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying\nthat it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5]\n\nHis mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more\ninstructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work\naddressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_\n[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work\nTheophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2\nCorinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention\npoints of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly\nhave been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the\nSynoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning\nof the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:--\n\n     'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek:\n     pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, \"In the\n     beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\" showing that at\n     the first ([Greek: en protois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him.\n     Then he says, \"And the Word was God; all things were made by Him,\n     and without Him was not anything made.\"'\n\nThis quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious\nand sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference\n[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one\nsolitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any\nbook of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But\nof the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus)\nhas used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all\nthe information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of\nTheophilus to the Canon.\n\nOne example more must suffice. IRENAEUS [44:6] in his extant work on\nheresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St\nLuke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul,\nthe exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he\ndirectly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the\nexception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons\naddressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of\nreferences to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of\nthree columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenaeus_. Yet of all this\nEusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to\nhave quoted a passage from Irenaeus, relating to the succession of the\nRoman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St\nPaul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the\nCanon contains no hint that Irenaeus recognised the existence of any one\nof St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the\nActs. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as\nillustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by\nreferring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:--\n\n     'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a\n     promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities\n     the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in\n     which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached\n     them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon]) writings, and\n     Irenaeus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and\n     first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.'\n\nHe then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the\ncircumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two\nquotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which\nIrenaeus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers\nto the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:--\n\n     'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the\n     Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle\n     of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise\n     also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows,\n     but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then\n     spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: he graphe]] 'which says,\n     \"First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all\n     things;\"' and so forth.'\n\nThis is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament\nwhich he adduces from the great work of Irenaeus. In a much later\npassage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this\nFather no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he\nmentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of\nSolomon, adducing certain passages from them.'\n\nFrom these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel\njustified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of\nEusebius:--\n\n(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in\nforming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.\n\n(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references\nwhich went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had\nnever been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct\nand by name, it had no value for him.\n\n(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii)\nthe thirteen Epistles of St Paul.\n\n(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes\nwhich he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they\nwere written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias,\nand of the Four Gospels in Irenaeus.\n\n(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the\n_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally\nacknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for\ninstance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to\nthe other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was\nacknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy\nan exceptional position.\n\nRespecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit\nin his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent\nprocedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with\ntolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the\nbooks belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he\nmentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias,\nPolycarp, and Irenaeus), though in the Church no doubt was ever\nentertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought\nthat this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of\nsilence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.\n\n(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be\nconsidered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been,\ndisputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting\neither of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in\nClement of Rome and Irenaeus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in\nJustin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and\nIrenaeus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing\nthe other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only\nthirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews\nwith the rest.' [47:3]\n\n(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but\nwhich were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier\nChurch writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he\nmentions the one quotation in Irenaeus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he\nstates that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he\nrecords that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of\nthe Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has\ncommented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of\nPeter [47:4].\n\nIt will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his\ntreatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication\nof a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his\ncontemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.\nThe Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the\nwhole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one\nisolated passage from Hermas in Irenaeus, though it is quoted\nanonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul,\nthough they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited\nby name.\n\nIt is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but\nalso to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be\ndepended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the\nfollowing rules for our guidance:--\n\n(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the\nbooks of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits\nwhich justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenaeus makes\nthis point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author\nrelating to the Four Gospels [48:1], he omits to mention others which\ncontain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the\nquestion, _e.g._ that St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors\nof Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few\nlines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were\nacquainted with St John [48:3], he omits the context, from which we find\nthat this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the\nFourth Gospel, for it declared that Christ's ministry extended much\nbeyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the\nFourth Gospel against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists.\n\n(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When\nEusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a\nScriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were\ndirect and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may\nfairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or\nboth, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is\nthe case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the\nHebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter\nin Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a\ndoubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might\nfairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for\ninstance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have\npassed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered\nthem decisive.\n\nI am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am\nunable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows\n[49:2]:--\n\n     'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias \"made use of testimonies\n     from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter.\"\n     As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we\n     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from\n     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from\n     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made\n     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the\n     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'\n     [49:3]\n\nFor the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and\nI am not aware of any.\n\nThe note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;\nEuseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'\n\nI cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of\nEusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp\n'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of\nPeter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a\nreference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by\nmodern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is\ntrue, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a\ncoincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this\none expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are\nelsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'\nwhereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.\n1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye\nrejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.\n2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14);\n'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the\ndead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for\nevil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust\nwarreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our\nsins with His own body ([Greek: to idio somati]) on the tree,' from 1\nPet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'\nfrom 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.\nii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having\nyour conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good\nworks both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of\nin you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am\nquite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and\nclose coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author\nelsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in\nTatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence\nwhich (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics,\nyet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of\npassages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has\noverlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references\nto early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to\ntest him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion,\nbecause I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am\nnot shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].\n\nThis investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's\nsweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he\nsupposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still\nmore on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of\nEusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.\n\n_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on\narbitrary _a priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must\nmean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted\nhim with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him\nhis principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some\nerrors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main\nconclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be\nobliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I\npledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a\nsubsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how\nlarge a part of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to\npieces.\n\nOur author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively\nenunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a\npowerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its\ncorrectness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of\nthis investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have\ntaken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.\nEusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.\n\nI now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had\npreceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I\nmistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The\nsilence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is\nan evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been\nquestioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius\nwas aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was\nnot excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of\nEusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes\nit to mean.\n\nIf any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other\nhypothesis, to answer the following questions:--\n\n(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the\nuniversally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2\nCorinthians, and Galatians?\n\n(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony\nin Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a\nreference in this same author to the Apocalypse?\n\nAnd this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by\nhis own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts\nrelating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.\nIts theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its\nauthority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic\nsects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed\neven by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The\nphenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century\nare inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a\nlong previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that\nthe text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the\nalternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18,\nand 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of\nthe angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up\nrespecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in\nthe Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations,\nwholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted\nit, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that\necclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this\nepoch--Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria,\nTheophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?\nthat they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the\nbeginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or\nChurchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first\nthree-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the\npaucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the\nremaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the\nobscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the\nlight is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses\naltogether to discuss Irenaeus, though Irenaeus was a disciple of\nPolycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted\nthat the opinion of Irenaeus, as an isolated individual, is not worth\nmuch, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his\nwhole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment:\nand Irenaeus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of\nthe external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his\nignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with\njust as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up\novernight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its\ncontinuous growth.\n\nThe author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an\nearly copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his\ncourtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it\nin my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed\nthat my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.\nBut this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the\nfourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my\ncriticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.\n\nIn my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a\ncharge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of\nhis own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same\nfor practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct\nnarrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a\nreference to St John) was Irenaeus' own, whereas the grammar showed that\nIrenaeus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had\nwrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their\ntranslations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong\nto Irenaeus himself.\n\nI place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old\n[54:1]:--\n\n          FOURTH EDITION.         |   EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                  |\n'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes\nin this place, in previous        | this passage in a note (_On the\neditions, has been understood as  | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates\nan accusation against Dr Westcott | here, \"This distinction of dwelling,\nof deliberate falsification of    | they taught, exists\" etc.\nthe text of Irenaeus, we at once   | The introduction of \"they taught\"\nwithdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and\nthat the expressions used could   | being inserted, without a word\nbear an interpretation so far     | of explanation or mark showing\nfrom our intention. _We desired   | its addition by the translator, in\nsimply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation\nof \"they taught\"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,\np. 61, note 2), without some      | and whose origin is in dispute, it\nindication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the\noriginal text, that these words   | text. Dr Westcott neither gives\nwere merely supplementary and     | the Greek nor the ancient Latin\nconjectural. The source _of the   | version for comparison.'\nindirect passage_ is, of course,  |\nmatter of argument, and we make   |\nit so; but it seems to us that    |\nthe introduction of specific      |\nwords like these, without         |\nexplanation of any kind, conveys  |\nto the general reader too         |\npositive a view of the case. We   |\nmay perhaps be permitted to say   |\nthat we fully recognise Dr        |\nWestcott's sincere love of truth, |\nand feel the most genuine respect |\nfor his character.'               |\n\nConsidering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might\nhave been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that\nhe not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew\nhis own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that,\nhaving in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenaeus' own, he\nhad found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the\npassage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right\nand he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best\nto break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the\nauthenticity of the fourth Gospel.\n\nThe reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end,\nthe slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression\nthat the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr\nWestcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or\nhave not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a\njuxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions.\n\n\n        FOURTH EDITION.            |      EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                   |\n'Now, in the quotation from        | 'Now in the quotation from\nIrenaeus given in this passage,     | Irenaeus given in this passage,\n_Tischendorf renders the oblique   | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies\nconstruction_ by inserting \"say    | the text_ by inserting \"say they;\"\nthey,\" referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the\nof Papias; and, as he does not     | original, the great majority of\ngive the original, he should at    | readers could never detect how\nleast have indicated that these    | he thus adroitly contrives to\nwords are supplementary. We        | strengthen his argument. As\nshall endeavour' [55:2] etc.       | regards the whole statement of\n                                   | the case we must affirm that it\n                                   | misrepresents the facts. We\n                                   | shall endeavour' etc.\n\nLower down he mentions how Irenaeus 'continues with a quotation from\nIsaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and\nit might just as well be affirmed that Irenaeus found the quotation from\nthe Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the\nreference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under\nconsideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that\nthe one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the\ndirect or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in\nthe fourth edition.\n\nIn the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de ten diastolen] we\nnotice this difference:--\n\n\n          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                    |\nBut ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this\n                                    | distinction.'\n\nThe translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is\nfollowed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--\n\n\n          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                    |\n'Now it is impossible for anyone    | 'Now it is impossible for anyone\nwho attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole\nof this passage, and who makes      | of this passage, and who makes\nhimself acquainted with the manner  | himself acquainted with the manner\nin which Irenaeus conducts his       | in which Irenaeus conducts his\nargument, and interweaves it _with  | argument, and interweaves it _with\nquotations, to assert that the      | texts of Scripture, to doubt that\nphrase we are considering_ must     | the phrase we are considering is\nhave been taken from a book         | introduced by Irenaeus himself_,\nreferred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation\nand _was not introduced by Irenaeus  | from the work of Papias.'\nfrom some other source_.'           |\n\nHere the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few\nweeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has\nsubstituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--\n\n\n          FOURTH EDITION.           |    EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                    |\n'In the passage from the            | 'The passage from the commencement\ncommencement of the second          | of the second paragraph (Sec. 2) is\nparagraph Irenaeus enlarges upon,    | an enlargement or comment on what\nand illustrates, what \"the          | the Presbyters say regarding the\nPresbyters say\" regarding the       | blessedness of the Saints, and\nblessedness of the Saints, _by      | Irenaeus illustrates the distinction\nquoting the view held_ as to the    | between those bearing fruit\ndistinction between those bearing   | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one\nfruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and  | hundred-fold, so often represented\none hundred-fold, and _the          | in the Gospel, _by the saying_\ninterpretation given of the saying_ | regarding \"many mansions\" being\nregarding \"many mansions.\"'         | prepared in Heaven.'\n\nAfter this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of\npassages from Irenaeus to support his view that the words in question\nare direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:\ndia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive\nmood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.\n\n     'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenaeus_,\n     as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is\n     introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is\n     further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the\n     fact that' etc.\n\nAll these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the\nsentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_\n(Irenaeus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the\nexegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,\nand the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and\n'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make\nroom for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine\noctavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering\nsentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without\nany intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more\ndistinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by\nthis error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not\nanyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted\nabove, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?\n\nI add one other passage for comparison:--\n\n\n           FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.\n                                     |\n'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his\nthat the quotation being by \"the     | alternative that the quotation,\nPresbyters\" was more ancient even    | being by \"the Presbyters,\" was\nthan Papias, by showing that it      | more ancient even than Papias,\n_may be referred to Irenaeus himself  | by showing that it _must be\nquoting probably from                | attributed to Irenaeus himself_,\ncontemporaries_, and that there is   | and that there is no ground for\nno ground for attributing it to the  | attributing it to the Presbyters\nPresbyters at all.' [58:1]           | at all.'\n\nSurely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in\ncharges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and\ndeliberate evasion,' and the like.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.\n\n[FEBRUARY, 1875.]\n\n\nThe letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are\nimmediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he\nwas passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their\nrepresentations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome\nto stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The\nexact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility\nare not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the\nlater about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are\nwritten to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed\nmore especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter\nis sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis\nthat his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his\neagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue\nhim from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time\nmembers of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a\npardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic\nChurches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations,\nfriendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against\nheretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in\npersonal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their\ndelegates.\n\nOf the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down\nto us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long\nRecension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin\ntranslation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part\nof the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it\nseemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two\nothers, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it\nmay be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction;\nits language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers\nof the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth\ncentury, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of\nthe fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.\nOnly, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of\nour author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in\nthe sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability\nof much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this\nreasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth,\nor even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must\nnot be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian\nletters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided\nby independent evidence.\n\nThe two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as\nfollows:--\n\n(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him,\nand in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians,\nMagnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp.\nIt is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them\nin the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong\nto this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is\npreserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian\nversions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from\nwhich last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was\ntranslated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in\nthe Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original,\nabout the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the\nLong Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the\nhappy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus\nsuperseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious\nreasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the\n_Vossian._\n\n(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of\nthe Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in\na still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the\nNitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I\nshall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.\n\nCureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon\nfanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is\nraging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or\nthe Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the\nVossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or\nwhether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and\nabridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the\nprior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.\n\nThe question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the\ncase, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light\nof criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial\nprepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the\ndispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the\ninvestigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of\nScripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with\nequally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are\naffected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved\nhave aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and\nProtestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth\ncentury, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the\neighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions,\nthough not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.\n\nIn the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian\nquestion as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the\nstatements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these\npapers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to\nearly Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot\nbe done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to\nindicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid\ntestimony.\n\nThe Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student\nof 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.\n\nThe author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject.\n'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of\nfalsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if\nthe Epistle [to the Smyrnaeans] were genuine, which it is not, to base\nany such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--\n\n     'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the\n     Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the\n     end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they\n     possess any value at all.' [62:3]\n\nAnd immediately afterwards:--\n\n     'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,\n     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the\n     Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held\n     to be spurious.' [63:1]\n\nThe reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such\nvery decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his\nsubject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the\nmost recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author\nwith an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It\nbecomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that\naccurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching\nweight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.\n\nI will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the\nIgnatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The\nauthor writes as follows:--\n\n     'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which\n     space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics\n     to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the\n     letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of\n     those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the\n     Epistles.' [63:3]\n\nNo statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the\nIgnatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than\nthis. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in\none or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided\non this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and\nEwald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and\nPetermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.\nBut this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The\nmisstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to\nthink, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the\nIgnatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the\nEpistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian\nEpistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,\nfor instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]\nand Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like\nVolkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have\nobserved, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention\nto the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position\nwas forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,\nin either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tuebingen views of early\nChristian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life\nand death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian\nEpistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be\naccepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far\nback that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.\nHence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen\nby advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,\nBaur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up\nthe gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from\nthe Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception\nby those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of\nLipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at\none time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian\nletters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his\nformer opinion on both questions alike [64:8].\n\nBut how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his\nown notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I\nhave named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very\npassages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light\non this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the\ncourse of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes\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     still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and\n     consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess\n     (^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest\n     doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the\n     Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first\n     attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious\n     (^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others,\n     and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed\n     throughout the seventeenth century (^2), and onward to\n     comparatively recent times (^3), although the means of forming a\n     judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles were\n     interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more\n     comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier\n     doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity\n     of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can\n     only be considered later and spurious compositions (^4).'\n\nThe first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--\n\n     'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei aecht. u. d.\n     vier unaecht. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145;\n     Boehringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The\n     Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845;\n     _Vindiciae Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.\n     d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.\n     Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i.,\n     1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.\n     7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.\n     Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'\n     [The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be\n     quoted.]\n\nThese references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more\nimmediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who\ndo not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine\nletters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of\nseven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the\nletters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared\nto hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters\nas spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty,\nwhile inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain\nthe genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].\n\nAs regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered\nthat the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the\ndiscovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were\nweighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the\nLong Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The\ncriticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages\nwhich are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows\ncontains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion\nthat they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as\nauthoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many\nplaces to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3]\n\nThe note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--\n\n     'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,\n     Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau,\n     etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton,\n     _Vindiciae Ignatianae_, 1846, appendix.'\n\nHere neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it\neasy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus,\nwhile a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.\nIt is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up\ntogether writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian\nEpistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the\nIgnatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose\nfor which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be\ninterpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of\nany of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these\n[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account\nof the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says\nnothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them\nalso. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.\nHumfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated,\nbut he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them\n'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624)\ndenounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does\nnot question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far\nfrom rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some\nof the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's\nobjections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of\nIgnatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].\nPetau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the\nopinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and\nafterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens\net justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.\n\nThe next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--\n\n     [Wotton, _Praef. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into\n     original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826,\n     vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.\n     88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184;\n     Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre,\n     _Hist. Crit. de Manichee, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti,\n     _N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus\n     Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._,\n     1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492;\n     Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach,\n     _Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmueller, _Hist. Interpr.\n     Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._, 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. in\n     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. 357, anm. 1];\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._,\n     i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch\n     ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p.\n     16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch ueb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S.\n     Ignat._ in _Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil._, u.s.w. [1795; cf.\n     _Biblioth. f. Krit._, u.s.w., _N.T._, i. p. 463 ff., _Urspr. kath.\n     Kirche_, II. i. p. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200.\n\nThe brackets are not the author's, but my own.\n\nThis is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made\nsuch a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this\nnote suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the\nIgnatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years'\nreading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these\nreferences, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in\nthe appendix to Cureton's _Vindiciae Ignatianae_, where the passages are\nquoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been\ncompiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the\norder of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is\nchronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing\ninto his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he\nthought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among\nthe rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional\nreferences on which it has no bearing?\n\nMoreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions\ndirectly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance\n[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly,\nand at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer\nthe Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and\ngenuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly'\nby Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the\nmain question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of\nCureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only\ndoubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to\nregard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as\nfor instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner,\nNeander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or\nuncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2].\n\nThe next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as\nunfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as\nbelonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian\nEpistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of\nthese Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite\nopinion. Gfroerer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven\nEpistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced\ninterpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long\nRecension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject\nwith the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the\nopinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether\nspurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands\nin the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1].\nSchliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to\nrecognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either\nexisting recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote\nbefore the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase\ncommits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven\nEpistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their\ngenuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters\nare excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of\nhaving arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the\nIgnatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I\nhave been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect\nthat the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are\nquoted by our author.\n\nI am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I\nmay venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself\nresponsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.'\n[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the\nwork, and their effect on its reception has been far from\ninconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was\ntherefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I\nmay be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind.\nIf it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more\nirksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer,\nmight well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in\n_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes,\nin works of any critical pretensions.\n\nIn the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost\nentirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which\nindeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding\nthe references to other later writers which crowd the notes already\nmentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have\nexercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One\nhighly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from\nfirst to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version\n(so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key\nto the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its\npublication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the\nCuretonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration,\nfor it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This\nversion was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in\nwhich Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and\ntherefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less\nprominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially\ndiscussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century.\nThis is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he\ncites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to\ncite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This\nArmenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together\nwith other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous\nSyriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by\nCureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the\n_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2)\nThis Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian\nletters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the\nCuretonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this\nversion was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian\nletters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of\nletters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the\nlatter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore a discussion which,\nwhile assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this\nversion altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to\ngive an account.\n\nI have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own\nview be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered\ninestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has\nfollowed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since\nstudied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question\nor not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:--\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.' [72:1]\n\nAnd again:--\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.' [72:2]\n\nwith more to the same effect.\n\nThis attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with\nthe other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves\nto us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing\non the question. (1) Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no\nknowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the\nuse of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century\nat the earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in\nstyle from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which\ninterpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed\npart of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in\nanachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of\ntheir composition. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles\nare mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and\nLatin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come\nafter the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts\nalready mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition,\nborrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian\nletters.\n\nIndeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point\nwithout being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or\nmisleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:--\n\n     'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth\n     century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius,\n     exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.'\n     [73:2]\n\nIn this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author\nhas altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19,\nbecause it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is\ngiven in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations\nin the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in\nthe Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which\nEusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words\nwhich appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as\nthe absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are\ncharacteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important\nfor the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only\ndirectly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives\na number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons\nnamed, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than\nmany quotations.\n\nOur author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the\nmain question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these\ncorrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third\ncenturies are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian\nand in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in\nfavour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of\nEusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them.\n\nHitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the\ngenuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on\nhis own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the\nCuretonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares\nthe whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and\nfraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which\nhe makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we\nfind to be twofold.\n\n(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the\nEpistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:--\n\n     'The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as\n     follows:--\"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by\n     sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten\n     leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even when good is\n     done to them render evil.\" Now if this account be in the least\n     degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could\n     have found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely\n     into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and\n     advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government?'\n\nAnd again:--\n\n     'It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation\n     above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts\n     for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at\n     every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for\n     which he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to\n     martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to\n     see his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of\n     various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and\n     devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without\n     hindrance from the \"ten leopards,\" of whose cruelty he complains,\n     and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare\n     themselves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole story is\n     absolutely incredible.'\n\nTo this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a complete\nanswer is afforded by what is known of Roman procedure in other cases\n[75:1]. As a matter of fact, Christian prisoners during the early\ncenturies were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same\nlaxity and indulgence which is here accorded to Ignatius. An excited\npopulace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a\nChristian; a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to\nthe majesty of the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman\nholiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even after\ncondemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of harsh. St\nPaul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with almost as much effect\nthrough the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large.\nDuring his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers;\nwhen he arrives at Rome, he is still treated with great consideration.\nHe writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates\nwith churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain is on his\nwrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even at a much later\ndate, when the growth of the Christian Church may have created an alarm\namong statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in\nthe age of Ignatius, we see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is\nmore important) the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions\naccorded to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African\nmartyrs, who suffered under Severus [76:1] (apparently in the year 202\nor 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they record the\nextant history of their sufferings; and they too are visited in prison\nby Christian deacons, as well as by their own friends. They owed this\nliberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers; partly to\ngratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers [76:2]. Even after\nthe lapse of another half-century, when Decius seriously contemplated\nthe extermination of Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount\nof communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. The\nCyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs\nwriting letters to their friends, visited by large numbers of people,\neven receiving the rites of the Church in their prisons at the hands of\nChristian priests.\n\nBut the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a\nheathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen\nwithin the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). Thus it is not very\nfar removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus\nis represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (A.D.\n165), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the\nsatirist thus describes the prison scene [76:3]:--\n\n     'When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a great\n     calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him.\n     Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants\n     in every other respect with unremitting zeal ([Greek: ou parergos\n     alla sun spoude]). And from early dawn old women, widows, and\n     orphan children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the\n     prison; while their officers ([Greek: hoi en telei auton])\n     succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in passing the night inside with\n     him. Then various meals were brought in, and religious discourses\n     were held between them, and this excellent Peregrinus (for he still\n     bore this name) was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover,\n     there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the\n     Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man.\n     Indeed they show incredible despatch, when any matter of the kind\n     is undertaken as a public concern; for, in short, they spare\n     nothing. And so large sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time\n     from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he made no\n     inconsiderable revenue out of it.'\n\nThe singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of\nIgnatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression [77:1],\nhave led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian\nhistory, if not with the Ignatian letters. For this view there is much\nto be said; and, if it be true, the bearing of the fact on the\ngenuineness of the Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was\nborn in Syria somewhere about A.D. 120, and lived much in Asia Minor. At\nall events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that\nChristian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these\nepistles. The reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence,\nwhich have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the\nIgnatian letters, appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's\naccount of Peregrinus [77:2].\n\nIn the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes quite\nintelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers.\nThese ten men would relieve guard in turns, the prisoner being always\nbound to one or other of them day and night, according to the well-known\nRoman usage, as illustrated by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his\nguards fierce and intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts,\nhe intimates, is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre;\nit has been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His\nfriends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but the\nsoldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme [78:1]. The more\nthey receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep pace with his\nexigencies. All this is natural, and it fully explains the language here\nascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally\ndwells on the dark side of the picture, without thinking how a critic,\nwriting in his study centuries afterwards, will interpret his\nfragmentary and impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius\nas a man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, as\ncritics would have them talk.\n\n(2) Having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible,' on\nthe grounds which I have just considered, our author continues [78:2]:--\n\n     'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by\n     facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. It has\n     been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but\n     suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115\n     (^3), when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the\n     amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced\n     by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month (^4).'\n\nThe two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive\nstatement, though so much depends upon it; but the reader is there\nfurnished with a number of references to modern critics. These\nreferences have been analysed by Dr Westcott [79:1], with results very\nsimilar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has\nyielded. In some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to\nthat for which they are quoted; in others they incline to views\nirreconcilable with it; and in others they suspend judgment. When the\nreferences are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his\nassurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar [79:2], built upon a\nstatement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to examine. The\nwords of John Malalas are--\n\n     'The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when\n     the visitation of God (_i.e._ the earthquake) occurred. And at that\n     time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was\n     martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: emarturese]) before him\n     ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because\n     he reviled him.' [79:3]\n\nThe earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 13th of\nDecember, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined with the fact that the\nday dedicated to St Ignatius at a later age was the 20th of December\n[79:4], Volkmar builds his theory. It will be observed that the cause of\nthe martyr's death, as laid down by Volkmar, receives no countenance\nfrom the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the\nirritating language used to the emperor.\n\nNow this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the\nsixth century, and possibly much later. His date therefore constitutes\nno claim to a hearing. His statement moreover is directly opposed to the\nconcurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries, which,\nwithout a dissentient voice, declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome.\nThis is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian\nletters, of whom the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics\nwho deny their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of\nthe second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies\n[80:1], which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr\nto Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who\nquote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom are\nIrenaeus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the case with\nChrysostom, who, on the day of the martyr's festival, pronounces at\nAntioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see\n[80:2]. It is the case with several other writers also, whom I need not\nenumerate, all prior to Malalas.\n\nBut John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did Chrysostom some\ntwo centuries at least before him. So did Evagrius, who, if the earliest\ndate of Malalas be adopted, was his contemporary, and who, together with\nall preceding authorities, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If\ntherefore the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this\ncloud of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as\na sober and trustworthy writer.\n\nAs a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian history are,\nalmost without exception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous\n[80:3]. In the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted, he\nrelates how Trajan had five Christian women burnt alive; the emperor\nthen mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for\nthe baths were cast; the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in\nconsequence; the vessels were again melted up; and out of the same metal\nwere erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's\norders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath to the present\nday. As if this were not enough, he goes on to relate how Trajan made a\nfurnace and ordered any Christians, who desired, to throw themselves\ninto it--an injunction which was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the\ndomain of hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more\ntrustworthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded his\ndoctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still further\ndisseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian [81:1]. An anachronism\nof a century or more is nothing to him.\n\nWe have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our author's\njudgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is necessary for my\npurpose. But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is\ncapable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier\nauthority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words\n[Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of\nmartyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes\nof witnessing to the faith: the expression [Greek: epi Traianou] again\nis ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of Trajan,' or\n'in the presence of Trajan.' A blundering writer like Malalas might have\nstumbled over either expression [81:2].\n\nThe objections of our author have thus been met and answered; and\ndifficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot, I venture to\nthink, be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of\nexternal testimony in favour of the Epistles. The external testimony\nhowever is considerable in this case [81:3]. The Epistle of Polycarp,\nwhich purports to have been written so soon after this journey of\nIgnatius through Asia Minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death\nwere not fully known there, speaks of his letters in language which is\nentirely applicable to the existing documents. Our author indeed\ndeclares this Epistle also to be spurious. But Irenaeus, the pupil of\nPolycarp, bears testimony to the existence of such an Epistle; and I\npledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged\nagainst its genuineness by our author and others [82:1]. Besides this,\nIrenaeus, writing about A.D. 180-190, quotes a characteristic and\ndistinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not indeed\nmentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the quotation as the words\nof a member of the Christian brotherhood. And again, in the first half\nof the next century Origen cites two passages from these letters,\nascribing them directly to Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more\nexplicit references and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are\nin themselves. Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of\ntestimony very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would\nhardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds\nof the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We Christians are\nconstantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the\nsame standards which are applied to other writings. This is exactly what\nwe desire, and what we do not get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc\nwhich would ensue, if the critical principles of the Tuebingen school and\ntheir admirers were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and\nRome.\n\nExternal testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour\nof the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form or other; and\nbefore rejecting them entirely, we are bound to show that internal\nevidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their\nauthenticity. It is not sufficient, for instance, to allege that the\nsaint's desire for martyrdom, as exhibited in these Epistles, is\nextravagant, because we have ample testimony for believing that such\nextravagance (whether commendable or not) was highly characteristic of\nthe faith and zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution.\nNor again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought\nor language, because there is no _a priori_ reason why St Ignatius\nshould not have indulged in such eccentricities.\n\nUnless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by\nall ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all\nevents the shortest form in which these Epistles are presented to us. In\nother words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as\nthese satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third\ncenturies (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the\nfourth), perhaps not more is required by the external testimony. Against\nthe genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced\nwhat he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits; and I\nhave answered them. I am quite aware that other objections have been\nalleged by other critics; but it will be sufficient here to express a\nconviction that these have no real force against even the slightest\nexternal testimony, and to undertake to meet them if they are\nreproduced. Thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for\ninstance, was bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the\nRomans could not have been written before the time of Constantine the\nGreat, because 'leopards' are mentioned in it, and the word was not\nknown until this late age. In reply to Bochart, Pearson and others\nshowed conclusively, by appealing (among other documents) to the\ncontemporary Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered\nwhen Geta was Caesar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called\nmore than a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good\nreasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I am able\nto carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. The word\noccurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the middle of the\nsecond century), without any indication that it was then a new or\nunusual term. This passage, which (so far as I am aware) has been\nhitherto overlooked, carries the use back to within some forty years, or\nless, of the professed date of the Ignatian letters; and it must be\nregarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed\nin the scanty remains of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over\nthe interval. Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient\nto say that its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have\nbeen the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large amount\nof direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question, and by\nsubstituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of\nhistorical fact.\n\nOn the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with an\nindividuality of character which is a strong testimony to their\ngenuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression\nseem to bespeak a real living man. On this point however it is\nimpossible to dwell here; anyone who will take the pains to read these\nEpistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on\nthis evidence of style, than if he had been plied with many arguments.\n\nBut if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, what\nmust we say of the Vossian? Were the additional portions, which are\ncontained in the latter but wanting in the former, also written by the\nsaint, or are they later interpolations and additions? This is a much\nmore difficult question.\n\nAs a first step towards answering this question, we may observe that\nthere is one very strong reason for believing that the Vossian letters\ncannot have been written after the middle of the second century. The\nargument from silence has been so often abused, that one is almost\nafraid to employ it at all. Yet here it seems to have a real value. The\nwriter of these letters, whoever he was, is evidently an orthodox\nCatholic Christian, and at the same time a strong controversialist. It\nis therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main\ncontroversies which agitated the Church, and more especially the Church\nof Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the second century.\nThere is not a word about Montanism or about the Paschal controversy. It\nis difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of\nthese 'burning' questions, if he had lived in the midst of them. Even\nthough his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from\nlanguage involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a\ndistinct side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means.\nAgain, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic heresies of\nthis age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the Valentinians, even of\nthe Basilideans (though Basilides flourished under Hadrian), are not\ntouched. On the contrary, the writer several times uses language which\nan orthodox churchman, writing in the second half of the second century\nor later, would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expressions\nhe salutes the Church of the Trallians 'in the _pleroma_'--an expression\nwhich could not escape the taint of heresy when once Valentinus had\npromulgated his system, of which the pleroma was the centre. Nor again,\nis it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions\nwhich, however innocent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to\ncountenance the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for\ninstance, where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving\n([Greek: philouelon]) fire (of passion),' [85:1] and the like. The\nbearing of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and\nyet it is highly important.\n\nHaving regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see how it is\nreasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the middle of the second\ncentury. But still it does not follow that they are genuine; and\nelsewhere I had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who\nascribed them to an interpolator writing about A.D. 140 [85:2]. Now\nhowever I am obliged to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts\nwhether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius\nhimself. The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1)\nPetermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned,\nrespecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing\nSyriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian letters. When it is\nknown that there existed a complete version of the Vossian letters in\nthis language, the theory that the Curetonian letters are excerpts\nbecomes at least highly plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters\nwere certainly not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding\nCureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abruptness of\nthe Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. Subsequent\nwriters, even while maintaining their genuineness, have recognised this\ndifficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. It is far from easy, for\ninstance, to conceive that the Ephesian letter could have ended as it is\nmade to end in this recension. (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce\nmany historical circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the\ncondition of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited\nby him, no contradictions have yet been made out; but, on the contrary,\nthe several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events\nshows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier. (4)\nAll the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these\nEpistles fail on closer investigation. More especially stress has been\nlaid on the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal\nLogos, not having proceeded from Silence;' [86:1] and objectors, have\nurged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the\nValentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the\nValentinians did not represent the Logos as an emanation from Silence,\nbut from an intermediate AEon; and when the treatise of Hippolytus was\ndiscovered, an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence\nheld a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians,\nand the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their\nteaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the Ignatian text,\nwhich Cureton and Petermann have placed in our hands, seem to show very\nclearly (though these editors have overlooked the importance of the\nfacts) that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and\n'not' were wanting; so that the expression stood, 'Who is His Logos,\nhaving proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the Armenian version\nand in the passage as cited by Severus of Antioch [87:1]; while the\nparaphrase of the Long Recension seems to point in the same direction,\nthough this is more doubtful. Severus more especially comments on the\nquotation, so that his reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination\nof early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission.\nMoreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, should\nhave been omitted; whereas their insertion, if they were no part of the\noriginal text, is easily accounted for. In the middle of the fourth\ncentury, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his Sabellianism in almost\nidentical language [87:2]; he spoke of Christ as the Logos issuing from\nSilence; and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save\nthe reputation of St Ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions, and\nat the same time to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name.\nI call attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked,\nand because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to\nthose who charge these Epistles with anachronisms.\n\nOf the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to say that the\nwriter at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and\nteaching of St Ignatius. As regards the substance, they contain many\nextravagances of sentiment and teaching, more especially relating to the\nepiscopal office, from which the Curetonian letters are free and which\none would not willingly believe written by the saint himself. But it\nremains a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the\narguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown that they\nexhibit any different type of doctrine, though the mode of\nrepresentation may seem exaggerated. As regards style, the Curetonian\nletters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected\nexcerpts, they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features\nprominently.\n\nFor the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the\nCuretonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the\nVossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for\nthe middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the\nlatter will be waived. I fear that my indecision on this point will\ncontrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the\nauthor of _Supernatural Religion_. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help\nit.\n\n\n\n\nIV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.\n\n[MAY, 1875.]\n\n\nPolycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person in the history\nof the Christian Church during the ages immediately succeeding the\nApostles. In the eyes of his own and the next generations, Clement of\nRome appears to have held a more prominent position, if we may judge\nfrom the legendary stories which have gathered about his name; but for\nourselves the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This\nimportance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any marked\ngreatness or originality of character. Two long lives--those of St John\nand of Polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal\nministry of our Lord and the great Christian teachers living at the\nclose of the second century. Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and\nIrenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's\nteaching, if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as\ngenuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenaeus, and of\nthese we may say generally that on all the most important points they\nconform to the theological standard which has satisfied the Christian\nChurch ever since. But of the intermediate period between the close of\nthe first century and the close of the second, the notices are sparse,\nthe literature is scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has\nbusied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history\nduring this interval. It has been maintained that the greater part of\nthe writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of\nthis period. It has been supposed that there was a complete\ndiscontinuity in the career of the Christian Church throughout the\nworld. The person of Polycarp is a standing protest against any such\nsurmises. Unless Irenaeus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of\nhis master, unless the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether\nspurious, these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for\nthe advocates of the Tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the\nChristian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both these\npositions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. My object in\nthe following investigations is to show that neither position is\ntenable.\n\nPolycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first\ncentury, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of\nhis birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70.\nAt all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his\nmartyrdom, which is now ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156\n[90:1], he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years [90:2];\nand, if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of\nhis life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried back\nto the date which I have just given.\n\nThus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which was fraught\nwith momentous consequences to the Church at large, and which more\nespecially made itself felt in the Christian congregations of his own\ncountry, proconsular Asia. The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn\nof the year 70. But at the final assault the Christians were no longer\namong the besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for\ntheir departure from the doomed city. The greater number had retired\nbeyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies in Pella and the\nneighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the Church--the surviving\nApostles and personal disciples of Christ--had sought a home elsewhere.\nFrom this time forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to\nproconsular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, that\nwe must look for the continuance of the original type of Apostolic\ndoctrine and practice. At the epoch of the catastrophe we find the\nApostle John for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or\nconstrained, it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of Patmos. Soon\nafter this he takes up his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been\nhis head-quarters during the remainder of his long life [91:1]. And John\nwas not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More especially\nthe companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this\nneighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and fellow-countrymen of\nBethsaida this is distinctly recorded. Andrew, the brother of Simon\nPeter, appears in company with John in these later years, according to\nan account which seems at least so far trustworthy [91:2]. The presence\nof Philip, the special friend of Andrew [91:3], in these parts is\nrecorded on still better authority [91:4]. Philip himself died at\nHierapolis in Phrygia; but one of his three daughters was buried at\nEphesus, where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other\npersonal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who dwelt in\nthese districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second John are mentioned,\nwith whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, had conversed [91:5].\n\nAmong these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own words, to which\nI have already alluded, seem to show that he was born of Christian\nparentage. At all events he must have been a believer from early\nchildhood. If his parents were Christians, they probably received their\nfirst lessons in the Gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from\nSt Paul who had planted the Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who\nappears to have watered them, [92:1] or from the immediate disciples of\none or other of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth\nof Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. Irenaeus\nreports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his\nstatement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan [92:2], who\nascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about\nthirty years old at the time of St John's death. When therefore Irenaeus\nrelates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 'by Apostles,' [92:3] the\nstatement involves no chronological difficulty, even though we interpret\nthe term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme\nfor presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers say\ndistinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by St John\n[92:4].\n\nAt all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the\nsecond century. When Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to\nmartyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where he is received by Polycarp. At a\nlater stage in his journey he writes to his friend. The tone of his\nletter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing\nto a younger, who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility,\nand had shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his\nthankfulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast\nfaith, which was 'founded as on an immovable rock,' he proceeds:--\n\n     Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal\n     or in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing\n     is better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee.\n     Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to\n     unceasing prayer. Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch,\n     and preserve a wakeful spirit.... Be thou wise as the serpent in\n     all things, and harmless always as the dove.... The time requireth\n     thee, as pilots require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a\n     haven, so that it may find God.... Be sober, as God's athlete....\n     Stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a\n     great athlete to endure blows and to conquer.... Show thyself more\n     zealous than thou art.... Let nothing be done without thy consent,\n     neither do thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou\n     doest not [93:1].\n\nThe close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnaeans, enforcing\ntheir reciprocal obligations towards their bishop.\n\nThis letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles may be\ntrusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was on the point of\nembarking for Neapolis [93:2]. The next stage of his journey would bring\nhim to Philippi, where he halted. Thence he proceeded by the great\nEgnatian road across the continent to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome.\n\nShortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the\nPhilippians. He had been especially invited by his correspondents to\nwrite to them, but he had also a reason of his own for doing so. During\nthis season of the year, when winter had closed the high seas for\nnavigation, all news from Rome must travel through Macedonia to Asia\nMinor. At Smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of\nIgnatius; and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents,\nwho were some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his\nfriend had already suffered martyrdom [93:3].\n\nThis was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons possesses\nthe highest interest as a document of early Christian literature, though\nfar from remarkable in itself.\n\nIts most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the\nApostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testament, strictly so called,\nit is not probable that Polycarp knew anything [93:4]. This idea was\nnecessarily, as Dr Westcott has shown, the growth of time. But of the\nwritings which are included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and\nan ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably be\ncompared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there is good reason to\nbelieve, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a\nfamiliar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other\nhand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of\nChristian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest\nchildhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society\nof Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself\napparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear\nindications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic\nEpistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament.\nAgain and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at\nlength. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has\nexchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is\nconcerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains\ndecisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty\npassages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single\nexception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there\nis no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere\nindeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted\nfrom St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows\n[95:1].\n\nNot less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the New\nTestament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical references I shall\nhave occasion to speak in a subsequent article. Besides these there is a\nstrong coincidence with the Acts which can hardly be accidental [95:2];\nand there are passages or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic\nEpistles. Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer\nto those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit.\nIt cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that Polycarp was\nacquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and with the two Epistles\nto Timothy. Of the indisputable references to the First Epistle of St\nPeter I have already spoken in a former paper [95:3].\n\nBut the most important fact, in its bearing on recent controversy, is\nthe relation of the writer to St Paul. According to the hypothesis of\nthe Tuebingen school, there was a personal antagonism between St Paul and\nSt John, and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools. It\nis therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most\neminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the\nGentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent place in\nPolycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained by the fact that\nhe is writing to a Church of St Paul's founding, but this explanation\ndoes not detract from its value. St Paul is the only Apostle who is\nmentioned by name; his writings are the only Apostolic writings which\nare referred to by name; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable\nreferences to as many as eleven [95:4]; there are direct appeals to his\nexample and his teaching alike: there is even an apology on the writer's\npart for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the\nApostle by writing to a Church to whom he had addressed an Epistle\n[96:1]. Altogether the testimony to the respect in which St Paul is held\nby the writer is as complete as language can make it. If therefore the\nEpistle be accepted as genuine, the position of the Tuebingen school must\nbe abandoned.\n\nFrom considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we pass by a\nnatural transition to the second point which I proposed to investigate,\nthe traditions of the author's teaching.\n\nPolycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was written. But he\nlived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age\nafterwards; and as the companion of Apostles and the depositary of the\nApostolic tradition, his influence increased with his increasing years.\nBefore he died, even unbelievers had come to regard him as the 'Father\nof the Christians.'\n\nOf his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an\neye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two youths,\ncompanions for the time, but destined to stand far apart in after life--\n\n     'Like cliffs that had been rent asunder;'\n\nthe elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader;\nthe younger, Irenaeus, who stood forward as the great champion of\northodoxy. The following is the remonstrance addressed by Irenaeus to\nhis former associate after his defection:--\n\n     These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are\n     not of sound judgment; these opinions are not in harmony with the\n     Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety;\n     these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church\n     have never ventured to broach; these opinions the elders before us,\n     who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee.\n     For I saw thee, when I was still a boy ([Greek: pais on eti]), in\n     Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring\n     prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well\n     with him. For I distinctly remember ([Greek: diamnemoneuo]) the\n     incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for\n     the lessons received in childhood ([Greek: ek paidon]), growing\n     with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that I\n     can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to\n     sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and\n     his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses\n     which he held before the people, and how he would describe his\n     intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and\n     how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard\n     from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his\n     teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of\n     the life of the Word [97:1], would relate altogether in accordance\n     with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to listen at the\n     time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me,\n     noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace\n     of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully ([Greek:\n     gnesios]). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the\n     blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he\n     would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his\n     wont, 'O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should\n     endure such things?' and would even have fled from the place where\n     he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed,\n     this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the\n     neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the\n     brethren for their warning and exhortation [97:2].\n\nUnfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to\nenable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with Polycarp, or\nof the letter to Florinus in which Irenaeus records it. In the year 155\nor 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons.\nPutting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenaeus\nmust have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135-150. The\nmention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of\na more precise solution; but even if this notice be taken to imply the\npresence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia Minor, our\ninformation respecting the movements of Hadrian and his successors is\ntoo scanty to afford ground for any safe inference [98:1].\n\nOf the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was at one time\na presbyter of the Roman Church; that he afterwards fell away, and\ntaught his heresy in the metropolis; that in consequence Irenaeus\naddressed to him this letter from which I have given the extract, and\nwhich was also entitled 'On Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is no--the\nauthor of evil' ([Greek: poieten kakon])--this being the special heresy\nof Florinus; and that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed\ninto Valentinianism, on which occasion Irenaeus wrote his treatise on\nthe Ogdoad [98:2]. As the treatise of Irenaeus on the Ogdoad can hardly\nhave been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in which\nValentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial\ntreatment superfluous, and which dates from the episcopate of\nEleutherius (A.D. 177-190), we are led to the conclusion that the letter\nto Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this Father.\n\nThus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of\nIrenaeus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But beyond this\nuncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired. All\nexperience, if I mistake not, bears out his statement respecting the\nvividness of the memory during this period of life. In a recent trial,\nthe most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to\ngive any information respecting the games and studies, the companions,\nthe familiar haunts, of the school and college days of the person with\nwhom he identified himself. It is the penalty which mature age pays for\nclearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the recollection\nof facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often an old man will\nrelate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early\nmanhood, while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period.\nThose who have listened to a Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy\nyears repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale, or\ndescribing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the\nbattle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the\nstories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his\nintercourse with the last surviving Apostle--the memory of the narrator\nbeing quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified, in this\ncase, by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts\nsuch as the world had never seen before.\n\nOne incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel. In\nthe closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he\nconferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference\nwas the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice\nof St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for\nobserving the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the\nday of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact\nthat his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to\nthe see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the\nanniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a\nSunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the\nweek. Neither convinced the other, but they parted good friends. This\ndifference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality;\nand, as a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the\nEucharist in his stead [100:1]. About forty years later, when the\nPaschal controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus,\nexcommunicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenaeus, though himself an\nobserver of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this\nharsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by\nEusebius, in which these incidents respecting his old master are\nrecorded [100:2]. Irenaeus insists strongly on the fact that \"the\nharmony of the faith\" has never been disturbed hitherto by any such\ndiversities of usage.\n\nTo this visit to Rome Irenaeus makes another reference in his extant\nwork against Heresies. The perfect confidence with which he appeals to\nthe continuity of the Apostolic tradition, and to the testimony of\nPolycarp as the principal link in the chain, gives a peculiar\nsignificance to this passage, and no apology is needed for quoting it at\nlength. After speaking of the succession of the Roman bishops, through\nwhom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation\nwithout interruption, he adds--\n\n     And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by\n     Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse ([Greek:\n     sunanastrapheis]) with many that had seen Christ, but also received\n     his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of\n     Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth ([Greek: en te prote\n     hemon helikia]) for he survived long, and departed this life at a\n     very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having\n     ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the\n     Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To\n     these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the\n     successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more\n     trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and\n     Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to\n     Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to the Church of God\n     from following the aforenamed heretics, by preaching that he had\n     received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was\n     handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who\n     have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he\n     went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed\n     away from the room without bathing, with the words, 'Let us flee,\n     lest the room should indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of\n     the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp himself also on one\n     occasion, when Marcion confronted him and said, 'Dost thou\n     recognize me?' answered, 'I recognize the firstborn of Satan.' Such\n     care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any\n     communication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the\n     truth, as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic after a first\n     and second admonition, avoid; knowing that such an one is perverted\n     and sinneth, being self-condemned.' Moreover, there is an Epistle\n     of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate\n     ([Greek: hikanotate]), and from which both his manner of life and\n     his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to\n     learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the\n     Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John\n     survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the\n     tradition of the Apostles [101:1].\n\nI have given these important extracts at length because they speak for\nthemselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many\narguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenaeus, when he\nthus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he\nholds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before\nhim. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the\npresent generation maintains that Irenaeus was mistaken from beginning\nto end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of\nthe Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that St John, as an\nApostle of the Circumcision, must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the\ndoctrine and work of St Paul; and that Polycarp, as a disciple of St\nJohn, must have shared that aversion, and cannot therefore have\nrecognized the authority of the Apostle of the Gentiles.\n\nIt is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have\nseriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or have\nattempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this\nrevolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape\nthe notice of the next succeeding generations. I shall probably have\noccasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the Church at this\nepoch. At present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal\ntestimony of Irenaeus respecting Polycarp is by no means the only, or\neven the greatest, impediment to this theory. He constantly appeals to\nthe Asiatic elders, the disciples and followers of the Apostles, in\nconfirmation of his statement. Among the Christian teachers of\nproconsular Asia who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous\nnames, Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They\nmust already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyrdom. They\nwere not merely practical workers, but voluminous writers also. The\nlists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of\ntopics; they handle questions of Christian ethics, of Scriptural\ninterpretation, of controversial divinity, of ecclesiastical order, of\ntheological metaphysics. Was there then any possibility of a mistake\nhere? To us the history of the Church during the second century is\nobscure, because all this voluminous literature, except a few meagre\nfragments, has been blotted out. But to the contemporaries and\nsuccessors of Irenaeus it was legible enough. 'Who does not know,'\nexclaims his own pupil Hippolytus, 'the books of Irenaeus and Melito and\nthe rest, which declare Christ to be God and man?' [102:1]\n\nThis mission of peace to Rome must have been one of the latest acts of\nthe old man's life. The accession of Anicetus to the see of Rome is\nvariously dated; but the earliest year is about A.D. 150, and an eminent\nrecent critic, who has paid special attention to the subject, places it\nbetween A.D. 154 and A.D. 156 [103:1]. In the year 155, or 156 at the\nlatest, Polycarp fell a martyr.\n\nThe details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary document,\nwhich takes the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, addressed\nmore immediately to the Church of Philomelium but challenging at the\nsame time a wider circulation [103:2]. The simplicity with which the\nnarrators record omens and occurrences easily explicable in themselves,\nbut invested by their surcharged feelings with a miraculous character,\nis highly natural. The whole narrative is eminently touching and\ninstructive; but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate\npurpose. It is sufficient to say that Polycarp had retired into the\ncountry to escape persecution; that the populace, not satisfied with the\nvictims already sacrificed to their fury, demanded the life of Polycarp,\nas the 'father of the Christians;' that his hiding-place was betrayed by\na boy in his service, under the influence of torture; that the\nmagistrates urged him to save his life by submitting to the usual tests,\nby pronouncing the formula, 'Caesar is Lord,' or offering sacrifice, or\nswearing by the fortune of the Emperor, or reviling Christ; that he\ndeclared himself unable to blaspheme a Master whom he had served for\neighty-six years, and from whom he had received no wrong; and that\nconsequently he was burnt at the stake, Jews and Heathens vying with\neach other in feeding the flames. The games were already past; otherwise\nhe would have been condemned to the wild beasts--the usual punishment\nfor such contumacy.\n\nPolycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus. The\ncommonly received date of his death is A.D. 166 or 167, as given in the\nChronicon of Eusebius. Quite recently however, M. Waddington has\nsubjected the proconsular _fasti_ of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous\nscrutiny [103:3]. This Statius Quadratus is mentioned by the orator\nAristides; and by an investigation of the chronology of Aristides' life,\nwith the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at\nthe result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155; and, as Polycarp\nwas martyred in the early months of the year, his martyrdom must be\ndated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan [104:1], and\nsubstantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius [104:2], who however (for\nreasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here) postpones the\nmartyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments\nseem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some\nstumbling-blocks. The relations between St John and Polycarp for\ninstance, as reported by Irenaeus and others, no longer present any\ndifficulty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap\neach other is thus extended. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ very\nexcusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, being\nunaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations.\n\nIn this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness of the\nEpistle ascribed to him; but the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has\ntaken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious, and I am\ntherefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence.\n\nSo far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed that the\nEpistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional\nvalue. The instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can\nclaim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is\nascribed. The statement of Irenaeus respecting the authorship of this\nEpistle is explicit; and indeed, as the reference is not denied either\nby the author of _Supernatural Religion_ or by other critics, like\nLipsius and Hilgenfeld, who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as\nspurious, I am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our\nauthor indeed is content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of\nIrenaeus is not ... entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse\nwith Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme\nyouth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent\ncommunication with him.' [105:1] I do not see how the notice of Irenaeus\njustifies the statement that the period was short; but the passage has\nbeen given above, and the reader may judge for himself. Nor does it seem\nprobable, considering that the communications between Asia Minor and\nsouthern Gaul were close and frequent, that the pupil should altogether\nhave lost sight of the master whom he revered, when he migrated to his\nnew and distant home in the west. But, even though all this be granted,\nthe fact still remains, that the testimony is exceptionally good and\nwould in ordinary cases be regarded as quite decisive. I do not say that\nit is impossible Irenaeus could have been mistaken; there is always risk\nof error in human testimony; but I maintain that, unless we are required\nto apply a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is\nheld satisfactory in other cases, we approach this Epistle with a very\nstrong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be invalidated by\nsolid and convincing proofs, and against which hypothetical combinations\nand ingenious surmises are powerless [105:2]. Whether the objections\nadduced by the impugners of this Epistle are of this character, the\nreader will see presently.\n\nFrom the external we turn to the internal evidence. We are asked to\nbelieve that this letter was forged on the confines of the age of\nIrenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. But can anything be more unlike the\necclesiastical literature of this later generation, whether we regard\nthe use of the New Testament, or the notices of ecclesiastical order, or\nthe statements of theological doctrine? The Evangelical quotations are\nstill given (as in Clement of Rome) with the formula, 'The Lord said;'\nthe passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still, for the most part,\nindirect and anonymous. Though two or three chapters are devoted to\ninjunctions respecting the ministry of the Church, there is not an\nallusion to episcopacy from beginning to end. Though the writer's ideas\nof the Person of Christ practically leave nothing to be desired, yet\nthese ideas are still held in solution, and have not yet crystallized\ninto the dogmatic forms which characterize the later generation. And\nfrom first to last this Epistle is silent upon those questions which\ninterested the Church in the second half of the second century. Of\nMontanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the developed Gnostic heresies\nof this period, it says nothing. A supposed reference to Marcion I shall\nhave to discuss presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that\nan allusion so vague and pointless as this would be must certainly have\nmissed its aim.\n\nBut this argument from internal evidence gains strength when considered\nfrom another point of view. The only intelligible theory--indeed, so far\nas I remember, the only attempt at a theory--offered to account for this\nEpistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity, connects it\nclosely with the Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged by the same\nhand which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles; if interpolated, it was\ninterpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine Epistles into\nthe seven. According to either hypothesis, the object was to recommend\nthe Ignatian forgery on the authority of a great Dame; the motive\nbetrays itself in the thirteenth chapter, where Polycarp is represented\nas sending several of the Ignatian Epistles to the Philippians along\nwith his own letter. This theory is at all events intelligible; and, so\nfar as I can see, it is the only rational theory of which the case\nadmits.\n\nLet us ask then, whether there is any improbability in the\ncircumstances, as here represented. Ignatius had stayed at Philippi on\nhis way to martyrdom; the Philippians had been deeply impressed by their\nintercourse with him; writing to Polycarp afterwards, they had requested\nhim to send them a copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him; he\ncomplies with the request, and appends also copies of other letters\nwritten by Ignatius, which he happened to have in his possession. Is\nthis at all unnatural? Suppose on the other hand, that the letter of\nPolycarp had contained no such reference to Ignatius and his Epistles,\nwould it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance,\nthat, writing to the Philippians so soon after Ignatius had visited both\nChurches, Polycarp should have said nothing about so remarkable a man?\nWhen I see how this argument from silence is worked in other cases, I\ncannot doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable\nobjection either to the truth of the Ignatian story, or to the\ngenuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, or to both. My conclusion is that\nthis notice proves nothing either way, when it stands alone. If the\nother contents of the Polycarpian Epistle are questionable, then it\nenforces our misgivings. If not, then this use of the notice is only\nanother illustration of the over-suspicious temperament of modern\ncriticism, which, as I ventured to suggest in an earlier paper, must be\nas fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early Christian\nhistory, as it is manifestly in matters of common life. The question\ntherefore is narrowed to this issue, whether the Epistle of Polycarp\nbears evidence in its style and diction or in its modes of thought or in\nany other way, that it was written by the same hand which penned the\nIgnatian letters.\n\nAnd here I venture to say that, however we test these documents, the\ncontrast is very striking; more striking in fact than we should have\nexpected to find between two Christian writers who wrote about the same\ntime and were personally acquainted with each other. I will apply some\nof these tests.\n\n1. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of\necclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy, is well\nknown. Indeed it is often supposed that the Ignatian Letters were\nwritten for this express purpose. In Polycarp's Epistle on the other\nhand, as I have already said, there is no mention of episcopacy. He\nspeaks at length about the duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of\nthe widows, and others, but the bishop is entirely ignored. More\nespecially he directs the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters\nand deacons, as to God and Christ,' but nothing is said about obedience\nto the bishop [108:1]. At a later point he has occasion to speak of an\noffence committed by one Valens, a presbyter, but here again there is\nthe same silence. All this is quite intelligible, if the letter is\ngenuine, on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the\nPhilippian bishopric at this time, or, as seems more probable, that the\necclesiastical organization there was not yet fully developed; but it\nis, so far as I can see, quite inconceivable that a forger whose object\nwas to recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so\ndamaging to his main purpose. The supposed forger indeed shows himself\nthroughout quite indifferent on this subject. There is every reason for\nbelieving that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at this time; yet in the\nheading of the letter he does not assert his title, but writes merely,\n'Polycarp and the presbyters with him.'\n\n2. If we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal statement,\nthe contrast still remains. We meet with no such strong expressions as\nare found in the Ignatian letters; Polycarp, never speaks of 'the blood\nof God,' 'the passion of my God,' 'Jesus Christ our God,' and the like.\nEven in the commoner modes of designating our Lord, a difference is\nperceptible. Thus the favourite mode of expression with Ignatius is\n'Jesus Christ' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred times; whereas in\nPolycarp it is only found twice (one passage being a quotation). On the\nother hand, the usual expression in Polycarp is 'Our Lord Jesus Christ,'\nwhich apparently occurs only twice in the Ignatian Epistles, and in both\ninstances with various readings. Again the combination 'God and Christ,'\noccurring three times in Polycarp, does not appear once in the Ignatian\nletters [108:2].\n\n3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is\nstill more remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are together at\nleast five times as long as the Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from\nthe Apostolic Epistles in the latter are many times more numerous, as\nwell as more precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are\nmade up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius they are\nvery rare, being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated\ncoincidences of language or thought. Nor indeed is their range\ncoextensive. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former\narticle [109:1], is pervaded with the language of St Peter's First\nEpistle, but in the Ignatian letters there is no trace of its use\n[109:2].\n\n4. But this divergence only forms part of a still broader and more\ndecisive contrast. The profuseness of quotation in Polycarp's Epistle\narises from a want of originality. The writer reproduces the thoughts\nand words of others, because his mind is essentially receptive and not\ncreative. He is altogether wanting in independence of thought. On the\nother hand, the Ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality.\nOf all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect.\nThey are full of idiomatic expressions, quaint images, unexpected turns\nof thought and language. They exhibit their characteristic ideas, which\nobviously have a high value for the writer, for he recurs to them again\nand again, but which the reader often finds it extremely difficult to\ngrasp, owing to their singularity. I venture to think that any one who\nwill carefully consider these contrasts--more especially the last, as\nextending over the whole field--must be struck with the impossibility of\nthe theory which makes this letter part of the assumed Ignatian\nforgeries. This hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical\nage produced a literary fiction, which, for subtlety and naturalness of\nexecution, leaves the most skilful forgeries of the nineteenth century\nfar behind.\n\nAnd the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with difficulties of\nthe same kind, and hardly less considerable. This hypothesis was shaped\nand developed by Ritschl [110:1], whose theory has been accepted by some\nlater writers. He supposes that the greater part of the Epistle is the\ngenuine production of the person whose name it bears, written however,\nnot immediately after the death of Ignatius, but in the later years of\nPolycarp's long life. The three passages which relate to Ignatius,\ntogether with other parts which he defines, he supposes to have been\ninterpolated by the same forger who amplified the three genuine letters\nof the martyr of Antioch into the seven of the Vossian collection. But\nif any one will take the passages which Ritschl has struck out as\ninterpolated, he will find that the general style is the same; that\nindividual expressions, more especially theological expressions, are the\nsame; that the quotations are from the same range of books, as in the\nother parts, extending even to coincidences of expression with the\nEpistle of Clement of Rome; and that altogether there is nothing to\nseparate one part from another, except the _a priori_ assumption that\nthe references to Ignatius must be unhistorical. I do not know whether\nthese facts have been pointed out before, and I cannot do more here than\nhint at lines of investigation which any one may follow up for himself.\nBut when the phenomena are fully recognized, I venture to think that the\ndifficulties in Ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times greater\nthan those which it is framed to remove.\n\nOf the general character of the Epistle, as affecting the question of\nits genuineness, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has said nothing.\nBut he has reproduced special objections which have been urged by\nprevious writers; and to these I wish to call attention, because they\nare very good, and not unfavourable, illustrations of the style of\ncriticism which is in vogue with the negative school.\n\n1. Our author writes in the first place:--\n\n     We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,\n     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the\n     epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held\n     to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers\n     to the martyr-journey (c. ix), but to the Ignatian Epistles which\n     are inauthentic (c. xiii), and the manifest inference is that it\n     also is spurious.\n\nOf the fabulous character of the martyr-journey I have already disposed\nin my previous article on the Ignatian letters [111:1]. For the present\nI reserve what I have to say concerning the assumed reference to the\n'inauthentic' Epistles, as this objection will reappear again.\n\n2. Our author on a later page urges that--\n\n     In the Epistle itself, there are many anachronisms. In ch. ix the\n     'blessed Ignatius' is referred to as already a considerable time\n     dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul\n     and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience: men who have\n     not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii he is\n     spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him,\n     'and those who are with him.'\n\nTo this objection I had already supplied the answer [111:2] which has\nbeen given many times before, and which, as it seemed to me, the author\nought in fairness to have noticed. I had pointed out that we have only\nthe Latin version here, and that the present tense is obviously due to\nthe translator. The original would naturally be [Greek: ton sun auto],\nwhich the translator, being obliged to supply a substantive verb, has\ncarelessly rendered 'his qui cum eo _sunt_.' If any one will consider\nwhat has been just said about the general character of the Epistle, he\nwill see that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact,\nwhether we regard the work as genuine or not. If it is not genuine, the\nforger has executed his task with consummate skill and appreciation; and\nyet here he is charged with a piece of bungling which a schoolboy would\nhave avoided. It is not merely an anachronism, but a self-contradiction\nof the most patent kind. The writer, on this hypothesis, has not made up\nhis mind whether Ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time,\nand he represents the fact differently in two different parts [112:1].\n\nBut our author apparently is quite unaware that [Greek: hoi sun auto]\nmight mean equally well, 'those who _were_ with him,' and those who\n_are_ with him.' At least I cannot attach any other meaning to his\nreply, in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere, and\nspeaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar.'\n[112:2] If so, I can only refer him to Thucydides or any Greek\nhistorian, where he will find scores of similar instances. I need hardly\nsay that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning\nnothing more than 'his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied\naccording to the context or the known circumstances of the case. But I\nam not sorry that our author has fallen into this error, for it has led\nme to investigate the usage of Polycarp and his translator, and has thus\nelicited the following facts:--(1) Unless he departed from his ordinary\nusage, Polycarp would have employed the short expression [Greek: hoi sun\nauto] or [Greek: hoi met' autou] in such a case. Thus he has [Greek: ou\nsun auto] in the opening paragraph, and [Greek: tois ex humon] in c. 9,\nwith other similar distances. (2) The translator, if he had the words\n[Greek: tois sun auto] before him, would almost certainly supply the\nsubstantive verb, as he has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo _sunt_\npresbyteri;' in c. 3, 'illis qui tunc _erant_ hominibus,' and 'quae\n_est_ in Deo;' in c. 9, 'qui ex vobis _sunt_;' and probably also in c.\n12, 'qui _sunt_ sub coelo' (the Greek is wanting in this last passage).\n(3) The translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give\nthe wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle where\nit was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point;\nhe has translated [Greek: hen kai eidete ... en allois tois ex humon]\nmechanically by a present tense, 'quam et vidistis ... in aliis qui ex\nvobis _sunt_,' though the persons are mentioned in connection with St\nIgnatius and St Paul, and though it is distinctly stated immediately\nafterwards that they _all_ were dead, having, as we may infer from the\ncontext, ended their life by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very\nsame blunder which I ascribe to him here.\n\nThis objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the notices\nwhich I have been considering suggest another reflection. Is the\nhistorical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like\nthe invention of a forger? Would he have thought of placing himself at\nthe moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred, but\nwhen the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna? If he\nhad chosen this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of\nleaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are\nscattered through the Epistle--notices moreover, which, though entirely\nconsistent with each other, are so far from obvious that his translator\nhas been led astray by them, and that modern critics have woven out of\nthem these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel?\n\n3. But our author proceeds:--\n\n     Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already\n     knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written\n     by him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference\n     here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the\n     Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles\n     which are not included in the Syriac version.\n\nI have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive; but, if he\nhad been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not have known of his\nEpistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian letters four claim to have\nbeen written from Smyrna, when the saint was in some sense Polycarp's\nguest, and two to have been written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven\nEpistles, supposing them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost\nnecessarily have been acquainted with six.\n\nBy the 'other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Polycarp is\nsupposed to recognize, I presume that our author means the four of the\nVossian collection, which have no place in the Syriac. If so, I would\nreply that, supposing the three Syriac Epistles to represent the only\ngenuine letters _extant_, these Epistles themselves bear testimony to\nthe fact that Ignatius wrote several others besides; for in one passage\nin these Syriac Epistles (_Rom._ 4) the martyr says, 'I write to _all\nthe Churches_ and charge _all men_.' And again, when Polycarp writes,\n[Greek: tas epistolas Ignatious tas pemphtheisas hemin hup' autou] it is\nsufficient to advert to the fact that, like the Latin _epistolae_, the\nplural [Greek: epistolai] is frequently used convertibly with the\nsingular [Greek: epistole] for a single letter [114:1], and indeed\nappears to be so used in an earlier passage by Polycarp himself of\nSt Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [114:2]; so that the notice is\nsatisfied by the single Epistle to Polycarp which is included in the\nSyriac letters, and does not necessarily imply also the Epistle to the\nSmyrnaeans which has no place there. But of this passage generally I\nwould say, that though it may be a question whether the language does\nnot favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the\nCuretonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle\nof Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, by Irenaeus, and\nexhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of genuineness in itself.\n\n4. Our author then continues:--\n\n     Dallaeus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts\n     the conclusion of the Epistle.\n\nIn what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is\ndifficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which would naturally be\nassigned to such personal matters; for it follows upon the main purport\nof the letter, while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the\nbearer and the final salutation. On the same showing the conclusion of\nthe greater number of St Paul's Epistles is 'abruptly interrupted.'\n\n5. The next argument is of another kind:--\n\n     The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the\n     Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not\n     exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he\n     refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in\n     speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenaeus\n     to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in\n     Rome about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion 'the\n     first-born of Satan,' ([Greek: prototokos tou Satana]), and the\n     same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to every one who\n     holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies,\n     therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at\n     earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is\n     further confirmed by other circumstances.\n\nI will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting however\none or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investigations, to which I\nhave already alluded [115:1], oblige us to place Polycarp's visit to\nRome some few years before 160, since his death is fixed at A.D. 155 or\n156. Again, Irenaeus does not state that the interview between Polycarp\nand Marcion took place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it\nmay have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region\nMarcion was a native [115:2]. These however are not very important\nmatters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about A.D.\n140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied the\nexpression 'first-born of Satan' to Marcion, while in the Epistle,\npurporting to have been written many years before, he appears as using\nthis same expression of other Gnostic teachers. This argument is a good\nillustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like Lipsius and\nHilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial mind, I imagine, this coincidence,\nso far as it goes, would appear to point to Polycarp as the author of\nthe Epistle; for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the\none from oral tradition through Irenaeus, the other in a written\ndocument older than Irenaeus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the\nother, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is\nmuch more probable. Irenaeus, as he tells us in the context, was\nacquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating\nthe story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently imported\ninto it the expression which he had read in the Epistle. But the\nindependence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do repeat\nthe same expressions again and again, and this throughout long periods\nof their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies,\nand so become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, and\nin the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he\nhad a habit of repeating favourite expressions. Irenaeus, in a passage\nalready quoted, mentions his exclamation, 'O good God,' as one of these\n[116:1].\n\nOur author however declares that the passage in the Epistle which\ncontains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and his followers;\nand, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before\nA.D. 130-140 at the earliest, this fact, if it be a fact, condemns as\nspurious a work which professes to have been written some years before.\nBut is there anything really characteristic of Marcion in the\ndescription? Our author does not explain himself, nor can I find\nanything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom I\nam referred in his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves--\n\n     For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in\n     the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the\n     testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth\n     the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that\n     there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a\n     first-born of Satan [116:2].\n\nTo illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite\ndoctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by a\nNonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned with the\ntruth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the doctrines of\nepiscopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptismal regeneration,\nand the like. It is wholly silent about claims to Papal domination,\nabout infallibility, about purgatory and indulgences, about the worship\nof the Virgin or of the Saints. Am I justified in concluding that the\nwriter is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome,\nbecause the Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches,\nholds the doctrines attacked? Would not any reasonable man draw the very\nopposite inference, and conclude that the writer cannot mean the Church\nof Rome, because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets\nof that Church?\n\nSo it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic sects, held\nsome views which are here attacked. But Marcion had also doctrines of\nhis own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. Marcion taught that the God of\nthe New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he\nidentified with the God of Nature; that these two Gods were not only\ndistinct but antagonistic; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine\nfeud between them; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to\nrescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This was the head and\nfront of his offending; and consequently a common charge against him\nwith orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes God.' [117:1] Of this there\nis not a hint in Polycarp's denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the\nauthority of the Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he\nconfined his Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again,\nMarcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married\npersons. On these points also Polycarp is silent.\n\nBut indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would\nappear from the illustration which I have used. Not only is there\nnothing specially characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies\ndenounced by Polycarp, not only were the doctrines condemned held by\ndivers other teachers besides, but some of the charges are quite\ninapplicable to him. The passage in question denounces three forms of\nheretical teaching, which may or may not have been combined in one sect.\nOf these the first, 'Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has\ncome in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It way refer,\nfor instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the\nspiritual Being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism, and\nleft Him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ\nremained impassible [118:1]; or it may describe the pure docetism, which\nmaintained that our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His\nbirth and life and death alike were only apparent, and not real [118:2];\nor it may have some reference different from either. I cannot myself\ndoubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle of St John,\nand there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the contemporary of the\nApostle [118:3]; but Polycarp may have used it with a much wider\nreference. Under any circumstances, though it would no doubt apply to\nMarcion, who held strong docetic views, it would apply to almost every\nsect of Gnostics besides. The same may be said of the second position\nattacked, 'Whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross,' which\nmight include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well.\nBut the case is wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth\nthe oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there\nis neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this type of error, and this\nonly, the description 'first-born of Satan' is applied in the text, and\nof this I venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to Marcion.\nNo doubt Marcion, like every other heretical teacher of the second\ncentury, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord'\nby his tortuous interpretations; but he did not pervert them 'to his own\nlusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is\nrecognized by the orthodox writers of the second century; the worst\ncharge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an\nascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but\nregard it as a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this\ndenunciation on Marcion, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the\nLord,' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts,'\nthough these contain the very sting of the accusation [119:1]. Obviously\nthe allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early Gnostic\nteachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel.\nWe find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the\nprofessed date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which\nSt Paul rebukes at Corinth [119:2]. We have still clearer indications of\nit in the Pastoral Epistles; and when we reach the epoch of the\nApocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in the year 68 or\n69, the evil is almost full blown [119:3]. This interpretation becomes\nmore evident when we consider the expression in the light of the\naccompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying that\nthere was 'no resurrection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything\nelse than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so\nbroke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences.\nHere again, they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators\nbelonging to the Christian community at Corinth who maintained that\n'there is no resurrection of the dead,' [120:1] and whose Epicurean\nlives were a logical consequence of their Epicurean doctrine. And here,\ntoo, the Pastoral Epistles supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at\na loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of\n'the oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel\ncase of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who taught that 'the resurrection had\nalready taken place,' [120:2] or in other words, that all such terms\nmust be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual\nchange, the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present\nworld'. Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching is altogether\nforeign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh,\nand the future body of the redeemed [120:4]. This was a necessary tenet\nof all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this\nsense only he denied a resurrection; and he did not deny a judgment at\nall. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or\npunished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged\nto recognize a judgment in some form or other. His Supreme God indeed,\nwhom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an\navenger, but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging\nand punishing to the Demiurge [120:5]. To revert to my illustration,\nthis is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge of\nErastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom he was\nattacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the\nChurch of Rome.\n\n6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind:--\n\n     The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which\n     Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life,\n     and of which we first have evidence about A.D. 160, when he was\n     deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion.\n\nThis argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any power, when they\nremember that the ablest and most powerful Prime Minister whom\nconstitutional England has seen assumed the reins of government at the\nearly age of twenty-four. But Polycarp was not a young man at this time.\nM. Waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we\ntake the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp was now in\nhis fortieth year at least; if the later date, he was close upon fifty.\nHe had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged\nApostle St John. He was specially commended by Ignatius, who doubtless\nhad spoken of him to the Philippians. History does not point to any\nperson after the death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high\namong his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from\nsilence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church. What wonder\nthen that the Philippians should have asked him to write to them? To\nthis request, I suppose, our author refers when he speaks of the writer\n'assuming a position in the Church;' for there is nothing else to\njustify it. On his own part Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He\nassociates his presbyters with himself in the opening address; he says\nthat he should not have ventured to write as he does, if he had not\nreceived a request from the Philippians; he even deprecates any\nassumption of superiority [121:1].\n\n7. But our author continues:--\n\n     And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization of\n     that period.\n\nThis argument must, I think, strike any one who has read the Epistle as\nsurprising. There is, as I have said already, no reference to episcopacy\nfrom beginning to end [122:1]; and in this respect it presents the\nstrongest contrast to writings of the age of Irenaeus, to which it is\nhere supposed to belong. Irenaeus and his contemporaries are so familiar\nwith episcopacy as a traditional institution, that they are not aware of\nany period when it was not universal; and more especially when they are\ndealing with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary\nof the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and\npractice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle is a\nstrong testimony to its early date.\n\n8. Lastly, another argument is alleged:--\n\n     Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in\n     the injunction 'Pray for the kings' (Orate pro regibus), which, in\n     1 Peter ii. 17, is 'Honour the king' ([Greek: ton basilea timate]),\n     which accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated\n     Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or better still,\n     with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his\n     colleague, A.D. 161.\n\nHere we have only to ask why _Orate pro regibus_ should be translated\n'Pray for _the_ kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and the ghost of a\ndivided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. There is no reason\nwhatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a\ngeneral reference. Even if the words had stood in the original [Greek:\nhuper ton basileon] and not [Greek: huper basileon], the presence of the\narticle would not, according to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit\nthe reference to any particular sovereigns. But there is very good\nreason for believing that the definite article had no place in the\noriginal. The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with\nthe First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (Sec. 4), he combines two\npassages which occur in close proximity in that Epistle; 'The love of\nmoney is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. vi. 10): knowing therefore\nthat we brought nothing into the world, neither are we able to carry\nanything out (1 Tim. vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes\nhighly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same\nEpistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers,\nintercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings, and for\nall that are in authority' (ii. 2) [123:1], where it is [Greek: huper\nbasileon]. After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other\nexpressions that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings\n(Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest\npossible range to his injunction; 'Pray for all the saints; pray also\nfor kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute and\nhate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc.' We may therefore bid\nfarewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.\n\nOur author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the\nauthenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but who\ncertainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt\nto refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over in silence all\nanswers which have been given to the objections alleged by him.\nDoubtless he considered them unworthy of notice. I have endeavoured to\nsupply this lacuna in his work; and the reader will judge for himself on\nwhich side the weight of argument lies.\n\nThe author of _Supernatural Religion_ in his Reply, which appeared in\nthe January number of the _Fortnightly Review_, pointed out two\ninaccuracies in my first article. In adverting to his silence respecting\nthe occurrence of the Logos in the Apocalypse [123:2], I ought to have\nconfined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting\nthe doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the Apocalypse, where\nespecially some mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere\nalluded, as his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the\nApocalypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he charges\nDr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be\ntrue respecting Basilides. While commenting on his omission of Dr\nWestcott's inverted commas in the extract which I gave [124:1], I\noverlooked the fact that he had just before quoted Dr Westcott's text\ncorrectly, as it stands in Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still\nmore difficult to understand how he could have brought this most\nunwarrantable charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was\ndistinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of an\noversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I shall not\nattempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, which he\nthrows back upon me.\n\nFor the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of my\ncriticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply.\n\nI cannot, for instance, take any blame to myself for not foreseeing the\nmisprints which our author pleads, because they must have baffled far\nhigher powers of divination than mine. Thus I found [124:2] the author\nstating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once distinguishes John the\nBaptist by the appellation [Greek: ho baptistes],' [124:3] whereas, as a\nmatter of fact, he never does so; and comparing the whole sentence with\na passage in Credner [124:4], to which the author refers in his\nfootnote, I found that it presented a close parallel, as the reader will\nsee:--\n\nWaehrend der Verfasser die           | He [the author] _only once_\nbeiden Apostel gleiches Namens,     | distinguishes John the Baptist\nJudas, sorgfaeltig unterscheidet     | by the appellation [Greek: ho\n(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas     | baptistes], whilst he carefully\nnaeher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24;   | distinguishes the two disciples\n21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus,      | of the name of Judas, and always\nnur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus,      | speaks of the Apostle Peter as\nnie Simon allein nennt (s. Sec. 96,    | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but\nNr. 3.), hat er es nicht fuer noethig | rarely as 'Simon' only.\ngefunden, den Taeufer Johannes       |\nvon dem gleichnamigen Apostel       |\nJohannes _auch nur ein einziges     |\nMal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho    |\nbaptistes] zu unterscheiden         |\n(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.).           |\n\nSeeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to\nthe other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had\ntraced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two\nparticular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have\nstumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than\nonce gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New\nTestament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last\nand the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels,\nthough it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant\nvariation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember\n'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have\nhimself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his\nexercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This\nexplanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably\nevident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_\nonce,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all\nthe four editions.\n\nBut the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further\nremoved from the possibility of detection. I had called attention\n[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author\nhad written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3,\n4)--\n\n     This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel,\n     and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1].\n\nwhereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the\npassage was genuine; and I had pointed out that the last words stood\n'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the\npassage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been\nsuffered to remain.\n\nIn justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:--\n\n     The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol.\n     i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, 'and it is argued\n     that it was probably a later interpolation [126:2].'\n\nTo this the following note is appended:--\n\n     I altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition, as Dr\n     Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of\n     exaggeration, but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that\n     I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness,\n     reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive\n     the absence of the words given above.\n\nThis omission runs through four editions.\n\nBut more perplexing still is the author's use of language.\n\nThe reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenaeus,\nwhere this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer\nto the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my\nfirst article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction\nbetween the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct\nnarrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might\nvery well be Irenaeus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out\nthat whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in\nthe fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found\nout his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in\nits earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives\nin his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his\nlanguage. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1)\nThat there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all,\nor that Irenaeus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp.\n326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no\nground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of\nPapias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned\nmyself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when\nI shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first\npoint alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in his\nreply that his meaning was the same throughout, that he knew all the\nwhile Irenaeus must be quoting from some one else, and that he 'did what\nwas possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction.'\n[127:2] Why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were\ndirect? Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in\nIrenaeus containing quotations, did he add, 'These are all direct\nquotations by Irenaeus, as is most certainly that which we are now\nconsidering, which is introduced in precisely the same way?' [127:3] Why\nin his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recognition of the\noblique construction, did he withdraw all these supposed parallels,\nwhich, if his opinion was unchanged, still remained as good for his\npurpose (whatever that purpose might be) as they had ever been? Further\ndiscussion on this point would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any\nreader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and\nmore especially to compare the fourth [128:1] with the earlier editions,\nthat he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, except\nthat which I and others besides myself [128:2] have put upon his words,\nwas natural. The author has declared his meaning, but I could only judge\nby his language.\n\nI now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's\nreply; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order\nadopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder.\n\n1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I spoke\ndisparagingly of his scholarship [128:3]; and in reply he says that the\ncriticism in which I have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction\nof an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.' [128:4] I cannot help\nthinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view; but let\nthat pass. If the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my\narticle, he will find that, so far from occupying the main part of it on\npoints of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under\ndiscussion, as the author seems to hint, I have taken up about\ntwo-thirds of a page only [128:5] with such matters. In the other\ninstances which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument\nfor the time being at some vital point. It would have been possible to\nmultiply examples, if examples had been needed. I might have quoted, for\ninstance, such renderings as [Greek: katabas peripateito] 'come down let\nhim walk about [129:1];' or [Greek: Iousta tis en hemin esti\nSurophoinikissa, to genos Chananitis, hes to Thugatrion k.t.l.] 'Justa,\nwho is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose\ndaughter' etc. [129:2] Both these renderings survive to the fourth\nedition.\n\nI must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes,\nthough only a few words will be necessary. I do not see that he has\ngained anything by sheltering himself behind others, when he is\nobviously in the wrong. Not a legion of Tischendorfs, for instance, can\nmake [Greek: epangellomenon] signify 'has promised,' [129:3] though it\nis due to Tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation\nhe has seen through the meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened\nan error upon himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done.\nAnd in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the\nresponsibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant\nthan the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a scholar,\nhaving translated _quem caederet_ [129:4], 'whom he mutilates,' could\nhave brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' [129:5]. I am not at\nall afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with\nhaving unduly depreciated his scholarship.\n\nBut our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth\nestablishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel sure that, if he\nhad been dealing with some indifferent matter, as for instance some\nquestion of classical literature, he would not have received any more\nlenient treatment from independent reviewers; and I do not see why the\ngreater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for\nimmunity from critical examination. It does not seem to me to be a light\nmatter that an author assuming, as the author of _Supernatural Religion_\ndoes, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, should\nbetray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. But in the present\ncase there was an additional reason why attention should be called to\nthese defects. It was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of\nthe author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the\npublic, and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not\nentitled.\n\n2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality\nwith which the work entitled _Supernatural Religion_ had been credited.\nAnd here I would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's\nreviewers than with the author himself. I can understand how he should\nomit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity.\nIt appeared from the book itself, and it has become still more plain\nfrom the author's Reply, that he regards 'apologists' as persons from\nwhom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments therefore he need\nnot for the most part concern himself. But the fact remains that the\nreader has had an _ex parte_ statement presented to him, while he has\nbeen assured that the whole case is laid before him.\n\nOf this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. To these\nour author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, I believe that the\npresent article has entirely justified my allegation. Of Papias,\nHegesippus, and Justin, I shall have occasion to speak in subsequent\narticles. At present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to\nwhat Dr Westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer, and ask\nreaders to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case\nimpartially before them.\n\nSeveral of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St. John. Of these\nour author has taken exception more especially to three.\n\nAs regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because he has quoted\nmy own words, and I am well content that they should tell their own\ntale. If our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself, and\nirrelevant to the direct purpose of the work,' [131:1] I venture to\nthink that discerning readers will take a different view. I had directed\nattention [131:2] to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.\nxxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34) as implying other visits to Jerusalem which\nthese Gospels do not themselves record, and therefore as refuting the\nhypothesis that our Lord's ministry was only of a single year's\nduration, and was exercised wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood\nuntil the closing visit to Jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on\nthe arbitrary assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete\nand continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative on\nthis fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the Synoptists\ngive no continuous chronology in the history of our Lord's ministry\nbetween the baptism and the passion; the incidents were selected in the\nfirst instance (we may suppose) for purposes of catechetical\ninstruction, and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject,\nsometimes (though incidentally) by sequence of time. In St. John, on the\nother hand, the successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebrae of\nthe chronological backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account\nof Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure even\nhere that the vertebrae are absolutely continuous; many festivals may\nhave been omitted; the ministry of Christ may have extended over a much\nlonger period, as indeed Irenaeus asserts that it did [131:3]; but the\nthree passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three\nyears at the least.\n\nThe second point has reference to the diction of the fourth Gospel, as\ncompared with the Apocalypse [131:4]. Here I am glad to find that there\nis less difference of opinion between us than I had imagined. If our\nauthor does not greatly differ from Luthardt's estimate of the language,\nneither do I [132:1]. On the other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as\nI am aware) nobody has denied, that there is a marked difference between\nthe Apocalypse and the Gospel, in respect of diction; only it is\ncontended that two very potent influences must be taken into account\nwhich will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of\nthe two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of the one\nbook necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong\nHebraic colouring, which we should not expect to find in a historical\nnarrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time separates the two works.\nThe Apocalypse was written, according to the view which our author\nrepresents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics,' about\nA.D. 68, 69 [132:2]. It marks the close of what we may call the\n_Hebraic_ period of St John's life--_i.e._, the period which (so far as\nwe can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history) he\nhad spent chiefly in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The\nGospel on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the\nlast years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or\nmore probably dictated) at the end of the _Hellenic_ period, after an\ninterval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had lived at\nEphesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our author appears to be\nastonished that Luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the Apocalypse\nas not arising out of ignorance, but as 'intentional emancipations from\nthe rules of grammar.' Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must\nbe so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's\nreflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho on,\nk.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that\n[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of\nwriting any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book,\nafter all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable\ncommand of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a\nfamiliarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this\nlanguage.\n\nOn the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four\npages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the\nmanner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth\nGospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its\nidentification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable\nsolutions. To this remark I had appended the following note:\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: Suchar]], and apologetic\n     ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is\n     altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages\n     in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or\n     Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. Our\n     author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f.\n     Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article,\n     for these Talmudic references are its main purport._\n\nOur author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as\nthey are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish\nespecially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds\nthat 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary\nReview_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,'\nto which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2].\n\nI am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the\nobscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the\nhistorical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will\nmost certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself\nfirst. I am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person\nwho penned certain sentences in _Supernatural Religion_. I am not a\nlittle perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he\nwould lay down; for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt\nlanguage, of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others\nwith 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation\nupon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsification,'\nwith 'disingenuousness' [134:1] and other grave moral offences of the\nsame kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that offences of\nthis class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or\nthe grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore obliged to ask whether he is\nnot imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe\nhimself, when he objects to what I have said. Nevertheless I will\napologize; but I cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to\nwithdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of\nproceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it\nanother which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I saw in his\ntext the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no such\nplace,' [134:2] and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a\nreference to an article by an eminent Hebraist devoted to showing that\nsuch a place is mentioned several times in the Talmud, I could draw no\nother conclusion than that he had not read the article in question, or\n(as I might have added), having read it, had forgotten its contents. The\nmanner in which references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have\nshown in my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this\ninference. His own explanation however is quite different.--\n\n     My statement is, that it is admitted that there was no such place\n     as Sychar--I ought to have added, 'except by apologists, who never\n     admit anything'--but I thought that in saying, 'and apologetic\n     ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty,' I had\n     sufficiently excepted apologists, and indicated that many\n     assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose.\n\nCertainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added; for no reader\ncould have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be\nunderstood with this all-important reservation. Unfortunately however\nthis explanation is not confined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it\nis adopted by M. Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position)\nwould altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who\nnevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, without\nconsidering whether it will or will not tend to establish the\ncredibility of the Evangelist.\n\nBut after all, the really important question for the reader is not what\nthis or that person thinks on this question, but what are the facts. And\nhere I venture to say that, when our author speaks of 'assertions and\nconjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's article, such language is quite\nmisleading. The points which the Talmudical passages quoted by him\nestablish are these:--\n\n(1) A place called 'Suchar,' or 'Sychar,' is mentioned in the Talmud.\nOur author speaks of 'some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat\nsimilar, but not identical, name.' But the fact is, that the word\n[Greek: Suchar], if written in Hebrew letters, would naturally take one\nor other of the two forms which we find in the Talmud, [Hebrew: Sukh'r]\n(Suchar) or [Hebrew: Sykh'r] (Sychar). In other words, the\ntransliteration is as exact as it could be. It would no doubt be\npossible to read the former word 'Socher,' and the latter 'Sicher,'\nbecause the vowels are indeterminate within these limits. But so far as\nidentity was possible, we have it here.\n\n(2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of 'Sychar,' but of\n'Ayin-Sychar,' _i.e._, 'the Well of Sychar.'\n\n(3) The 'Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing\ncountry. This is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of\nthe place in the two principal Talmudical passages where it appears,\n_Baba Kamma_ 82b, _Menachoth_ 64b. It is there stated that on one\noccasion, when the lands in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid\nwaste by war, and no one knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal\noffering, the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they\nwere obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the Well of\nSychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the interview with the\nSamaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn,\nunbroken by boundary or hedge'[136:1]--as it is described by a modern\ntraveller; and indeed the prospect before Him suggests to our Lord, as\nwe may well suppose, the image which occurs in the conversation with the\ndisciples immediately following--'Lift up your eyes, and look on the\nfields; for they are white already to harvest.' [136:2] It is true that\nthe Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin-Sychar;'\nbut all the circumstances agree. It was just from such a country as this\n(neither too near nor too far distant for the notices) that the\nPentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency.\n\nThe reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge for himself\nwhether the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no\nsuch place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. He will form his own\nopinion whether a writer, who deliberately ignores these facts, because\nthey are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything,' is\nlikely to form an impartial judgment.\n\nThe identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent opinion has\nbeen tending, is a question of less importance. Notwithstanding the\ndifficulty respecting the initial _Ain_ in the latter word, an\nidentification which has commended itself to Oriental scholars like\nEwald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible. I\nventure to suggest that the initial Ain of 'Askar' may be explained by\nsupposing the word to be a contraction for _Ayin-Sychar_, the 'Well of\nSychar.' This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic word\nwould furnish another example of a process which is common where one\nlanguage is superposed upon another, _e.g._, Charter-house for\nChartreuse.\n\n3. The third point to which I called attention [137:1] was the author's\npractice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty. This\nseemed to me to be a very grave offence, which deserved to be condemned\nby all men alike, whatever their opinions might be. And in the present\ninstance I considered that the author was especially bound to abstain\nfrom such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as he\nwas otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. Moreover, the\noffence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had\nespecially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his\nmoderation of tone, and for his generous appreciation of the position\nand arguments of his adversaries.\n\nThis is our author's reply--\n\n     Dr Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that 'Dr Westcott's honour may\n     safely be left to take care of itself.' It would have been much\n     better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble\n     it by such advocacy. If anything could check just or generous\n     expression, it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot; but\n     nevertheless, I again say, in the most unreserved manner, that\n     neither in this instance, nor in any other, have I had the most\n     distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like Dr\n     Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose\n     earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at\n     any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is\n     by orthodox views in general, and on the Canon in particular, he\n     sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and\n     unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements\n     which should be more impartially made [137:2].\n\nI am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this\nexplanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it\nredressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's\nmeaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine\nrespect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet\nreserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,'\nof 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,'\nof 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very\npassage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with\nyielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and\n'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting\nBasilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling\nmatter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his\nrebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which\ncould only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so\ngrievously misrepresented his true meaning.\n\nI trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he\nhas brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I\ncertainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he\ndeserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came\nforward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with\nattacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have\nbeen no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed\nwith him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant\n'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary readers would\nimagine, that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty. I\nam content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an\nunconscious bias.\n\nIn our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument,\nthere is one point which seems to call for observation. Of all my\nremarks, the one sentence which I should least have expected to incur\nhis displeasure, is the following:--\n\n     Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the\n     first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous\n     [138:2].\n\nI fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own opinion\ninto other words. I imagined that he himself wished the second and third\nparts to be regarded as a work of supererogation. Was I altogether\nwithout ground for this belief? I turn to the concluding paragraph of\nthe first part, and I find these words:--\n\n     Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of\n     testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the\n     reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which\n     is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize\n     that, _even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels\n     could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds_, the\n     testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their\n     contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--_would be\n     utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles_ [139:1].\n\nWhat does this mean, except that even though it should be necessary to\nconcede every point against which the author is contending in the second\nand third parts, still the belief in the Gospel miracles is irrational?\nIs the language which I have used at all stronger than our author's own\non this point? But I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of\nopinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the\nfirst part [139:2].\n\nFor some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely thank the\nauthor, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with either the\ntone or the substance of the preceding reply. I trust that I have\nalready relieved him from the apprehension that I should confine myself\nto 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped that some of the topics in my first\narticle might have been laid aside for ever, but his reply has compelled\nme to revert to them. He does me no more than justice when he credits me\nwith earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. But it\nseems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more\nintense in my case than in his; for (to say nothing else), as I read\nhistory, the morality of the coming generations of Englishmen is very\nlargely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at\nissue between us. As he has withheld his name, he has deprived me of the\npleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect. Thus he\nhas placed me at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and\ncan speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that one who\nhas taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far\nentitled to every consideration. And, if this had been all, I should\nhave entertained and expressed the highest respect for him, however\nfaulty his processes might appear to me, and however dangerous his\nresults. But, when I observed that the author, not content with ignoring\nthe facts and reasonings, went on to impugn the honesty of his\nopponents; when I noticed that again and again the arguments on one side\nof the question were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other\nside were altogether omitted; when I perceived that he denied the\nauthenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of every\nreference, which made against him; when in short I saw that, however\nsincere the writer's personal convictions might be, the critical portion\nof the work was stamped throughout with the character of an\nadvocate's _ex parte_ statement, I felt that he had forfeited any claim\nto special forbearance. For the rest, I do not wish to be unjust to the\nbook, and I am sorry if, while attempting to correct an exceedingly\nfalse estimate, I have seemed to any one to be so; but I do not see any\ngood in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the\nheart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of\nthe highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think that so much\nenergetic work had been thrown away. If the publication of this book\nshall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most\nmomentous subjects, it will have achieved an important result. But I\nwould wish to add one caution. No good will ever come from merely\nworking on the lines of modern theorists. Perhaps the reader will\nforgive me if I add a few words of explanation, for I do not wish to be\nmisunderstood. I should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German\nwriters, I used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any\nrecent theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it is\nthe German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to men of this stamp.\nAll diligent students of early Christian history must have derived the\ngreatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research,\nand frequently also from the acute analysis, even of writers of the most\nextreme school. But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating\nspeculations should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to\nexercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will take the\npains to read Irenaeus through carefully, endeavouring to enter into his\nhistorical position in all its bearings, striving to realize what he and\nhis contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New\nTestament and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all,\nresisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines,\nwill be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early\nhistory of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which\nhave issued from the German press during the last half century.\n\n\n\n\nV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.\n\n[AUGUST, 1875.]\n\n\nTwo names stand out prominently in the Churches of proconsular Asia\nduring the age immediately succeeding the Apostles--Polycarp of Smyrna,\nand Papias of Hierapolis. Having given an account of Polycarp in my last\narticle, I purpose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These\ntwo fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition.\nPapias, writes Irenaeus, was 'a hearer of John and a companion of\nPolycarp.' [142:1] On the latter point we may frankly accept the\nevidence of Irenaeus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely\nto be misinformed here. But to the former part of the statement\nobjections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike; and it\nwill be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into\nits credibility. Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St\nJohn, still his age and country place him in more or less close\nconnection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact\nwhich gives importance to his position and teaching.\n\nPapias wrote a work entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' in\nfive books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved,\nchiefly by Irenaeus and Eusebius. The object and contents of this work\nwill be discussed hereafter; but it is necessary to quote at once an\nextract which Eusebius has preserved from the preface, since our\nestimate of the date and position of Papias will depend largely on the\ninterpretation of its meaning.\n\nPapias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to whom the\nwork was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as follows [143:1]:--\n\n     But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my\n     interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and\n     remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing\n     their truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those\n     who have so very much to say ([Greek: tois ta polla legosin]), but\n     in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign\n     commandments, but in those [who record] such as were given from the\n     Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And\n     again, on any occasion when a person came [in my way] who had been\n     a follower of the elders ([Greek: ei de pou kai parekolouthekos tis\n     tois presbuterois elthoi]), I would inquire about the discourses of\n     the elders--what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or\n     by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the\n     Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the\n     disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so\n     much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a\n     living and abiding voice ([Greek: ou gar ta ek ton Biblion tosouton\n     me ophelein hupelambanon, hoson ta para zoses phones kai\n     menouses]).\n\nThis passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, though\nIrenaeus calls Papias a hearer of John,\n\n     Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly\n     does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of\n     the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses,\n     that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their\n     friends.\n\nThen follows the extract which I have given; after which Eusebius\nresumes:--\n\n     Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the name of\n     John. The former of these he puts in the same list with Peter and\n     James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly intending\n     the Evangelist; but the second John he mentions after an interval\n     ([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside\n     the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he\n     distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account\n     of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in\n     Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus,\n     each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.\n\nThen, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the\nauthor of the Apocalypse, he continues:--\n\n     Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from\n     those who had been their followers ([Greek: ton autois\n     parekolouthekoton]), but says that he himself was an immediate\n     hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them\n     many times in his writings, and records their traditions.\n\nThe justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers,\nwho maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both\npassages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his\ninterpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed\nwith the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that\nJohn is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence\nthe person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,'\nthis designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper\nname. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle\nand John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from\ninconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion.\n\nBut it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenaeus was\nincorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support\nto the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of\nZebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenaeus does\nnot state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed\nfrom any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp\nwhile describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he\nhad other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor\nindeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that\nhe may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias\nhimself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this\nconfusion which Eusebius lays to his charge; and the value of his\ntestimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby.\n\nIt will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias professes to\nderive the traditions of 'the elders,' with which he illustrated his\nexpositions, from two different sources. He refers _first_, to those\nsayings which he had heard from their own lips, and _secondly_, to those\nwhich he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers.\nWhat class of persons he intends to include under the designation of\n'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would\ninclude not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal\ndisciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other\nwords, the term with him is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in\nthe first generation. This meaning is entirely accordant with the usage\nof the same title elsewhere. Thus Irenaeus employs it to describe the\ngeneration to which Papias himself belonged [145:1]. Thus again, in the\nnext age, Irenaeus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus [145:2]. And,\nwhen we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using the term so as to\ninclude even writers later than Irenaeus, who nevertheless, from their\ncomparative antiquity, were to him and his generation authorities as\nregards the traditions and usages of the Church [145:3]. Nor indeed did\nPapias himself invent this usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for\ninstance, we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' [145:4];\nwhere the meaning is defined by the list which follows, including Old\nTestament worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this\nsense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very nearly to\nour own usage of 'fathers,' when we speak of the Fathers of the Church,\nthe Fathers of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Fathers, and the like.\n\nThus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not\noffice, but authority and antiquity [146:1]. It is equivalent to 'the\nancient' or 'primitive worthies' [146:2]. But at its last occurrence in\nthe extract of Papias, where it is applied to the second John, this is\napparently not the case. Here it seems to be an official title,\ndesignating a member of the order of the presbyterate. Though modern\ncritics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word [Greek:\npresbuteros] in the same context, it would create no difficulty to the\ncontemporaries of Papias, to whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a\ncommon mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,'\nand to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself.\nInstances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two\nsenses, official and non-official, in the same passage [146:3].\n\nOf the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, we can only\nname with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter John; but as regards\nthese Eusebius is explicit. To them the Apostle John may perhaps be\nadded, as we have seen, on the authority of Irenaeus. Beyond these three\nnames we have no authority for extending the list, though there is a\npossibility that in very early life he may have met with others, more\nespecially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in these\nparts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from the words of\nhis preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal\ndisciples of the Lord had not been great. It was probably confined to\nthe earlier part of his life, before he had any thought of writing his\nbook; and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and\nfragmentary. When he set himself to collect traditions for this special\npurpose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the information\ncollected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders.\n\nWe are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias; but, as a\npreliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say something\nabout the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in\nconnection with him. In my article on Polycarp, I pointed out that\nrecent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom\nseveral years farther back, and that some chronological difficulties\nattaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed [147:1]. A\nsimilar difficulty meets us in the case of Papias; and it disappears in\nlike manner, as I hope to show, before the light of criticism. The\n_Chronicon Paschale_, which was compiled in the first half of the\nseventh century [147:2], represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about\nthe same time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in\nthe year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date his\nbirth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to a very\nadvanced age. But there is a certain difficulty [147:3] in supposing\nthat one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted\nwith so many personal disciples of our Lord. No earlier writer however\nmentions the date, or even the fact, of the martyrdom--not even\nEusebius, who has much to say both about Papias and about the\nmartyrologies of this epoch; and this absence of confirmation renders\nthe statement highly suspicious. I believe that I have traced the error\nto its source, which indeed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition\nof the passage in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the\nHistory of Eusebius [148:1], will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale.\n\n\n        CHRONICON PASCHALE.           |        EUSEBIUS.\n                                      |\nIn the 133rd year of the Ascension    | At this time _very severe\nof the Lord _very severe persecutions | persecutions having disturbed_\nhaving dismayed_ ([Greek:             | ([Greek: anathorubesanton])\nanasobesanton]) _Asia_, many were     | _Asia, Polycarp_ is perfected by\n_martyred_, among whom _Polycarp_.... | _martyrdom_ ... and in the same\n                                      | writing concerning him were\n                                      | attached other martyrdoms ...\n  *       *       *       *       *   | and next in order ([Greek: hexes])\n                                      | memoirs of _others_ ([Greek:\n                                      | allon]) also, who were martyred\nand in _Pergamum others_ ([Greek:     | _in Pergamum_, a city of Asia,\nheteroi]), among whom was PAPIAS and  | _are extant_ ([Greek: pheretai]),\nmany others ([Greek: alloi]), whose   | Carpus and PAPYLUS and a woman\nmartyrdoms _are extant_ ([Greek:      | Agathonice....\npherontai]) also in writing....       |\n                                      |\n  *       *       *       *       *   |  *       *       *       *       *\n                                      |\n_Justin_, a philosopher of the        | And at the same time with these\nword received among us ([Greek: tou   | ([Greek: kata toutous]) _Justin_,\nkath' hemas logou]), _having          | also who was mentioned shortly\npresented a second book in defence of | before by us, _having presented\nthe doctrines received among us_ to   | a second book in defence of the\nMarcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus,  | doctrines received among us_ to\nthe emperors, _is decorated_ not      | the aforementioned rulers, _is\nlong after _with the divine_ crown of | decorated with divine martyrdom_,\n_martyrdom, Crescens_ accusing (?)    | a philosopher _Crescens_ ...\nhim.                                  | having hatched the plot against\n                                      | him, etc.\n\nThe sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual phrases,\nalike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived his information\nfrom the History of Eusebius [148:2]. But either he or his transcriber\nhas substituted a well known name, _Papias_, for a more obscure name,\n_Papylus_. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in\nhis copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change.\nIt is only necessary to write the two names in uncials, [Greek: PAPIAS\nPAPYLOS], to judge of its likelihood [149:1]. This explanation indeed is\nso obvious, when the passages are placed side by side, that one can only\nfeel surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the\nmartyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they\nare), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the\nauthor of _Supernatural Religion_, that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom\nunder Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of\nthe Apostles' [149:2].\n\nThus we are left to infer the date of Papias entirely from the notices\nof his friends and contemporaries; but these will assist us to a very\nfair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at least two personal\ndisciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter John. If we suppose that\nthey were among the youngest disciples of our Lord, and lived to old\nage, we shall be doing no violence to probability. Obviously there were\nin their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with\nthem possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or later,\nand have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their intercourse\nwith Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85-95, or thereabouts. (2)\nHe was acquainted with the daughters of Philip, who dwelt with their\nfather at Hierapolis, where they died in old age. Whether this Philip\nwas the Apostle, as the earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as\nothers suppose [149:3], is a question of little moment for my immediate\npurpose--the date of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be\nthe same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to\nJerusalem, A.D. 58, apparently as already grown up to womanhood [149:4].\nOn the former supposition they would belong to the same generation, and\nprobably would be about the same age. As a very rough approximation, we\nmay place their birth about A.D. 30, and their death about A.D. 100-110.\n(3) Papias is called by Irenaeus a 'companion' of Polycarp, whose life\n(as we saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 [150:1]. The word admits a\ncertain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something\napproaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices affecting\nhis relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of\nthe two. At all events Eusebius discusses him immediately after Ignatius\nand Quadratus and Clement, _i.e._ in connection with the fathers who\nflourished in the reign of Trajan or before; while the notice of\nPolycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history, where it\noccurs in close proximity with Justin Martyr [150:2]. This arrangement\nindicates at all events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having\nbeen martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his surviving\nto so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have inserted his\naccount of him in this place. If it is necessary to put the result of\nthese incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias\nwas probably born about A.D. 60-70.\n\nBut his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of\nhis personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing of the remote past\n[150:3]. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical\nrecords had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be\nwrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or\neven later. Our author places it at least as late as the middle of the\nsecond century [150:4].\n\nThe opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at this early\ndate, and had conversed with these first disciples, are not without\nimportance, even though his own mental calibre may have been small. But\nthe speculations of the Tuebingen school have invested them with a\nfictitious interest. Was he, or was he not, as these critics affirm, a\nJudaic Christian of strongly Ebionite tendencies? The arguments which\nhave been urged in defence of this position are as follows:--\n\n1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian. The\nChiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with\nEusebius, who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the\nApostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense. This tendency\nappears also in the one passage which Irenaeus quotes from Papias. But\nthe answer to this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception,\nwith the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears\ncombined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found in Justin\nMartyr, in Irenaeus, in Tertullian [151:1]. It is found even in the\nunknown author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas [151:2],\nwhich is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism\nto everything Judaic.\n\n2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius does not mention\nhis quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline writings of the Canon. I\nhave already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the\n'Silence of Eusebius' [151:3]. I have shown that Papias might have\nquoted St Paul many times, and by name, while nevertheless Eusebius\nwould not have recorded the fact, because it was not required by his\nprinciples or consistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that\nthis interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where we\nare able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly\nwrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it would most certainly\nconduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the Ignatian Epistles\nwas an Ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts\nof the case [152:1].\n\n3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because he quoted\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first place, however, the\npremiss is highly questionable. Eusebius does not say, as in other\ncases, that Papias 'uses' this Gospel, or that he 'sets down facts from'\nit [152:2], but he writes that Papias relates 'a story about a woman\naccused of many sins before the Lord' (doubtless the same which is found\nin our copies of St John's Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), and he adds 'which\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' [152:3]. This does not\nimply that Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it\nthere. Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which\nEusebius alludes, 'from oral tradition'([Greek: ek paradoseos\nagraphou]). But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion\ndoes not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is\nquoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, though these two\nfathers accepted our four Gospels alone as canonical [152:4]. It may\neven be quoted, as Jerome asserts that it is, and as the author himself\nbelieves [152:5], by the writer of the Ignatian letters, a most\ndetermined anti-Ebionite. If Papias had cited the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews only once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because\nhe made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena; whereas\nhe would have passed over any number of quotations from the Canonical\nGospels in silence.\n\nAs all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have failed, we are\nled to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other\nquarters.\n\nAnd here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias was bishop of\nHierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. At all events he\nseems to have lived there from youth; for his acquaintance with the\ndaughters of Philip, who resided in this city, must have belonged to the\nearlier period of his life. Now Papias was a designation of the\nHierapolitan Zeus [153:1]; and owing to its association with this god,\nit appears to have been a favourite name with the people of Hierapolis\nand the neighbourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions\nbelonging to this city and district [153:2]. In one instance we read of\na 'Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name 'Zeus-begotten' being\napparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the Phrygian word [153:3].\nWe find mention also in Galen of a physician belonging to the\nneighbouring city of Laodicea, who bore this name [153:4]. Altogether it\npoints to a heathen rather than a Jewish origin.\n\nBut more important than his name, from which the inference, though\nprobable, is still precarious [153:5], are his friendships and\nassociations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of Polycarp [153:6].\nThe opinions of Polycarp have been considered in it previous article\n[153:7]; and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of Ebionite\nleanings in his case is not only unsupported, but cannot be maintained\nexcept by an entire disregard of the evidence, which is of different\nkinds, and all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias\ntherefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence,\nthat his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his\nfriend's. Moreover, the five books of Papias were read by Irenaeus and\nby Eusebius, as well as by later writers; and, being occupied in\ninterpretation, they must have contained ample evidence of the author's\nopinions on the main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the\nCatholic--the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle Paul,\nthe conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore important to\nobserve that Irenaeus quotes him with the highest respect, as an\northodox writer and a trustworthy channel of Apostolic tradition.\nEusebius again, though he is repelled by his millennarianism, calling\nhim 'a man of very mean capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage\nhim in every way, has yet no charge to bring against him on these most\nimportant points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last.\nAnastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half of the\nsixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox, according\nto the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five General\nCouncils, had the work of Papias in his hands. He mentions the author by\nname twice; and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the\nhighest admiration. Papias is to him 'the great,' 'the illustrious'\n[154:1].\n\nBut indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of\nPapias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that Papias 'employed\ntestimonies from the First Epistle of John.' How far this involves a\nrecognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall have to consider hereafter. At\npresent it is sufficient to say that this Epistle belongs to the class\nof writings in our Canon which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism.\n\nIt may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. But\nunhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one\nform of Christian belief--or unbelief either.\n\nThe work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of\nthe Lord,' or (more strictly), 'of Dominical Oracles' [155:1]. But what\nwas its nature and purport? Shall we understand the word 'exposition' to\nmean 'enarration,' or 'explanation'? Was the author's main object to\nconstruct a new Evangelical narrative, or to interpret and explain one\nor more already in circulation? This is a vital point in its bearing on\nthe relation of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring\nwhat Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly assumes\nthe former alternative without attempting to discuss the question. Yet,\nif this assumption is wrong, a very substantial part of his argument is\ngone.\n\nThe following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_ towards this question:--\n\n     This work was less based on written records of the teaching of\n     Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from\n     tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his\n     contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any\n     written works with which he was acquainted [155:2].\n\nI venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his information\nthat Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with\nwhich he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of\nthis writer which have been hitherto published.\n\nAfter quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been\ngiven above, our author resumes:--\n\n     It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels,\n     he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely\n     nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was\n     evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the\n     discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously\n     existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated\n     by his own words, and by the title of his work, [Greek: Logion\n     kuriakon exegesis] [156:1].\n\n'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to\nbelieve the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is\nmade, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has\nappealed to Caesar, and to Caesar he shall go.\n\nWhat then is the natural interpretation of the title 'Exposition of\nOracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a\npreconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else\nbut explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the\noriginal word [Greek: exegesis] might, in other connections, be used in\nreference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same\nwhich it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words,\nit expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has\nan exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when,\nspeaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces\ninto his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine\nScriptures' ([Greek: graphon theion exegeseis]), or when he says that\nIrenaeus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions\nof Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is\nused more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as\nwe shall see presently, by Irenaeus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of\nSinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his\ncontext shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1].\n\n'The title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the\nkind which our author assumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not\nsuggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of\nan existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more\nstrongly, when from the title we turn to the words of the preface;\n'_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along with my\ninterpretations_ ([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermeneiais]) to all that I\nlearnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.'\nHere the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the\nunambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important\npoint. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something.\nOf what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the\ninterpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned\nsubsequently, being introduced to illustrate the interpretations. The\nwords which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,'\nwhich (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The\nexpression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one\nmeaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the\npassage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following\nsequence.--(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the\npreceding passage, for it is assumed in the extract itself. (2) The\ninterpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object\nof the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows,\nwere subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a\nslightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong\nattraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and\nillustrate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of\nlanguage can make them the text or basis of these interpretations\n[158:1].\n\nA good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his\npreface is accidentally preserved by Irenaeus [158:2]. This father is\ndiscoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the\nsaying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of\nthe fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in\nmy Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally,\nand argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of\nflesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by\nappealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels--the\none the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those\nwho call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke\nxiv. 13, 14); the other the assurance that those who have forsaken\nhouses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now _in\nthis present time_ (Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30)\n[158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by\nan earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises\nto the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they\nhave not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of\nthe just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance.\n\n     As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that\n     they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those\n     times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow,\n     each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand\n     branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each\n     twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand\n     grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty\n     measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold\n     of one of their clusters, another shall cry, \"I am a better\n     cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me.\" Likewise also a grain\n     of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things\n     Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an\n     ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books,\n     for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying,\n     'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when\n     Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such\n     growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord\n     said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].'\n\nI shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in\nthis story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, as it passed\nthrough the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my\npurpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the\npreface of Papias would lead us to expect: _first_, the saying or\nsayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels: _secondly_, the\ninterpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial;\n_thirdly_, the illustrative story, derived from oral tradition, which\nrelates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along\nwith his interpretation' [159:1].\n\nSo far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the\ndisparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently asserted by our\nauthor and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly\nexplained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a\ndifferent aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works\ncommenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and\nwritten Gospels, but between oral and written _aids to interpretation_.\nPapias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or\nJohn, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to\ntheir authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than\nthe capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his\ncritical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have\nbeen highly important.\n\nThe leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute a correct\nnarrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false\nexegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The\nopening passage of Irenaeus supplies the answer. This father describes\nthe Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek:\nta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said'\n([Greek: exegetai kakoi ton kalos eiremenon ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we\nhave the very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenaeus\nafter him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism.\nIf, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the\nGnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic\ndoctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended\nin the same way as Irenaeus, though probably to a greater degree. The\nGnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were\nalmost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenaeus and\nHippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as\nrecorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians,\nGnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same\nway. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic\nliterature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent\nthe work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very\nappreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when\nhe wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the\nGospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years.\nBasilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1]\n(A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion\nin Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla\nlegousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching\nforeign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing\nthis to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus,\nas from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false\ninterpretations of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from\nseveral Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general\ncharacter of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria\nquotes it under the title of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible\ntoo, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias\nwrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his\nschool. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism\nwas rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent.\n\nThis account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from\nthe grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And\nit alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that\nEusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for\notherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without\nexpostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies\nthese 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges\nhim with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand\nreport of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the\naccount of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set\ndown in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value\noutside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation\nrepeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same\nevents by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the\nlanguage which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about\nwhich (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's\nrecord he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his\none anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any\nfalse statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book\nto which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]\n\nBut, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,'\ncan we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere\nsupplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives\nwritten by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the\nobvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for\nhis work.\n\nAn obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been\nmaintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not\nour St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the\nauthor of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will\nbe necessary in refutation of it.\n\nThe language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by\nSt Mark, is 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 by\n     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 hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]\n     _or_ [Greek: logon]). 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.\n\nEusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark,\nthe writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is\napparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately\nbefore.\n\nNow it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that\nPapias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the\nEvangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena\nin it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place,\nit is not a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are\nnot recorded in _strict chronological order_. These two phenomena are\nexplained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were\nnecessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St\nPeter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary\nand adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher\nhaving no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could\nnot possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge\nfor an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before\nhim some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings\nor doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those\nwhich he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he\ndesires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel,\nas I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the\nauthor of the Muratorian Canon.\n\nThis is the plain and simple inference from the passage; and we have\nonly to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of\nour St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied.\nAs regards _completeness_, it is sufficient to call attention to the\nfact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and\nabove all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards\n_order_ again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a\n'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events\nexactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be\nstrictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the\nnarrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our\nLord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by\nnotices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if\nthe author had derived his information in the way reported by the\nPresbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any\nimportant degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it\n'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement'\n[165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but\nif the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of\nAnger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant\ntranspositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to\nbring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how\nfar this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no\ndoubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person\nobtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself\ndescribes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall\nnot quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of\n'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which\nrefers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not\nrequire the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed\nhowever, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the\nother two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in\nview was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the\nPresbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another\nSynoptic narrative, but _from St John_? I shall return to this question\nat a later point in these investigations.\n\nOur author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present\nGospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by\nthe Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias\nbecomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The\nnovelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the\nassumption.\n\nYet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that\nhe does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which\nthe work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the\npresent Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it' [166:1]. But\nothers are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with\nthis difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They\nwill venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest,\nindication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the\nremains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date\nwhich our author himself adopts be correct, Irenaeus was already grown\nup to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that\nIrenaeus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of\nPapias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to\nChristian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of Papias.\nThey will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and\nholding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the\nconviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the\ntitle-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven\nand earth for analogies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry\ntheir investigations further, and discover that Irenaeus not only\npossessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present\nending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part\nof the original work. They will then pass on to the Muratorian author,\nwho probably wrote some years before Irenaeus, and, remembering that\nIrenaeus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they\nwill see that they have here the representative of a different branch of\nthe Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with\nIrenaeus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the\ntraditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is\nmutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two\nEvangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously\nquestioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria\nand Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also\npossessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of\ntestimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a\nloss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing\nin the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently\nsubstituted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and\nconsequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was\nreceived by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt\nagainst the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite\ncommonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.'\n\nIndeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale\ndenunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of\nhis own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question\nof Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of\nthe _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian\nFathers] _ever_ indulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same\ntime to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent\ncriticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of\nIrenaeus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2].\nThey will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in\nDionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' anticipates by nearly\nsixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the\ndifferences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse\n[167:3].\n\nFrom St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of\nthis Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a\ncase of mistaken identity.\n\nAfter the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:--\n\n     But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made [by\n     Papias]: 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the\n     Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he\n     could.'\n\nThe assumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the\nauthority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in\nwhich the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded\nas highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been\nwide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove\nconclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just\nas the [Greek: hos ephen] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that\nit was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence\nof a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged\nedge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind\nin any criticisms which the passages suggest.\n\nIn this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each\nman interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no\nauthoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be\ncorrect. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the\ntime which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his\nbook, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but\n'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the\ntense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything\ndepends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He\ndoes indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by\nothers:--\n\n     Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past\n     tense, [Greek: hermeneuse], as contrasting the time when it was\n     necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period\n     when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no\n     longer necessary for them to do so [169:1].\n\nYet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as\nfollows:--\n\n     The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is\n     at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was\n     requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no\n     recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse.\n     There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion\n     that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version,\n     although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of\n     some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,\n     imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2].\n\nOur author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard\npressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous\nuse of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are\nperfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without\nalteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether\nobscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact\nis that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes\n'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the\nnecessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it\nimplies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias\nwrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no\nrespect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not\nfrom 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only\ninfer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past\ntense.\n\nBut, if a Greek St Matthew existed in the time of Papias, we are\nforbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose\nthat it was any other than our St Matthew. As in the case of St Mark, so\nhere the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of\nimprobabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem\nverbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a\nmistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the\nimprobability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of\nthe improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would\nbe.\n\nThe testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as\nregards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does\nnot follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not\nhave been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know\nexactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this\nfragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact\nrelation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to\nthe Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our\nFirst Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been\ntranslated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more\nthan the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous\nGreek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been\nnearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may\nhave expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.\nOr on the other hand he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the\nmistake which some later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the\nabsence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile\nwe are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to\nthe accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself.\n\nOur author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias\nspeaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's\nlife and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is\nurged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek:\nxunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this\nexplanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked\nupon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement,\nof the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how\nor when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give\nthis information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This\nhypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has\nfound favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have\nbeen made from time to time to restore this supposed document by\ndisengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond\nto this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without\nits attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but\nhitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its\nacceptance.\n\nOur author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases\nlargely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our\nactual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same\nsense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely\ninfluenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language\nis only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection\nof discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who\napparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at\nall. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias\nexpresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have\nexpressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our\nNew Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents\nwere those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided\ntoo is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be\nswayed by any bias in this direction.\n\nIndeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties. In\nthe first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such\n'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers\nfrom Pantaenus and Irenaeus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of\nSt Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in\nHebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it\nis clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so\nas to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and\nas our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the\nmore important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew\nSt Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of\ndiscourses.\n\nNor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis.\nHilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on\ngrounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that\nPapias mentions only the _sayings_ of Christ, not because St Matthew\nrecorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with\nthese, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the\ngreat storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however\nthink that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek:\nlogoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia]\n('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are\nexpressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of\nAntioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the\nOracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of\nthe Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which\noccurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the\nGospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges\nthat 'however much the signification [of the expression 'the oracles,'\n[Greek: ta logia]] became afterwards extended, it was not then at all\napplied to doings as well as sayings'; and again, that 'there is no\nlinguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period,\nto mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which were\noracular or divine [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must\ninvolve one or both of these two assumptions; _first_, that books which\nwere regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called\noracles, unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings;\n_secondly_, that the Gospel of St Matthew in particular could not at\nthis time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike are\ncontradicted by facts.\n\nThe first is refuted by a large number of examples. St Paul, for\ninstance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews, that they\nhad the keeping of the 'oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we suppose\nthat he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this\nexpression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis,\nof Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them\nas professed to give the direct sayings of God? Would he, or would he\nnot, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1\nCor. xi. 8 sq), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq), of\nSarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 sq)? Does not the main part of his argument\nin the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend much more on the narrative of\nGod's dealings than of His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle\nto the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God'\n(v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the\ndivine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct\nprecepts of the Old Testament. But, if the language of the New Testament\nwriters leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their\ncontemporary Philo. In one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9,\n'The Lord God is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in\nanother he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in\nGen. iv. 15, 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him\nshould kill him' [174:1]. From this and other passages it is clear that\nwith Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly\nClement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have\nstudied the oracles of God,' [174:2] and immediately he recalls to their\nmind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of which the\npoint is not any divine precept or prediction, but _the example of\nMoses_. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who\n'pervert the oracles of the Lord.' [174:3] How much he included under\nthis expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not\nwrite [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta\nlogia] 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in\nPapias--but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,'\nwhich form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker.\nAgain Irenaeus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current\namong the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta\nkuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning,\nyet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as\nthe first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a\nsaying, but an incident in the Gospels--the healing of the ruler's\ndaughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to\nsayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find\nthat the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,'\nwhile in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the\n'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly\nOrigen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the\noracles of God' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two\npassages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is\ncontemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St\nBasil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,'\n[175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages\nmight be largely extended.\n\nThis wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully\nsubstantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But\nour author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias\nhimself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If\nPapias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather\n'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include\nnarrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from\nthe nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the\ncontrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely\nwith incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in\nother ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the\nsayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the\ncorrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its\nuse in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father,\nas we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order\nthe things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou\nChristou e lechthenta e prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within\nthe Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our\nLord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who\nconsulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of\ngiving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch\nhosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]). Here the obvious\ninference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is\nequivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou e lechthenta e prachthenta]\nthe first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause\ncorresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however,\nfollowing the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the\noracles,' explains it differently [176:1].\n\n     There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: e lechthenta\n     e prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses,\n     but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly\n     distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of\n     what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a\n     collection of his discourses [176:2].\n\nThis interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the\nextracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same\ncontext; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the\nextract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested\nby the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading\nidea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St\nMark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in\nquestion is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek:\ntaxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If\nour author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a\ncontrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work\nrelating sayings only; and [Greek: logion], as bringing out this idea,\nwould demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hosper ton logion\nsuntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely\nsubordinated to other words in the clause.\n\nThe examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia])\ncan be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai])\nin the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles'\n([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical\nScriptures' (_Dominicae Scripturae_, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])--an\nexpression occurring in Irenaeus and in Dionysius of Corinth\n[177:1]--or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any\ndifficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the _second_ of the two\nassumptions which I mentioned above--namely, that no Evangelical record\ncould at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the\nuse of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture.\nThis assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew\nis twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the\nquotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural\nreference--'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author\nputs his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt\nto escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the\nproper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the\nonly ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two\nquotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew\ncould not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words,\nit is a _petitio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on\nany showing, was written before the date which our author himself\nassigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70,\nor thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the\nlater years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century.\nIf therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it\ncould _a fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.\n\n\n\n\nVI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.\n\n_Continued._\n\n[OCTOBER, 1875.]\n\n\nIt has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone\nsurvive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew\nand St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different.\nEusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our\nauthor therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer.\nI have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1],\nthat this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that\nthe assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles\nwhich Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2],\nwhile it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes\na writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a\ntest. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only\npledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give,\ntraditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is\nnot consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer\nto mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by\nname. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of\ntimes as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel\nnot less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would\nnot have cared to record the fact.\n\nAll this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is\nunable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he\ndoes indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am\nquite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it\nis there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction\nwhich underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between\n_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_\nthe Gospels on the other?\n\nAt times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He\nquotes a passage from my article, in which it is directly stated\n[179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances\nwhere ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical\nScriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes\nanonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not\nmention the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts--\n\n     That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the\n     Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by\n     Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations,\n     might be set down as much to oversight as intention [179:3].\n\nDoes it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own\nargument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the\nsingle direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New\nTestament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is\nthe single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus.\nWhat would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat\nfor the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the\nAlps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without\nhaving noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could\nhave overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked\nanything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any\nomission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any\nfairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care,\nby his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed\nquotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other\nsupposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous\nand direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven\nEpistles of St Paul in Irenaeus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a\nword, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence\ncan be placed on the author's use of language.\n\nBut our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for\ndiscrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment,\nbut I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he\nfinds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary\nsense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him,\nthat under certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a\nparticular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever\nwe are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances, he acts\nin precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes,\nbut systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and\nthe Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and\nhowever precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he\nadduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of\nthese books.\n\nBut our author asks [180:2],\n\n     Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias\n     known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he\n     would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded\n     their information? And is it either possible or permissible to\n     suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information\n     regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius\n     would have omitted to quote it?\n\nTo the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible\nto make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only\npossible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite\nalternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the\nmotive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any\npreference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for\nsupposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St\nMatthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they\nwere connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an\nexhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted. On\nthe contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we\ntake the passage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference\nis that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage\nwhere this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another\nauthority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which\nhe found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of\nthe presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the\ndivergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring\nfrom the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or\nmight not, have been able to communicate information respecting it,\nbeyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared\nto repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or\nmight not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him\nto repeat his information, assuming he had received any from them.\n\nAs regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed\nsurprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius\nas he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and\nimpermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself\nhave a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this\nmatter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of\nthe information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had\nreported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I\nshould certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an\nillustration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John\nthe disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root\nout that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and\nlong before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that\neffect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it;\nbecause Irenaeus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and\nEusebius does not allude to the fact.\n\nBut our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his\nknowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it'\n[182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have\ncared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should\nhave arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing\naltogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed\nby Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have\nsaid, as Irenaeus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay\nupon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia'\n[182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were\nto vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the\nFrench who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the\ngenuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been\naltogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the\nGospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later\ngeneration could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have\ncommunicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not,\nthere is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage.\n\nSo far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I\ndrew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But\nelsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he\nboldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:--\n\n     The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of\n     Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both\n     from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When\n     any ancient writer 'has something to _tell about_' the Gospels,\n     'any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record\n     it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this\n     work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1].\n\nWhat? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have\nquoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the\nApostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing\non the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of\nthat Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting\nits composition?\n\nSo again a few pages later, he writes--\n\n     Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were\n     used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these\n     was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however,\n     record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the\n     legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is\n     that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2].\n\nYes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording\nany traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of\ntimes and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares\nto draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words\nwould suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference\nwhich will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores\nanother distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and\npractice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets\ndown some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but,\nas our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our\nfour Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his\nprocedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note\nevery single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he\ndeliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical\nGospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single\ninstance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenaeus, he\nsingles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas\n[184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very\nconsiderable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?\n\nBut the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the\nunwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two\nmeanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several\ninstances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last\nedition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying\nthe letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he\nwrites of Dionysius [184:3]--\n\n        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION [184:4].\n                                    |\nIt is certain that, had Dionysius   | It is certain that had Dionysius\n_mentioned_ books of the New        | _said anything about_ books\nTestament, Eusebius would, as       | of the New Testament, Eusebius\nusual, have stated the fact.        | would, as usual, have stated the\n                                    | fact.\n\nAnd again of Papias [184:5]--\n\n        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION.\n                                    |\nEusebius, who never fails to        | Eusebius, who never fails to\n_enumerate the works of the New     | _state what the Fathers say about\nTestament to which the Fathers      | the works of_ the New Testament,\nrefer_, does not pretend that       | does not mention that Papias\nPapias knew either the Third or     | knew either the Third or Fourth\nFourth Gospels.                     | Gospels.\n\nThese alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression,\n'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by\nthe author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.\n\nElsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly\nignored. Thus he still writes--\n\n     The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not\n     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth\n     Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].\n\nI have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on\nthis side.\n\nElsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus--\n\n     It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say\n     particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by\n     Eusebius [185:2].\n\nI have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is\nall the other way.\n\nI confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may\nindeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or\neven a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the\nwriter himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of\nEusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel\nconfident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others,\nthey must be ultimately accepted in the main.\n\nThe absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the\nuse of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one\nway or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.\n\nUnfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have\nbeen preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into\nless than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to\nfive books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we\nfind in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.\n\nAs regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate.\nThey may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they\nwill not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and\nHilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in\nthe preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's\nrecord, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the\nauthor of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not\nwarranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the\npurpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the\noverthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears\nto have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least\nthere is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently\nbe referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It\nmust indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been\nunacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of\nAsia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at\nthis time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent\ndocument [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence\nderivable from Papias himself.\n\nThe case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have\na combination of circumstantial evidence, which is greater than we had\nany right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a\nvery high degree of probability.\n\n1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 'has employed\ntestimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from\nthat of Peter.' The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily\ncarries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship\nin the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree\nof unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged\nfacts.\n\nBut, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is\nnot only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection\nbetween the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a\npreface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a\ncommendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the\ntwo books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written\nor (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of\ndisciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and\ncircumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of\ncorrecting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the\nEvangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden\ntransition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and\nlooking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--'He that saw, it hath\nborne record ... that _ye_ might believe.' 'These things are written that\n_ye_ might believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we\nmay suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the\nPresbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could\nguarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of\nthe last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders--'This\nis the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these\nthings, and _we know_ that his testimony is true.' After the narrative\nis thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First\nEpistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with\nthe narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles\nproper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle's name. It\nbegins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this\nhypothesis) has preceded--'That which was from the beginning, which we\nhave heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our\nhands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard\ndeclare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of\nthe Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by\nassociating with himself the elders, who have certified to the\nauthorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he\nchanges to the singular, and speaks in his own name--'I write.' The\nopening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is\nexplained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the\nWord.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the\nmain ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of\nChrist recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the\nEpistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is\nillustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came\nforth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so\nmuch stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this\npoint, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would\nattach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power.\n\nThis view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the\nEpistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is\nstrongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved.\nThe Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written\nabout A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more\nthan once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage\nrelating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.\n\n     The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage\n     describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins\n     with the closing sentence in the description of the Second\n     Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: 'At which however he\n     was present, and so he set them down.'\n\n     'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.'\n     The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the\n     Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he\n     compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither did\n     _he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down\n     incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his\n     narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues--\n\n     'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal)\n     disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his\n     fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, \"Fast with me to-day for\n     three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been\n     revealed to each.\" The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of\n     the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own\n     name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes\n     suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various\n     elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the\n     Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer,\n     since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit,\n     concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His\n     intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in\n     despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the\n     magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder\n     then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle\n     ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, \"What we\n     have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have\n     handled, these things we have written unto you?\" For so he avows\n     himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a\n     recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.'\n\n     After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous\n     writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_\n     Epistles of St John as received in the Church.\n\nI shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with\nPapias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the\naccount which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel\n[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account;\nthe interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have\nbeen historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the\nresults yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be\nregarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to\nascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical\ninsight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.\nBut there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.\nThe writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and\nThird, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some\nearlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript\nin which it occupied this position.\n\nBut our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius\nrespecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his\nearlier editions:--\n\n     As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we\n     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from\n     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from\n     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made\n     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the\n     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds\n     [191:1].\n\nIn my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to\nproduce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and\nI emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can\ntest gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not\nproved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.\nIn the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my\narticle on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.\n\nOf his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he\nhas acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted\nabove, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I\noffered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion\nhere. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.;\nEuseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:--\n\n     The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note\n     relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the\n     First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which\n     he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_,\n     which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by\n     Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch\n     unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But\n     no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and\n     unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author\n     speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations\n     from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.\n\nI then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St\nPeter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal;\nalmost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the\nresemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies\nin his preface:--\n\n     I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p.\n     483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I\n     used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of\n     Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I\n     trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].\n\nAccordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the\nwords:--\n\n     Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the\n     Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more\n     definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions\n     [192:2].\n\nBut the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as\nelsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he\nleaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to\nc. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately\nignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and\nvery far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was\nquite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were\nmeant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to\nthe First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The\ncharge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which\nno one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own\nexplanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he\nregrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled\nme to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted\nin these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by\nearly writers.\n\n2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius\nsupply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.\nThe extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are\nall the more important because they are incidental. In the words, 'What\nwas said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or\nby John or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in\nwhich they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this\norder, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural\norder, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these\nfour hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold\nin the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic\nEvangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said\nindeed that the position assigned to the name of John by Papias in his\nenumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote\na Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so\nimportant a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this\nargument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account\ncan be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 'in\norder of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and\nJohn, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James\nhere mentioned is the Lord's brother) at all events next but one. This\nwould have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any\nJudaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is\nimaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it\nis a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and\nassociated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom\nalone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of\nJohn and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis,\nit is difficult to account for this juxtaposition.\n\nAgain, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our\nLord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any\nintermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as\n'coming from the Truth's self' [193:1] ([Greek: ap' autes tes\naletheias]). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is confined\nto the Fourth Gospel.\n\n3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenaeus, we meet with other evidence\npointing to the same result. I refer to a passage with which the readers\nof these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to\nit more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its\nconnection with Papias. Irenaeus writes [194:2]:--\n\n     As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed\n     worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy\n     the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the\n     brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be\n     seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say]\n     moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of\n     them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth\n     sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the\n     first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall\n     dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that\n     therefore our Lord has said, 'In my Father's abode are many\n     mansions' ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for\n     all things are of God, who giveth to all their appropriate\n     dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto\n     all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy.\n     And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who\n     are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The\n     presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the\n     arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they\n     advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son,\n     and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His\n     work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 'for He must\n     reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc. [194:3]\n\nI am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this\npassage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are\nmainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference\nto our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel are attributed to the elders\nwho are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that 'it\nis unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of\nPapias,' He urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of\npresbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of\nIrenaeus may with equal right be ascribed' [195:1]; in another, that\n'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the\nexegesis of his own day' [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient\nto reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists\nwhom Irenaeus recognized; to the other, that when Irenaeus wrote there\nwere no 'disciples of the Apostles' living, so that he could have used\nthe present tense in speaking of them.\n\nThis reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance.\nCritics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the\npresbyters in Irenaeus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter\nmay unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into\nthe account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence\nthe quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This\ncaution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without\nlimitation. The reports in Irenaeus are of two kinds. In some cases he\nrepeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives\nhis information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is\nprudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall\ngenerally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though\nthere may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenaeus is\nmost commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions\nof the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral\nteaching; for he writes, 'The presbyter used to say,' 'The presbyter\nwould entertain us with his discourse,' 'The old man, the disciple of\nthe Apostles, used to dispute' [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the\npassage before us he employs the present tense, 'As the elders say,'\n'The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say,' he is clearly\nreferring to some _document_. No one would write, 'Coleridge maintains,'\nor 'Pitt declares,' unless he had in view some work or speech or\nbiographical notice of the person thus quoted.\n\nWe may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us Irenaeus\nis citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at\nissue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether\nthis book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the\nsupposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to\nmy position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of\nthe same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons\ncombined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to\nPapias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he\nhimself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural passages are\ninterpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the\ninterpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his\nExpositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological\ntopics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are\nlimited by the language, which confines our search to written documents.\nSo far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenaeus, no Christian\nwork which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at\nthe same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, 'The elders,\nthe disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The connection with a previous\npassage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the\nthirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenaeus gives the\ndirect reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in\nthe thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are\nnow concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these\ntwo passages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us\nin answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction.\n(i) The subject of the two passages is the same. They both treat of the\nfuture kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view\nas a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the\nauthorities in the two passages are described in similar terms. In the\nfirst passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw\nJohn, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told that\n'Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not\nclear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or\nthe class to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he\nrepresents. Since Irenaeus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John,\nthis latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable\nas the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question\nat issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in the\nopening as 'the elders' simply, and at the close as 'the elders, the\ndisciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second\npassage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description, as\nif they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the\npersons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The\nsubject is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it\nextends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion\nstarts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about drinking the fruit\nof the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders,\nrecorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal\ninterpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the\nbelievers. Irenaeus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell\nthe reign of peace on God's Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This\nleads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of\nIsrael and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are\ninterpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth.\nCreation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be\ninferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah\nlxvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains the\ninterpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying concerning the\nmany mansions in His Father's house. A few lines lower down Irenaeus\nrefers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he\nhad started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends.\n\nThese seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to\nPapias. And probably the two passages which I have been considering do\nnot stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenaeus\nwrites [198:2]:--\n\n     Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is\n     written 'And God planted a paradise....;' and he was cast out\n     thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also\n     the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were\n     translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for\n     righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was\n     carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the\n     end of all things ([Greek: heos sunteleias]), preluding immortality.\n\nOn this passage our author remarks:--\n\n     It seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of\n     the Apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters\n     the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v.\n     36. Sec.Sec. 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1].\n\nWith this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is nothing\nwhatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am obliged to join issue.\nIt seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there\nis the description of the authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the\nApostles,' which exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own\npreface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This\nlatter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which\nstrongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenaeus.\nThe elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a\nterrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world,\nto which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenaeus\nsays, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom\nthese two respectively are types; their translation preludes the\nimmortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second passage where\nparadise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the\n'many mansions' in the Father's house. But it is clear from this latter\npassage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted\nmust have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position\nthere assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom\ndoes not explain itself, and must have required some previous\ndiscussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy\nhimself with this subject?\n\nThe work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we\nhave seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his\n'Hexaemeron' [200:2] that 'the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated\nthe sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the\nChurch of Christ.' They 'said that there was a certain _spiritual_\nparadise' [200:3]. Among these 'more ancient interpreters,' of whom he\ngives a list, he names 'the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of\nJohn the Evangelist, and Irenaeus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated\ntogether as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of\nthe exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to\nthese ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is\nimpossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression 'the\ndelight of the paradise,' in the saying of the elders reported by\nIrenaeus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the\nPrince of Tyre is addressed, 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise\nof God;' and that Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom\nhe had previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their\nviews of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 'where\nGod seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from\nheaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the 'stones\nof fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards\nquotes in illustration our Lord's words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan\nas lightning fall from heaven' [201:1]. 'See,' he concludes, 'we have\nheard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of\ndelight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii.\n16)'\n\nFrom the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the\nApocalypse, bearing the names of Oecumenius and Arethas, which was\npublished by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On\nRev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of\nSt Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there\nwas a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man,\nthe other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds--\n\n     Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly\n     hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago\n     cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as\n     Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst\n     of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because\n     'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the\n     coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more\n     completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers,\n     especially of Papias ([Greek: kai pateron paradosis kai Papiou]), a\n     successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse\n     with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning\n     the war in these express words: 'It so befell that their array,'\n     that is, their warlike enterprise, 'came to nought; for the great\n     dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil,\n     was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his\n     angels' [201:3].\n\nI turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that 'the above-mentioned\ninterpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the\nteaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the\nOphites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the\nground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the\nwoman, the whole race of mankind had been born' [202:1]. This notice\nagain confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of\nPapias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus\neverything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of\nancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it\nhas at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings\nof the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenaeus, must be\nattributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenaeus cites by name in\nthe intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add\nmy belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of\nIrenaeus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the\nexegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the\neyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially\nIrenaeus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony\nto the debt of Irenaeus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by\nearly Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to\nconcern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the\nobligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they\nhad all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work,\ntacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for\nword, from Irenaeus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not\nacknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which\nHippolytus takes with his master Irenaeus, might well have been taken by\nIrenaeus himself with his predecessor Papias.\n\n4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story concerning\na woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and he adds that it is\n'contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'\n\nThe story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken\nin adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel,\nvii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope,\nthe _Codex Bezae_, the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in\nsin.' In the _Apostolic Constitutions_ [203:1], where this incident is\nbriefly related, the woman is described as 'having sinned.' And again\nRufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an\nadulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of\nEusebius.\n\nBut it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where\nit stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is\nwanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally\nabsent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it\nis not referred to, as part of St John's Gospel, before the latter half\nof the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is\nexpressed in language quite foreign to St John's style, and it\ninterrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating\nChrist's discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast' of\nTabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the\nceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and\nthe illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple\narea. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own\nperson and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows\ndirectly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living\nwater_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks 'again' ([Greek: palin]),\nand declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But\nthe intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative,\nintroducing a change of time, of scene, of subject.\n\nOn the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced\nhere, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above\nanything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and\nfollowers, 'whose character and idiosyncrasies,' as Mr Mill says, 'were\nof a totally different sort' [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to\nimagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the\nloftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in\nits moral tendencies.\n\nBut, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John's\nGospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was\noriginally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript, to\nillustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 'Ye judge after the\nflesh; I judge no man.' This hint he has not followed up, but it seems\nto me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most\nauthorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands\nafter vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel.\nThis is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the\nfirst instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on\na page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a\nplace somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the\nnarrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to\nthe end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it\nat the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate\nposition, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an\nindependent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on\ncritical grounds, it is not easy to say.\n\nBut if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have\nwe not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which Papias derived\nfrom the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give\na place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its\nintroduction as an illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus\nbe an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29,\nas described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or\ntranscriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his\nmargin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews;\nand hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezae_, the oldest Greek\nmanuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is\nremarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides\nthis pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom\nHe found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work\nof Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some\nstrange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters\nmore or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikotera]),' which Papias derived from\noral tradition.\n\n5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark\nin Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the\nSecond Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing\nalone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher\nimportance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of\nPapias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same\nmotive.\n\nThe extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has\nbeen given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting\nfor the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is\nmutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First\nGospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the\nSecond Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen\nposuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as\ndependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information\nrespecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from\nhaving been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If\nthe words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up\nby his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke,\nhe tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but\n_neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the\nflesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the\nother hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a\npersonal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of\nother personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there\nmust necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the\nfaith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main\npoints, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At\nthe same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the\nrecord of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for\nhimself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has\nwritten what he himself had seen and heard.\n\nProbably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the\ncoincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it\nstands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The\nMuratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's\naccount; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First\nEpistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what\nobject Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at\nleast a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the\nMuratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions\nPapias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the\nFirst Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together\nin the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is\nquite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations\nexisting between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which\ngives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a\npreceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.'\nWould he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the\nreference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son\nsaluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's\nnotice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably\nhave found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the\nresemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was\nacquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast\nbetween the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St\nJohn from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly\nnatural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder\nrespecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as\nwe saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its\nrelation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two\ndrawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could\nnot be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be\nstrictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other\nevangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_\nand _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield\nmany instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few\nyears after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the\nSynoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian\nwriter is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius\nApollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps\nimmediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the\nshowing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one\nanother' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the\nCrucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.\n\nIt is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St\nMatthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect\nmuch light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did\nPapias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We\nmay suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the\nsecondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call\nattention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but\na translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this\nfather dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this\nvery way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii.\n1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the\nevening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbaton]), whereas\nSt John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week\n[Greek: te mia ton sabbaton]; and among other explanations which he\noffers is the following:--\n\n     The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the\n     translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published\n     [Greek: paredoke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person\n     who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the\n     hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbaton] [208:1].\n\nHe adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might\narise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day\nof the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was\nyet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have\nborrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from\nhim.\n\nBut it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must\nhave appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius\nmust have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have\nhad some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and\nnone is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed\ncircumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter\nof fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a\nfragment from a passage in Irenaeus which intimately affects the\nrelations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the\nmiddle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate\npurpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I\ncan reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenaeus, he says,\n'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than\nto represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not\nindeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius.\nWherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it\nbaseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the\ndifficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly\nbefore him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a\ntopic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once\nstarted would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover\nit is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice\nover that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits\nwhich bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his\nreaders that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has\npassed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further\ninformation. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his\nnotices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we\nmay infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material\nwhich this father afforded for such extracts.\n\n6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late\nanonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would\nbe decisive on the point at issue.\n\nIn an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is\nassigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:--\n\n     The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the\n     Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in\n     corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a\n     beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in\n     his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque\n     libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John,\n     correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But\n     Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him,\n     because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat),\n     was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him\n     from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].\n\nNo stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains\nsuch obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of\nPapias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the\nendeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to\ndispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When\nattention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf,\nOverbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a\nspurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged\nfive additional books in the name of this father, in which he had\ngathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them\n'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he\nassigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name\nof Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it\nhad remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been\nrecently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric'\nbooks, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this\nsource he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a\nnotice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius\nHamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].\n\nThis however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or\ntrace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover\nthese titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five\ngenuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books\n'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in\nerror. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of\nHierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin\nlexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as\nHilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who\nwill refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and\nwhich was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again\ndoes the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this\ntheory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the\ntwelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katexiotai]),\ncontinues:--\n\n     For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of\n     him, says in the second book [Greek: logo] of the 'Oracles of the\n     Lord' ([Greek: ton kuriakon logion]) that he was slain by the Jews,\n     having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the\n     prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]\n\nHere we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is\nattributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting\ndirectly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of\nJohn. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the\nultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly\nquoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias'\nbook--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it\nby a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most\neasily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom\nGeorgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or\ntwo may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in\nthe original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti\nIoannes [men hupo tou Rhomaion basileos katedikasthe marturon eis\nPatmon, Iakobos de] hupo Ioudaion anerethe], 'Papias says that John [was\ncondemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness\n(to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].\n\nThe hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and\nwe must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS.\nThis passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different\nsources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an\nanachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a\nconfusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that\nbetween Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenaeus in the same\ncontext [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best\nexplained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather\nthan by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be\nread 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth\ncentury, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for\nEG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which\nshould perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the\nfalse reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to\nPapias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having\nreported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on\nsomewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own\nGospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body'\n[Greek: eti en to somati kathestotos]. In this contrast between the\nstory repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips\nduring his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc\nin corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.\nThe word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have\nbeen translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel\nhad been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have\nrepeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other\nhand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can\nhardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was\nderived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would\nbe impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may\nhave quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_\nwrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos\nautou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek:\napegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias\nhimself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is\nsuggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also.\nHere again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius\nwould be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made\nthus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the\nwhole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence.\nLike the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I\nconsidered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its\ncompanionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so\nflagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not,\nlike his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding\ncenturies.\n\nBut the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which\nhe seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias\nrecognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--\n\n     Andrew of Caesarea, in the preface to his commentary on the\n     Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'\n     ([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its\n     Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the\n     book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show\n     that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the\n     author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a\n     witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].\n\nThis argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics\nof the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works\ncannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether\nthey are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second.\nIn the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single\nwriter felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the\nauthorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or\ntwo authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the\nApocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this\nnegative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference\narises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown\n[215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and\nreferences to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the\nauthorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church\nwriters before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in\nthe case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been\nentertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely\nwhat he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the\nApocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The\ninference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the\ndirect evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or\nsection of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the\nsecond century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the\nApocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and\n(what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a\ncontemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel\nin the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of\nthe two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other\nhand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far\nas our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The\nmost doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the\nApocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the\nuse of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented\non the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show\nhereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike\nare used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike\nare accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by\nIrenaeus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the\nthird century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them\non an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first\ndistinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books\nappears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle\nor early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues\nentirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend\nto any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he\nquestions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the\nApocalypse.\n\n\n\n\nVII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN.\n\n[FEBRUARY, 1876.]\n\n\nIt has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a\nremnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive\ndisciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony\nEphesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is\nreported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a\ncentury, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial\nthrone A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the\nearliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted\ndisciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of\na school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly\nrooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian\nsociety, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal\ninfluence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly\nmissionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct,\nmore consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the\nother Apostles.\n\nThus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St\nJohn.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the\nveteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author\nof the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as\nwriting his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but\nalso of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose\nteachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very\nschool [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the\nneighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways\nfor the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenaeus,\nwho had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate\ndisciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as\npreserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic\ndoctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the\nelders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord'\n[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying\nmore particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the\nApostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to\nface' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord'\n[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also\nwere pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have\ntheir succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders,\ndisciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere.\nThe prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of\nSmyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the\nmiddle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years\nbefore. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of\nSardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third\nquarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of\nwhom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man,\nwhen in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged\nhim to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church.\n\nAsia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of\nChristendom in literary activity, during the second century. This\npre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already\nmentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and\nprimitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the\nAsiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the\npressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the\narena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main\nsubjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have\ninvolved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with\nits doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem,\nwould challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the\nApocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal\ncontroversy courted investigation into the relations between the\nnarratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism,\nresting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's\nEpistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to\npreserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a\nless degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with\nBasilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics,\ncould not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of\nIrenaeus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of\nwritten documents--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of\nauthority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our\nNew Testament Canon. To men like Irenaeus or Eusebius, who had this\nextensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church\ngenerally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging\nto it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its\northodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or by studied panegyric, is\na fact of real moment.\n\nOver and above this relation to the books of the New Testament\ngenerally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention,\nand which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the\nwriters belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what\nindications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they\nrecognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be\nlearnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they\naccorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles.\n\nPolycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1].\nIn the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel\nhas been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of\nthe latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the\ntestimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be;\nwhile, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in\nthemselves warrant any inference on this point.\n\nThe next extant document in chronological order is the account of\nPolycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D.\n155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of\nPontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter\nthe brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their\nmartyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested by some\nremarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the\noutset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pass that the Lord might\nexhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for\nPolycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord'\n[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type\nof hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and\nimaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and\nmediaeval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal\nconformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document.\nSome of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the\nparallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate\nis Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The\ntime of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath,' as it is\nhere called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from\ninformation elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his\nemploy. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly\ncompared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our\nLord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When\napprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back to the city\n[221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal\nentry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as\nagainst a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will\nof God be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time\nthat they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a\nvaluable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much\nviolent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7].\n\nMost of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of\nthe Passion, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists alone or in common\nwith St John. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in\nwhich the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where\nthe writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their\nmind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice\ncame from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp'\n[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice\nthose of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the\nvoice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as\nimperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in\nconsequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2],\nthough at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild\nbeasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates\nthis intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the\nmanner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel\nJesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die'\n[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time,\nfor His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of\npunishment; but by an accidental turn of circumstances He was\ntransferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled\n[222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the\nbody of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to\nhim and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are\ntold, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood' [222:6]. The\nparallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the\ncrucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress\non his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these\nhagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We\nsaw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we\nhave been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8].\nAnd lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was\naccomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of\nPolycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been\nand shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added\nthat the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the\nphraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true\nGod' [223:2].\n\nMELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second\ncentury. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able\nto assign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,'\nhe himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of\nAsia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the\nfasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate\nshould probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are\ninformed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180)\n[223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the\ncolleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of\nprayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his\nbrother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of\nthe year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology\nto the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their\nstatement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of\nVerus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from\ninternal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the\nlatest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works\ncomprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must\nhave extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall\nprobably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as\nan author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon\nafter the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century\nPolycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to\ntheir rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be\ninferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous\ncontemporaries, but died a natural death.\n\nThese chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early\npart of the second century, within a very few years after the death of\nSt John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have\nbeen a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at\nan advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had\nconversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have\nsurvived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications\nbetween Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other,\nwere easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on\none occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure\nto cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if\ncircumstances did not throw him directly in their way.\n\nThus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the\nsame time he holds an equally important position with respect to the\nsucceeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders,\nwhose authority Irenaeus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a\nprominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom\nClement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is\nquite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the\ngenerations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by\nPolycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by\nTertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome.\n\nI have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius\ngives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be\ncomplete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the\ncontents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together\nat Caesarea. The titles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal\nFestival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On\nthe Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_,\n_On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body\n[and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of\nChrist_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and\non the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to\nAntonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides\nthese works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted\nelsewhere under the titles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the\nPassion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these\nmay perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under\nother names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal,\nexegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have\nfurnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for\ndetermining his exact theological position. To them it must have been\nclear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St\nJohn or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write\non the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth\nGospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a\ncontroversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself\nrespecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which\nhave come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances,\nfrom which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in\nthe twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday.\n\nEusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_,\nwhich is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised passages\nfrom the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the\nChristian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Soteros kai pases tes\npisteos hemon]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been\naccompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical\nimport of the several passages, as Melito understood them. In the\npreface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work\nhad been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East\nand visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself\nrespecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list.\nThe language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes\nthat his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_\nbooks' ([Greek: mathein ten ton palaion biblion eboulethes akribeian]).\nHe adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate\ninformation respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribos\nmathon ta tes palaias diathekes biblia]).' From these expressions Dr\nWestcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a\ncorresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of\nthe New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what\nnobody denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,'\ndid not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so\nrefer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire\nmisunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The\ncontention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself\nsignifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another\ncollection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and\nreiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to\nthe existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the\nforce of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this\nimplied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to\nread the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without\nthrowing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have\ntherefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for\nthe English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in\nmaintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New\nTestament literature.\n\nAnd if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis, it\nalone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a\ncentury, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle\nbearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a passage found in St\nMatthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is\na fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter\nwhich is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic\nEpistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before\nMelito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical\nGospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as\nbeing read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious\nservices of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the\nsubject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact\nthat about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual\npractice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia\nMinor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating\nthe Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It\nis a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of\ncertain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical\nScriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a\nfact that Irenaeus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor,\nwriting within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito,\nquotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of\nthe Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more\nespecially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the\nChurches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with\nthe same deference which they have received from subsequent generations\nof Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do\nnot stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the\nNew Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the\nbanks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this\nstate of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the\nSyriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made careful\ninquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the\nvery land where those Scriptures had their birth.\n\nThe extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered\n[228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence\nof the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate\nhis general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken.\nThe genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously\nquestioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve\nevery consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be\nset aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all\nthose writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of\n_Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he\nevidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On\nthe contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such\ninterpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of\n'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either\nsuspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in\ncirculation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments\nhave been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish\ninterpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second\ncentury. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may\nconfidently assume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree\nwith me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr,\nin Irenaeus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.\nOnly it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than\nredeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt\non the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were\ncertainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some\nmediaeval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to\nanonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Passing away of the\nBlessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Passion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's\nreflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered\nquite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great\nmajority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the\nmost recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do\nnot agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take\nthe fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and\nI refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this\nancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection.\n\nWe have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next\nage to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been\nin circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the\nformer point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke\nof the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the\nlatter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with\nHippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and\nMelito and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man' [230:1].\nThe fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully\nwith both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their\nsuperior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of\nthe same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version.\nThey also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed\nantithesis.\n\nOf the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted\nby Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of\nChrist [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:--\n\n     The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the\n     miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and\n     assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at\n     the same time, He assured us of His two essences ([Greek:\n     ousias])--of His Godhead by miracles in the three years after His\n     baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek:\n     chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his\n     immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata\n     sarka]), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, although He was\n     true God from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alethes proaionios\n     huparchon]).\n\nThe genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the\ngeneral considerations which have been already discussed, partly on\nspecial grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must\nhere be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of\nMelito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation.\nIt has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment,\nsince the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age;\nbut abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if\nso very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word\n([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that\nthere may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But\nthe work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by\nAnastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism\nattacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick\nof the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On\nthe other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part\nof the fourth century, was one of the principal figures in the Arian\ncontroversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions\nof his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so\ncomparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no\ninstance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion\nbetween the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the\nChristological views of the writer are too definite for the age of\nMelito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of\nHippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted,\nis a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if\ntheir genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed\nlater than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal\nstatements.\n\nBut if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author\nof _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to\npostulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply\nthe facts thus assumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited\ncheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will\nfind themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty\nyears of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar\npassage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration\nof His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned by St\nJohn.\n\nOf the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not\nonly because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but\nbecause it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical\nhistory and doctrine [232:1].\n\n     We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to\n     those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,\n     that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the\n     Word of God: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator\n     together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all\n     things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the\n     law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings\n     Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel,\n     and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the\n     Father the Son, in God God, the King for ever and ever. For this is\n     He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with\n     Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who\n     was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with\n     Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and\n     the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at\n     Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who\n     was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was\n     worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered\n     together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the\n     maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who\n     appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who\n     was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was\n     condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was\n     hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the\n     dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who\n     sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those\n     that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light\n     of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are\n     captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of\n     the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the\n     Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, God who is of God, the Son who\n     is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen.\n\nThis fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to\nevangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of\ndoctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments\nascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these\nfragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two\nexceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in\nGreek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness.\nBut the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into\na focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of\nMelito rested.\n\nAnd I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are\nderived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some\nunknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as\nwonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized\nour four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And,\nwhen they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most)\nIrenaeus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate\nrelations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again\nand again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the\ntraditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that\nthe Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning,\nit will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the\nsolution is so very obvious.\n\nBut the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment\ntaken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports\nto be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are\nmentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be\npronounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are.\n\n1. He writes first:\n\n     They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac\n     translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless.\n\nThe fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, classical\nand ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely\ndependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has\nshown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is\naccepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is\nfound to be satisfactory, and _a priori_ probabilities are very strongly\nagainst the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth\nexception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion\nhas its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other\nprinciple is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to\nbelieve or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour\nthieves and liars.\n\n2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions,\nand here he tells us that--\n\n     The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything\n     else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of\n     theological development.\n\nIt is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on\nthis point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style\nof these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus\nand Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially\ntrue of the passage under consideration. What the 'later stage of\ntheological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the\ncontrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all\ntheology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all\nthe theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though\nit lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic\nof the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon;\nbut in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a\nquarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the\nconception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin.\nThus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God\nbefore all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord,\nsometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word,\nwhile sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek:\narchistrategos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun\n([Greek: to tou Naue Iesou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ\nis 'King and Priest and God and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain\nand Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the\nScriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third passage he says that the same\nPerson, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, went\nforth from the Father before all created things through His power and\ncounsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and\nStone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in\nanother, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man\nthrough the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these passages stand alone. This\nsame conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through\nit all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained.\n\nOnly on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite\nstatement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is\nintroduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he\nhas mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at\nwhich Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the passage before us the\nonly allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin'\n(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the\nsame kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the\nstatements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the\nVirgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he\nwill find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1].\n\n3. But our author states also:\n\n     In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of\n     the same passage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the\n     extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly\n     ascribed to Irenaeus.\n\nThis is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed\nattention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate\nin his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the\nshorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same\nas our passage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences,\n'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to\nthose things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc.,\nas quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenaeus, runs thus:\n'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ\nwas born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised\nfrom the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth\nfor ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of God,' etc.\n[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that\nin the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the passage in its original\nsetting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenaeus, it has been\naltered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently.\nThe reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted,\nwhile the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the\nProphets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know,\ndid make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as\nis here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and\nthe correspondence of language in this opening passage with the\ndedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is\nsufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and\nexternal alike, requires us to ascribe the passage. But, if so, how came\nthe name of Irenaeus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I\nthink not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenaeus should\nintroduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either\nanonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already\nhad occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of\ntheir predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In\nthis particular case, Irenaeus may or may not have acknowledged his\nobligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double\nascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention\nanother fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, 'The\nsaying of Irenaeus' [237:2]. I turn to the passage, and I find that it\ncontains not the words of Irenaeus himself, but of Papias quoted by\nIrenaeus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has\nentirely disappeared, though in this case Irenaeus directly mentions\nPapias as his authority.\n\nThe attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears\nclearly enough from the title of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of\nFaith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and\nalso from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the\nform of a servant' [237:4].\n\nCLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of\nMelito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years.\nHis date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an\nApology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and\nas in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering\nLegion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written\nbefore that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons,\nthough not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much\nlater [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close\nof the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and\njudging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been\nvery recent [238:3].\n\nLike Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the\ntitles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned),\n_Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books),\n_Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings\n_Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tes Phrugon haireseos], which he\nplaces later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list\ncomprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were\nextant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three\nworks only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On Godliness_, is\nnot in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author\nalso are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them'\n[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from\na treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and\nTheodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encratites\n[238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his\nworks, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material\nfor a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings\nagainst the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his\nrelations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is\nattested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates,\nand by Photius [239:1], from different points of view.\n\nBesides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves\nthe name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these\nvoluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal\nFestival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal\nChronicle_.\n\nThe first runs as follows:--\n\n     There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions,\n     acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper\n     subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the\n     fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His\n     disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened\n     bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they\n     interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the\n     law ([Greek: asumphonos nomo]), and on their showing the Gospels\n     seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei\n     kat' autous ta euangelia]).\n\nThe second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the\nsame context.\n\n     The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great\n     sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that\n     was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being\n     judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands\n     of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns\n     of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same\n     that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and\n     blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the\n     passover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre.\n\nIf the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on\nthe same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about\nA.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious.\nIn the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of\nreconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with\nthe narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he asserts that the date\nfixed for the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can\nonly be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two\naccounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are\nreconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in\nharmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the\n14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the antitype, must have been\ncrucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question\nwhether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed\nis that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at\nleast St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received\ndocuments to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this\nrespect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or\nin the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty\nin harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears\nout the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the\nblood is taken from the Fourth Gospel; but a theological interpretation\nis forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist.\nSome time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the\nsubject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike\nsuggest that the Fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when\nthey were written.\n\nBut the author of _Supernatural Religion_ meets the inference by denying\nthe genuineness of the extracts. I hardly think, however, that he can\nhave seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement. He\nelsewhere asserts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that\nthe Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the 14th Nisan\nwas the day of the Last Supper or the day of the Crucifixion, the\nQuartodecimans maintaining the former [240:1]. In other words, he\nbelieves that it was the anniversary, not of the Passion, but of the\nLast Supper, which the Quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the 14th,\nand that therefore, as they pleaded the authority of St John for their\npractice, the Fourth Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle,\nsince it represents the Passion as taking place on the 14th. As I have\nbefore intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me to be\naltogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. But it depends,\nfor such force or plausibility as it has, almost solely on these\nfragments from ancient writers quoted in the _Paschal Chronicle_, of\nwhich the extracts from Apollinaris are the most important. If therefore\nhe refuses to accept the testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_ to their\nauthorship, he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests.\n\nOn this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The authorship of these\nextracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers [241:1], but on\nentirely mistaken grounds; and at the present time the consensus among\ncritics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. 'On the\ngenuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now\nno more dispute, writes Scholten [242:1]. Our author however is far too\npersistent to let them pass. Their veracity has once been questioned,\nand therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the\nwitness-box.\n\nIt may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their\ngenuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest, and I will\ntherefore consider his objections. They are twofold.\n\n1. He urges that the external testimony to their authorship is\ndefective. His reasoning is as follows [242:2]:--\n\n     Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passion, and\n     quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and\n     antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this\n     fragment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of\n     his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome,\n     Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works; nor\n     is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, nor\n     by any of those who took part in the great controversy.\n\nHere is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions. In the first place, it is\na _petitio principii_, as will be seen presently, that Apollinaris was\nan antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, there is not the\nsmallest evidence, nor any probability, that Apollinaris would have\nwritten before Melito, so that the latter could have quoted him. How,\nagain, has our author learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having\ncomposed such a work'? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not seen\nthe work when he composed his list of the writings of Apollinaris; but\nit nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence. The very\nlanguage in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list\nseems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers,\nwhich he had not read or seen himself. Theodoret does not 'enumerate\nother of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to\nthe reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing the sects of\nthe Severians and Montanists respectively, that Apollinaris had written\nagainst them [243:1]. There is not the smallest reason why he should\nhave gone out of his way in either passage to speak of the work on the\nPaschal Festival, supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where\nelse does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be made to\nyield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise? Nor\nagain does Jerome, in the passage to which our author refers in his note\n[243:2], allude to a single work by this writer, but simply mentions him\nby name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature.\nElsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings\n[243:3], but there he simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius\nagain, the statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether\nmisleading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, which he\nread during his embassy, but he does not profess to give a list; and he\nsays distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author\nwhich he had not seen. Who the 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate\nother of his works,' I am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last\nsentence, 'Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria,\nIrenaeus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of the\ntreatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short fragments are\npreserved. He does not mention any person in these, nor could he have\ndone so without going out of his way. For the rest, Clement is reported\nby Eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it\nby Melito's treatise on the same subject [243:4]. Eusebius is there\ndiscussing Melito, and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite\nout of place. What ground is there then for the assumption that Clement\ndid not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius has not recorded the fact?\nWhen at a later point Eusebius comes to speak of Clement, he says of\nthis father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions\nMelito and Irenaeus and _certain others_, whose explanations also he has\ngiven' [244:1]. Why may not Apollinaris have been included among these\n'certain others' whom Clement quoted? The same fallacy underlies our\nauthor's reference to Irenaeus. The work of Irenaeus is lost. Eusebius,\nit is true, preserves some very meagre fragments [244:2]; but in these\nnot a single writer on either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is\nmentioned, not even Melito. Irenaeus may have quoted Apollinaris by name\nin this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name in his extant\nwork on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius does not care to record\nthe fact. All this assumed silence of writers whose works are lost is\nabsolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the\n_Paschal Chronicle_.\n\n2. But secondly; our author considers that the contents of these\nfragments are inconsistent with their attribution to Apollinaris. His\nargument is instructive [244:3].\n\n     It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the\n     most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and his\n     own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on the\n     14th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the\n     country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this\n     fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert\n     to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so vast\n     and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised\n     contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic Churches\n     at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, and in\n     doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates\n     represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their\n     fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John\n     himself?\n\nwith more to the same effect.\n\nI will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views\non the point at issue in the Quartodeciman controversy. Certainly I\ncannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is\nhere put. But what, if the writer of these fragments was not an\n'isolated convert to the views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself?\nWhat, if the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of\nthe last Supper, but of the Passion, so that Melito himself would have\nheartily assented to the criticisms in these fragments? [245:1] This is\nthe obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in\nEusebius, and in Irenaeus as quoted by Eusebius; and it gains\nconfirmation from these fragments of Apollinaris. It seems to me highly\nimprobable that Apollinaris should have been an exception to the\npractice of the Asiatic Churches. So far I agree with our author. But\nthis is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the\nQuartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the genuineness of\nthe fragments attributed to Apollinaris.\n\nAfter this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief\nrepresentatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth while\nto call attention to a statement of Irenaeus in which he professes to\nrecord the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting\nthe credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the chronology of our Lord's life\nand ministry [245:2].\n\nThe Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, sought for\nanalogies to the thirty aeons of their pleroma, or supra-sensual world,\nin the Gospel history. Among other examples they alleged the thirty\nyears' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the Gospel\nchronology they derived from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by\nthemselves. At the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He\nhad completed His twenty-ninth and was entering upon His thirtieth year,\nand His ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month, 'the\nacceptable _year_ of the Lord' foretold by the prophet. Irenaeus\nexpresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the\ndeep things of God should have overlooked the commonest facts of the\nevangelical narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in St\nJohn's Gospel during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of\nthe chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus has an _a priori_ reason\nof his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than thirty years. He\ncame to sanctify every period of life--infancy, childhood, youth,\ndeclining age. It was therefore necessary that He should have passed the\nturn of middle life. From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still\nreckoned young (_juvenis_).\n\n     But from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining\n     into older age, which was the case with our Lord when he taught, as\n     the Gospel and all the elders who associated with John the disciple\n     of the Lord in Asia testify that John delivered this account. For\n     he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of them\n     saw not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard these same\n     things from their lips, and bear testimony to such an account.\n\nIrenaeus then goes on to argue that the same may be inferred from the\nlanguage of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked: 'Thou art not yet\nfifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' This, he maintains, could\nnot properly be said of one who was only thirty years of age, and must\nimply that the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at\nleast, and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth.\n\nOn this passage it must be remarked that the Valentinian chronology was\nderived from a _prima facie_ interpretation of the Synoptic narrative;\nwhereas the Asiatic reckoning, which Irenaeus maintains, was, or might\nwell have been, founded on the Fourth Gospel, but could not possibly\nhave been elicited from the first three Gospels independently of the\nfourth.\n\nOn this question generally I have spoken already in a former paper\n[247:1]. Though it seems probable that our Lord's ministry was confined\nto three years, yet there is not a single notice in any of the four\nGospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it extended over a much\nlonger period, and that He was some forty years old at all events at the\ntime of the Passion. The Synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing\nabout the interval which elapsed between the Baptism and the Passion. St\nJohn mentions three passovers, but he nowhere intimates that he has\ngiven an exhaustive list of these festivals. The account of Irenaeus\ntherefore is not so unreasonable after all; and we need not have\nhesitated to accept it, if there had been any definite grounds for doing\nso.\n\nIt will be seen however, that Irenaeus, while maintaining that our Lord\nwas forty years old, grounds his opinion mainly on a false inference\nfrom John viii. 57. At the same time he adduces the testimony of the\nGospel and 'all the elders,' not for this particular view of our Lord's\nage, but for the more general statement that He was past middle life;\nand this vagueness of language suggests that, though their testimony was\ndistinctly on his side as against the Valentinians, it did not go beyond\nthis. It is very far from improbable indeed, that he borrowed this very\ninterpretation of John viii. 57 from one of these Asiatic elders, just\nas we have seen him [247:2] elsewhere borrowing an interpretation of\nanother passage of this Gospel (xiv. 2) from the same source. But, as he\nhas here forced the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to say more than it\nreally does say, so also he may have strained the testimony of 'all the\nelders' in the same direction. Yet the broad fact remains that he\nconfidently appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the\nFourth Gospel, but certainly not deducible from the Synoptic narratives.\n\nAnd the extant remains of this school support the appeal so qualified.\nWe have seen that its two most famous authors, Melito and Apollinaris,\ndistinctly follow the chronology of the Fourth Evangelist, the one in\nthe duration of the Lord's ministry, the other in the events of the\nPaschal week [248:1].\n\nOf the special references to these fathers of the Asiatic Church, which\nappear elsewhere in Irenaeus, it is sufficient to say that in one\ninstance an elder is represented as quoting a saying of our Lord\ncontained only in the Gospel of St John [248:2] while the words ascribed\nto another are most probably suggested by the language of the same\nEvangelist [248:3]. This latter elder, whose speculations are given at\ngreat length, also introduces two direct quotations from St Paul's\nEpistles, and treats the Apostle's authority throughout as beyond\ndispute [248:4].\n\nThe last father of the Asiatic school, whom it will be necessary to\nmention, is POLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus. When Victor of Rome in the\nclosing years of the second century attempted to force the Western usage\nwith respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians, Polycrates wrote to\nremonstrate. The letter is unhappily lost, but a valuable extract is\npreserved by Eusebius [248:5]. In this the writer claims to speak\nauthoritatively on the subject of dispute, owing to the special\nopportunities which he had enjoyed. He states that he had received the\nobservance of the 14th by tradition from his relations, of whom seven\nhad been bishops; he says that he had conferred with the brethren from\nall parts of the world; and he adds that he had 'gone through every holy\nscripture.' When we remember the question at issue, and recall the\nlanguage of Apollinaris respecting the Gospels, in writing on the same\nsubject, we see what is implied in this last sentence. The extract,\nwhich is short, contains only two references to the writings of the New\nTestament. The one is to the Fourth Gospel; St John is described in the\nvery words of this Gospel, as 'he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord'\n([Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Kuriou anapeson]) [249:1]. The other is to\na book of the Pauline cycle, the Acts of the Apostles; 'They that are\ngreater than I,' writes Polycrates, 'have said, _We must obey God rather\nthan men_' [249:2].\n\nWe have now reached the close of the second century, and it is not\nnecessary to pursue the history of the School of St John in their\nAsiatic home beyond this point. But in the meantime a large and\nflourishing colony had been established in the cities of southern Gaul,\nand no account of the traditions of the school would be adequate which\nfailed to take notice of this colony. This part of the subject however\nmust be left for a subsequent paper. Meanwhile the inferences from the\nnotices passed under review cannot, I think, be doubtful. Out of a very\nextensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the\nextant remains are miserably few and fragmentary; but the evidence\nyielded by these meagre relies is decidedly greater, in proportion to\ntheir extent, than we had any right to expect. As regards the Fourth\nGospel, this is especially the case. If the same amount of written\nmatter--occupying a very few pages in all--were extracted accidentally\nfrom the current theological literature of our own day, the chances,\nunless I am mistaken, would be strongly against our finding so many\nindications of the use of this Gospel. In every one of the writers, from\nPolycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed phenomena which bear\nwitness directly or indirectly, and with different degrees of\ndistinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical\ningenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An\nobjector may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery; in\na second, that the particular passage is an interpolation; in a third,\nthat the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the\nEvangelist the copy; in a fourth, that the incident or saying was not\ndeduced from this Gospel but from some apocryphal work, containing a\nparallel narrative. By a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie\nbeyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the\nearly existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple\npostulate which explains all the facts. The law of gravitation accounts\nfor the various phenomena of motion, the falling of a stone, the jet of\na fountain, the orbits of the planets, and so forth. It is quite\npossible for any one, who is so disposed, to reject this explanation of\nnature. Provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every\nnew fact with which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will\nthen\n                  \"gird the sphere\n          With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,\n          Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,\"\n\nhappy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail nevertheless by\nreason of its simplicity.\n\n\n\n\nVIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL.\n\n[AUGUST, 1876.]\n\n\nIn the preceding papers I have investigated the testimony borne by the\nChurches of Asia Minor to the Canonical Gospels, and more especially to\nthe Fourth Evangelist. The peculiar value of this testimony is due to\nthe close personal relations of these communities with the latest\nsurviving Apostles, more particularly with St John. At the same time I\ntook occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards St Paul\nand his writings, because an assumed antagonism between the Apostle of\nthe Gentiles and the Twelve has been adopted by a modern school of\ncritics as the basis for a reconstruction of early Christian history. I\npurpose in the present paper extending this investigation to the\nChurches of Gaul. The Christianity of Gaul was in some sense the\ndaughter of the Christianity of Asia Minor.\n\nOf the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of the second\ncentury we have no certain information. It seems fairly probable indeed\nthat, when we read in the Apostolic age of a mission of Crescens to\n'Galatia' or 'Gaul' [251:1], the western country is meant rather than\nthe Asiatic settlement which bore the same name; and, if so, this points\nto some relations with St Paul himself. But, even though this\nexplanation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later\ntradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is\nimpossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies these\ncomparatively recent stories.\n\nThe connection between the southern parts of Gaul and the western\ndistricts of Asia Minor had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul\nwas indebted for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like\nMarseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries\nbefore the Christian era; and close relations appear to have been\nmaintained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the people\nof Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly along with the\nvernacular Celtic of the native population and the official Latin of the\ndominant power [252:1]. When therefore Christianity had established her\nhead-quarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the Gospel should\nflow in the same channels which had already conducted the civilization\nand the commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward.\n\nAt all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities,\nthe fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A.D. 177, under\nMarcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the\nRhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its\nextent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the\nChurches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant\nhistorical notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the\nmartyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from\nthe persecuted Churches, addressed to 'the brethren that are in Asia and\nPhrygia' [252:2]. The communities thus addressed, it will be observed,\nbelong to the district in which St John's influence was predominant, and\nwhich produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in\nthe preceding papers--Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates.\nOf the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall\nspeak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the very\nfact of their addressing the communication to these distant Churches\nshows the closeness of the ties which connected the Christians in Gaul\nwith their Asiatic brethren. Moreover, in the body of the letter it is\nincidentally stated of two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia\nMinor--Attalus a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from\nPhrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul;' while\nnearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs the most\nconspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, who was more than\nninety years old when he suffered. A later tradition makes him a native\nof Asia Minor [253:1]; and this would be a highly probable supposition,\neven if unsupported by any sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from\nunlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has\nnot preserved the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he\nmust have been a growing boy when St John died; and through him the\nChurches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the full light of\nhistory, are linked directly with the Apostolic age.\n\nImmediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these\ndistant parts of Christendom was manifested in another way. The\nMontanist controversy was raging in the Church of Phrygia, and the\nbrethren of Gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted\npoints [253:2]. To this communication they appended various letters of\nthe martyrs, 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in\nAsia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent Irenaeus, then a\npresbyter, as their delegate with letters of recommendation to\nEleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of conferring with him on this\nsame subject [253:3].\n\nSome twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a close, another\ncontroversy broke out, relating to the observance of Easter, in which\nagain the Asiatic Churches were mainly concerned; and here too we find\nthe Christians of Gaul interposing with their counsels. When Victor of\nRome issued his edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia\nMinor, Irenaeus wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion\nhowever did not merely represent his own private views, for we are\nespecially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in Gaul over\nwhom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the Roman bishop alone, but he\nexchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the Churches\nconcerning the question which had been stirred' [254:1].\n\nBearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we have a right\nto infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most part inherited the\ntraditions of the Asiatic school of St John, we look with special\ninterest to the documents emanating from these communities.\n\nThe Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, already mentioned,\nis the earliest of these. The main business of the letter is a narrative\nof contemporary facts, and any allusions therefore to the Canonical\nwritings are incidental.\n\nBut, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the references to St\nPaul, for instance, there can be no doubt. Thus the martyrs and\nconfessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that _the sufferings\nof this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which\nshall be revealed in us_,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in\nthe Greek is given _verbatim_ as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again,\nthey are described as 'imitators of Christ, _who being in the form of\nGod thought it not robbery to be equal with God_,' where in like manner\na sentence of twelve words stands _verbatim_ as we find it Phil. ii. 6.\nNo one, I venture to think, will question the source of these passages,\nthough they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation.\nNor can there be any reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is\ncalled 'the pillar and ground' ([Greek: stulon kai hedraioma]) of the\nChristians at Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or\nthat when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water,\nreceived a revelation rebuking him for 'not using _the creatures of\nGod_, in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and _gave\nthanks_ to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. These passages\nshow the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards St\nPaul; but I have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation\nwhich prevails in this letter, and thus indicating what we are to expect\nin other cases.\n\nFrom the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations analogous to\nthese.\n\nOf Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told, that though\nyoung he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias ([Greek:\nsunexisousthai te tou presbuterou Zachariou marturia]), for verily\n([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of\nthe Lord blameless_.' Here we have the same words and in the same order,\nwhich are used of Zacharias and Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover,\nit is stated lower down of this same martyr, that he was 'called the\nparaclete (or advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in\nhimself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This maybe compared\nwith Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy\nGhost.'\n\nThe meaning of the expression 'The testimony of Zacharias' ([Greek: te\ntou Zachariou marturia]) has been questioned. It might signify either\n'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or\n'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom. I cannot doubt\nthat the former explanation is correct; for the connecting particle\n([Greek: goun]) shows that the assertion is intended to find its\njustification in words which immediately follow, '_he walked in all the\ncommandments_,' etc. I need not however dwell on this point, for the\nauthor of _Supernatural Religion_ himself adopts this rendering [255:1].\nYet with an inconsistency, of which his book furnishes not a few\nexamples, though he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently\nignores the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis\nwhich is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected.\n\nAn early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, who is\nmentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between the temple and the\naltar (Matt. xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the father of the Baptist.\nAnd in the extravagant romance called the Protevangelium, which is\noccupied mainly with the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the\nBaptist's father is represented as slain by Herod 'at the vestibule of\nthe temple of the Lord' [256:1]. Our author therefore supposes that\nthese Christians of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some\napocryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of\nZacharias.\n\nWhether this identification which I have mentioned is true or false it\nis unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again do I care to discuss\nthe question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it, and\nso believed the Baptist's father to have fallen a martyr. I am disposed\non the whole to think that they did. This supposition, which however\nmust remain uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with\nVettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment as regards\nthe point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's Gospel has\n(according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives) no\nreference whatever to the martyrdom; and therefore affords no ground for\nthe assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any\naccount of or any reference to the death of the Baptist's father.\n\nBut, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification\n(and this assumption, whether true or false, was very natural), our\nThird Gospel itself does furnish such a reference; and they would thus\nfind within the limits of this Gospel everything which they required\nrelating to Zacharias. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ indeed\nrepresents the matter otherwise; but then he has overlooked an important\npassage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels which ought\nsurely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how\nthe Fathers, 'utterly uncritical' though they were, should ever quote\nany writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy, he says,\n'There can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in\nthe Protevangelium, and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not\nbased upon Luke, _in which there is no mention of his death_' [257:1].\nHere and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi.\n51, 'the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the\ntemple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned in St\nMatthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also.\n\nBut, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third Gospel in\nthis way, what will he say to those with the Acts? In this same letter\nof the Gallican Churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their\npersecutors 'like Stephen the perfect martyr, _Lord, lay not this sin to\ntheir charge._' Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them\nanother Acts containing words identical with our Acts, just as he\nsupposes them to have had another Gospel containing words identical with\nour Third Gospel? Or will he allow this account to have been taken from\nActs vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter case, if they\nhad the second treatise which bears the name of St Luke in their hands,\nwhy should they not have had the first also?\n\nOur author however does not stop here. He maintains that these same\nwriters quoted not only from a double of St Luke, but from a double of\nSt John also [258:1]. 'That was fulfilled,' they write, 'which was\nspoken by the Lord, saying, _There shall come a time in which whosoever\nkilleth you will think that he doeth God service_,' where the words of\nSt John (xvi. 2) are exactly reproduced, with the exception that for\n'There cometh an hour when' ([Greek: erchetai hora hina]) they\nsubstitute 'There shall come a time in which' ([Greek: eleusetai kairos\nen ho]. This substitution, which was highly natural in a quotation from\nmemory, is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from\nthe Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to some\napocryphal gospel which has perished. No such gospel however is known to\nhave existed. Moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse\nof the Fourth Gospel, and the expression itself is remarkable--far more\nremarkable than it appears in the English version ([Greek: latreian\nprospherein to Theo]), not 'to do God service,' but 'to offer a religious\nservice to God'). I may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the\nParaclete, already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the\nwriters, and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence\nwith St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. Here, as\nelsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not advance anything\nwhich is demonstrably impossible, he may pile one improbability upon\nanother without endangering the stability of his edifice.\n\nBut even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive\nthis accumulation of improbabilities, it will appear absolutely\nuntenable in the light of contemporary fact. Irenaeus was the most\nprominent and learned member of the Church from which this letter\nemanated, at the very time when it was written. According to some modern\ncritics he was the actual composer of the letter; but for this there is\nno evidence of any kind. According to our author himself he was the\nbearer of it [259:1]; but this statement again is not borne out by\nfacts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenaeus was intimately mixed\nup with all the incidents, and he cannot have been ignorant of the\ncontents of the letter. Now this letter was written A.D. 177 or, as our\nauthor prefers, A.D. 178, while Irenaeus published his third book before\nA.D. 190 at all events, and possibly some years earlier. Irenaeus in\nthis book assumes that the Church from the beginning has recognized our\nfour Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before, at\nthe outside, 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.\n\nHere then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what must be the fate of\na writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts, when he comes to\ndeal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful\nweighing of probabilities?\n\nFrom this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and Lyons, we are\nled to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican father, whose name has\nalready been mentioned several times, and who is the most important of\nall witnesses to the Canonical writings of the New Testament.\n\nThe great work of Irenaeus is entitled _Refutation and Overthrow of\nKnowledge falsely so called_, and consists of five books. The third book\nwas published during the episcopate of Eleutherus, who was Bishop of\nRome from about A.D. 175 to A.D. 190; for he is mentioned in it as still\nliving [260:1]. It must therefore have been written before A.D. 190. On\nthe other hand it contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX\n[260:2]; and Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published\ntill the reign of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). Unfortunately Epiphanius, the\nauthority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement,\ncontradicts himself in this same passage, which is full of the grossest\nchronological and historical blunders [260:3]. No stress therefore can\nbe laid on his statement; nor indeed can we regard its truth or\nfalsehood as of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial\nwhether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of\nEleutherus. As the several books were composed and published separately,\nthe author of _Supernatural Religion_ has a right to suppose, though he\ncannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written during the\nepiscopate of Victor (A.D. 190-198 or 199). But in his partiality for\nlate dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged.\nIf the fourth and fifth books 'must,' as he confidently asserts, have\nbeen written some years after the third, it follows by parity of\nreasoning, that the first and second must have been written some years\nbefore it. Yet, with a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very\nsame sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the\nlatest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third must date\nfrom that epoch [261:1].\n\nWith the respective dates of the several books however we need not\nconcern ourselves; for they all exhibit the same phenomena, so far as\nregards the attitude of the author towards the Canonical writings of the\nNew Testament. On this point, it is sufficient to say that the authority\nwhich Irenaeus attributes to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,\nthe Epistles of St Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the\nApocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate of the Church\nCatholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats\nthem as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testament; he\ncites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes them to the\nrespective authors whose names they bear; he regards them as writings\nhanded down in the several Churches from the beginning; he fills his\npages with quotations from them; he has not only a very thorough\nknowledge of their contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with\nand a recognition of them in his readers [262:1].\n\nIn the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his\nValentinian opponents directly from the Scriptures. This leads him to be\nstill more explicit. He relates briefly the circumstances under which\nour Four Gospels were written. He points out that the writings of the\nEvangelists arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He\nshows that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved\nby a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches can be\ntraced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely\nwith the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. He maintains on the other\nhand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent\ngrowth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels\nalone were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that this had\nbeen so from the beginning. His Valentinian antagonists indeed accepted\nthese same Gospels, paying especial deference to the Fourth Evangelist;\nand accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also\nsuperadded other writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a\ndifferent type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the\nexclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four Gospels\nalone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature\nof things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four\nregions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church\ntherefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be\nsupported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is\nrepresented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as\nfour living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize\nthe four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The\npredominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are\nfour general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is\ntherefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number\nof the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of\nGod, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel.\n\nWhat is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine\nthat the documents which Irenaeus regards in this light had been\nproduced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly\nfull-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken\ntheir position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the\nProphets, as the very voice of God?\n\nThe author of _Supernatural Religion_ seems to think that no explanation\nis needed. 'The reasons,' he writes, 'which he [Irenaeus] gives for the\nexistence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the\nChurch illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers,\nand the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments'\n[263:1]. Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenaeus,\nbut treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the\ndifference in, the world between the value of the same man's evidence as\nto matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of\nhis facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy\nanalogies are _pro tanto_ an evidence of the firm hold which this\nquadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above\nall, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of\nIrenaeus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is\nunconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this\nlast consideration which led me to speak of Irenaeus as the most\nimportant witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and\nto which I wish to direct attention.\n\nThe birth of Irenaeus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell,\nand as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other\nwriters again have adopted intermediate positions. I must frankly say\nthat the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand,\nthose who have placed it as late as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on\nthe ground of the relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp in his old age\n[264:1], and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D.\n167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered\nA.D. 155 or 156 [264:2], it may be presumed that these critics would now\nthrow the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther\nback, _i.e._ to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it\nshould not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I\nhave thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention [265:1], he was\nprobably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a\nmatter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is,\nthat he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age\nby two distinct personal links, if not more.\n\nOf his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken [265:2]. Polycarp\nwas the disciple of St John; and, as he was at least eighty-six years\nold when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon\nthirty when the Apostle died. Irenaeus was young when he received\ninstruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as 'still\na boy,' in another as 'in early life.' If we reckon his age as from\nfifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the\nexpressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all\nevents, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's\nconversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but\nhis very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he\nremembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and\nother personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the\nLord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were 'altogether in\naccordance with the Scriptures' [265:3].\n\nBut Irenaeus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship\nalso. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which\nPOTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the\nlatter in A.D. 177 or 178. With Pothinus therefore he must have had\nalmost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety\nyears old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St\nJohn died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already\nseen [265:4], that like Irenaeus himself Pothinus came originally from\nAsia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential\nposition would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past\nhistory of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which\nwe are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed\nto the Evangelists and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he\ncould remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other\nday, when he was already advanced in life.\n\nIn one passage in his extant work, Irenaeus gives an account of\nelaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself\n'listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been\ndisciples,' _i.e._ personal followers of Christ [266:1]. It seems most\nnatural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the\n'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John\nthe presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under\nthe designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp more\nespecially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he\nforms a third direct link of connection between Irenaeus and the\nApostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of\nIrenaeus with him was frequent and intimate. 'The elder,' writes\nIrenaeus, 'used to say,' 'The elder used to refresh us with such\naccounts of the ancient worthies,' 'The elder used to discuss.' Indeed\nthe elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated\nin a former paper [266:2], that Irenaeus is here reproducing notes of\nlectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct\nor indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not\nconcerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has\nbeen said in a previous paper [266:3]. I wish now merely to call\nattention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse\nwith this elder Irenaeus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of\nthe earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic\nwritings.\n\nNor were these the only exceptional advantages which Irenaeus enjoyed.\nWhen he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his\ntestimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at\nleast. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle\nlife he stayed for some time in Rome, having gone there on an important\npublic mission [267:1]. Before and after this epoch he for many years\nheld a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover\nactively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in\nall the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we\nhappen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on 'All the Heresies,'\ndelivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a\ndiligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and\ndissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such\nletters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less\nelaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant\nwork. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced\nhim to an examination of the points with which we are immediately\nconcerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the\nMontanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to\nremark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in\nthe Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and\nhere again the relation between the narratives of St John and the\nSynoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was\ncontending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against\nGnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the\nGospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally\nwe see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.\n\nThus Irenaeus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness,\nbut is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority.\nAll this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by\ndenouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and\nIrenaeus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box.\n\nThe truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor\nless uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than\nother writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional\nblunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not\nunfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome\nbelieves in the story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of\nrepute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine\nhonours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make\nstatements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the\nreligion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias\nmay be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an AElian. The\nwork of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On\nthe other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian\nfathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several\nexcellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen\ncontemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance\nwith the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement\nof Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same\nday with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say\nnothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his\nfaults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again,\nthe investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of\nIrenaeus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which\nemanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may\nappear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many\nmonuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations\namong the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as\nelsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a\ngross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such\nhopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can\nbe said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit\nconfidence, when their statements serve his purpose.\n\nNow Irenaeus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He\npossessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an\nopinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach\nof suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a\nconsiderable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no\nparade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His\nwork is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His\ntraditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes\ndissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether\nin his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who\nrefuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate\nEmperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly\nsuperstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other\nshowing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenaeus betrays\nno incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and\ncomprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned.\n\nAnd his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The\nrecognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact\nwhich explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in\nprevious writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the\nChurch repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version,\nalready existing when Irenaeus published his work and representing the\nCanon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these\nonly. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before\nhim, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these,\nand these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the\nAlexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the\nfeet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in\nItaly, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing,\non the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed\ndown by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence\nof view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament\nwas not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of\nthe fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides\nin the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can\nonly explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing\nthat, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other\ndocuments, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past\nsingled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a\nposition of exceptional authority.\n\nOne other remark on the testimony of Irenaeus suggests itself before\nclosing. Irenaeus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of\nhis work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject\nof the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are\neither epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any\nreferences to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and\nincidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at\nthis early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the\nShepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old\nTestament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the\nmartyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous;\nor apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of\nthe second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him\nto be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the\nJewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenaeus is\nthe first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of\nChristian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And\nhere the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.\n\nIf any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to\nread Irenaeus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which\nperhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived\nideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be\naccused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few\nparagraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each\nsuccessive page of a long and elaborate work.\n\n\n\n\nIX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1].\n\n[MAY, 1877.]\n\n\nAll that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an\nAssyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers\ncall him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common\nconfusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be\naccounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his\nlife. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this\ncapacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards\nChristianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As\na Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin\nMartyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in\nbringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by\nthe plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had\namong his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one\nof his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have\nspent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria\nand the neighbouring countries.\n\nAfter the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his\nopinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly\northodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused\nviews closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his\nnew ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But\nhe is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more\nespecially the doctrine of AEons, which he derived from the Valentinian\nschool [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that,\n'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's)\nEpistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour,\nand permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2].\nWhere did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian\nthought lightly of St Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is\nquite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's\nEpistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle\nin extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The\nApostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in\nall respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been\ncorrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our\nauthor seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St\nPaul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some\n[273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point\nto an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those\nof Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to\nJudaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul.\nAt the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of\nmarriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must\ntherefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them\nmust be rejected as spurious.\n\nThe date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as\nwe have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this\nfather had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be\ntreading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much\nvariety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing\nJustin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius;\nbut the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended\ntowards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian\nseems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after\nthis we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox\nChristian, and then as a heretic. When Irenaeus wrote his first book,\nTatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of\nthis father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D.\n190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if\nwe may assume that the 'Assyrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions\namong his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we\nhave another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in\nwhich this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195;\nand Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters,\nwhom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the\ntuition of Pantaenus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection\nwith Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we\nshall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of\nTatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier,\nor it may have extended some few years later.\n\nTatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the\nancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the\nGreeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not\nvery long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed\nbefore he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a\nheretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain\nchronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it\nas 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to\nacquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years\ntoo late, the point is not worth contending for.\n\nAs a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the\nOld Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles,\nwho have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred\nbooks, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus\nthe _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from\nthe New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with\nquotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work\nthat we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the\nScriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards\nour Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such\nthat we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and\naccepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.\n\nThe passages are here placed side by side:--\n\n          TATIAN.                    |           ST JOHN.\n                                     |\n'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma\nTheos]), Sec. 4.                        | ho Theos]), iv. 24.\n                                     |\n'And this then is the saying         | 'And the light shineth in the\n([Greek: to eiremenon]); The         | darkness, and the darkness\ndarkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not'\n([Greek: he skotia to phos ou        | ([Greek: kai he skotia auto ou\nkatalambanei]), Sec. 13.                | katelaben]), i. 5.\n                                     |\n'Follow ye the only God. All things  |'All things were made through\nhave been made by Him, and apart     | Him, and apart from Him was\nfrom Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta\n([Greek: panta hup' autou kai choris | di' autou egeneto kai choris\nautou gegonen oude hen]), Sec. 19.      | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3.\n\n\nIn the last passage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek:\noude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated\nin this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following\nsentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.'\n\nBesides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with\nwhich however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be\ndisputed.\n\nIt is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these;\nand yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them.\n\nThe first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says\nnothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have\nregarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it\nis a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.\n\nOf the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it\nwith the expression ([Greek: to eiremenon]), which is used in the New\nTestament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40,\nRom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be\n'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'\nthat this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused\nperplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously\n'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the\nFourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its\nmost characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian\nare just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying\nof its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand,\nthe author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this\ncoincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back\non 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and\nother arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not\ntouch the point of the resemblance.\n\nOn the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth\nGospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but\nthen he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo]\nfor the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author\nalso refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any\nlanguage in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like\nthe same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the\ncoincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are\nextremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation\nwhich gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.\n\nSo much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere\ndoes our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative\nevidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability\nthat any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances\nas in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain.\n\nIt is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the\nFourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance\nof Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a\nHarmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the\nname of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in\nquestion by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary\ntherefore to examine the witnesses:--\n\n1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian\ncomposed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the\nGospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai\nsunagogen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto\nprosonomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some\npersons) even to the present day.'\n\nThis statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on\nthe ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is\naltogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the\nwriter admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopos]) regarding\nthem' [278:1].\n\nHis inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether\nunwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal\nknowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of\nbooks where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not\nunderstand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic\nEnglish it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is\nequivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it\nimplies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed\nat least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen\nagainst Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work\nwhich he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself\nquotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but\ndisparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of\nEusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall\nsee presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat\nstrange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal\nliterature, should have remained unacquainted with it.\n\n2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of\nAddai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of\nthe foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new\nconverts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with\nthe Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It\nseems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed\nthis fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly\nread in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a\n_Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence\nhowever it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its\nneighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is\nobviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is\nassigned to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth\nor sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to\nhave been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore\nmust have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good\nreason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to which\nEusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with\nAbgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore\ncannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At\nthe same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements\nrespecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it\nmuch earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may\nbe its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_,\nadopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the\nGospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this\nwork however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from\nother sources. Nor is it far to seek.\n\n3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers,\nEphraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a\ncommentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius\nBar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and\ndied A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as\nfollows [280:2]:--\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_. On\n     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\n     several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in\n     them, and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not\n     often met with.\n\nThis statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two\nolder works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by\nTatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a\nlater date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about\nA.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in\nhis _Letter to Carpianus_, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite\ndifferent in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. The\n_Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing\nwith the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the Gospel of St\nMatthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by\nside with it the parallel passages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The\nprinciple of the one work was _amalgamation_; of the other,\n_comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could confuse them,\nthough they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_. Eusebius keeps them quite\ndistinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told,\nhe quotes both works in the same place [281:2]. When therefore he\nrelates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian,\nhe is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that\nthe _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it\nwas therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose\nit for commenting upon.\n\nIt is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two\n_Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that\nconfusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this\nparticular author, who shows himself in this passage altogether\ntrustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or\nMr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate?\n\n4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father\nTheodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the\nyear 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see\ntill his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote\nhis treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:--\n\n     He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_,\n     cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other passages as show\n     the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.\n     This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect,\n     but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did\n     not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in\n     all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more\n     than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our\n     parts ([Greek: tais par' hemin ekklesiais]). All these I collected\n     and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four\n     Evangelists.\n\nThe churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his\ndiocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1].\nThe proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its\ncirculation in these parts.\n\nIt is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical\ncharacter of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials\nbefore Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a\njudgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any\nreasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here\nmentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the\nsame which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this\n_Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is\nunnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the\nintelligence of the reader.\n\nHere then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending\nto the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in\ncommon circulation from the third century down to the middle of the\nfifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a\ncompilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise\nand convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists\nthemselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could\ncommence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which,\nas we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in\nthe main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for\notherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but passages which\noffended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies,\nwere excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice\nunder cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in\nitself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what\nmight have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially\nmentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1].\n\nIn this general convergence of testimony however, there are two\nseemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural\nReligion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean.\n\n1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of\nthe fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D.\n374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been\ncomposed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_'\n[284:2].\n\nHere then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This\n_Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct\nevangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this\nGospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was\nexclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this\nassertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian.\nBut this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its\ncontents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne\nsome resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he\nmeets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is found\nliterally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether\ncharacteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters\nnot) he assigns it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his\nHebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different\ndocument. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was\nconstructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it\nresemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions,\nand additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the\nHebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not\nanswer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the\ngenealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all\ncopies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More\nespecially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of\nChrist would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this\nGospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His\nMessianic claims.\n\nHow then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple\nblunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface\nhis pages. He had not seen the _Diatessaron_: this our author himself\nsays. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of\nSyria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in\nthese same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the\nidentification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the\nbroadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of\nthe Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in\nthe world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author,\nwho in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony\nof all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence\nof a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an\nEpiphanius.\n\n2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of _Supernatural Religion_, 'was\nnot only called _Diatessaron_, but according to Victor of Capua, it was\nalso called _Diapente_ ([Greek: dia pente]) \"by five,\" a complication\nwhich shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its\ncomposition.'\n\nThis is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the\nactual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does\nnot himself call it _Diapente_, but says that Eusebius called it\n_Diapente_. This makes all the difference.\n\nVictor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an\nanonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], and began in\nconsequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in\nEusebius of such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed\nto the Canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the\n_Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the\nwork which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour\nof the latter, because it does not give St Matthew continuously and\nappend the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states\nAmmonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this\nanonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress.\n\nThere can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship;\nfor, though the work is constructed on the same general plan as\nTatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it\ndoes contain the genealogies. It belongs therefore, at least in its\npresent form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius.\n\nBut we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which\ncommences as follows:--\n\n     Ex historia quoque ejus (_i.e._ Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir\n     eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor\n     compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum _Diapente_ imposuit.\n\nThus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he\nrepeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's _Diatessaron_, except what\nEusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius\nbefore us, and find that Eusebius does not call it _Diapente_ but\n_Diatessaron_. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without\nexception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was\nprobably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS\nbelonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was\nmade by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text\nof Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself,\nwho knew Greek, says _ex quatuor_, which requires _Diatessaron_, and the\nwork which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages\nfrom our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written\n_Diapente_ himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the\nblundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2].\n\nThus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our\nauthor, [Greek: ouk oid' hopos], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical\ntheory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's\nDiatessaron [287:3].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[The actual _Diatessaron_ of Tatian has since been discovered, though\nnot in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the\nsubject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and\nscholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (_The Diatessaron of Tatian_\n1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found.\nEphraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of\nthis Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836.\nI had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and\nthe thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might\nthrow light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew\nthat it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I\ndid not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift\nits contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered\nenough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by\nMoesinger under the title of _Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a\nSancto Ephraemo doctore Syro_ Venet. 1876, just about the time when I\nwrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years\nafter. Later still an Arabic translation of the _Diatessaron_ itself has\nbeen discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (_Tatiani Evangeliorum\nHarmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc._, 1888). On the relation of Victor's\n_Diatessaron_, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent\nof Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's\n_Diatessaron_. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which\nwas supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be\nunquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all\nbe abandoned.]\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\n_The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural\nReligion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same\nReview, I have given it a place here._\n\n\n\n\nDISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.\n\n[MAY, 1878.]\n\n\nIn a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the\nThird Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (_bien reellement_)\nLuke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work\nhe condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the\nlater chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the\nauthor, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with\nthe rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding\nfrom a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the\nauthorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as\nit has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when\nattacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be\nout of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative\nwhich recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords\nso many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of\ncontact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and\ntopography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the\nyear 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the\nlarge mass of evidence already existing.\n\n1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly\ndangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus\nassumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman\ndominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of\nprovincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a\nproconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an\nimperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of propraetor ([Greek:\nantistrategos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutes]). Thus the use of the terms\n'proconsul' and 'propraetor' was changed; for, whereas in republican\ntimes they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had\npreviously held the offices of consul and praetor respectively at home,\nthey were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the\nprovinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the\ngovernors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the\nprovinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant\nmodifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and\nmilitary rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to\nthe Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an\nimperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be\nimpossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact\nhistorical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a\nproconsul or a propraetor. The province of Achaia is a familiar\nillustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to\nCorinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a propraetor. Just\nat this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler\ntherefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke.\n\nCyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same\naccuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had\ncharged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their\nmistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later\nforger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official\ndesignations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this\nwriter, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the\nEmperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two\nprovinces of Asia and Africa but praetors to the rest on their\nlist,--among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the\nconclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of Cyprus would be\ncalled a propraetor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus,\nthough a praetorian province, was often handed over _honoris causa_ to\nbe administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore\nthat Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a\nsolution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by\nflatterers on an official whose proper designation was propraetor. The\nerror illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less\ndangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and\nAfrica, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two\nconsuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to\nsend ex-praetors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces\nunder their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and\nunquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented\nthe Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held\npreviously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2].\n\nThe circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly\nstated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces\n(B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the\nhistorian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in\nthe first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus\nand Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in\nexchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in\nquestion (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer.\n'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also'\n[294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the\nSenate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample\nevidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of\nproconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of\nClaudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed\nthe province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a\nthird, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a\nlater date, under Hadrian, we come across a propraetor of Cyprus\n[294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of\nthe province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the\nclose of the same century (A.D. 198)--under Severus--it is again\ngoverned by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition.\n\nThus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established;\nbut hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul\nmentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's\ninscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of\nparts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given\nas [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.'\nOn this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus\nof the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the\nsuppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the\nsuppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently,\nthus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the\nproconsul of this inscription.\n\nOf this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that\n'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned\nelsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the\nfirst book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one\nSergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not\nthis have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have\nobserved, only one other person bearing it [295:1]--probably a\ndescendant of this Cyprian proconsul--is mentioned, of whom I shall have\nsomething to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later.\nOnly one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny\nis named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that\nwriter. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it\nwould be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir\nRutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the\nopportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his\nRoman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had\nresided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books\nof Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably\nbe explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the\nsecond book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to\nthe situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of\nVenus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book\nagain, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives\nsome curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and\nthe bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book,\nin which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the\nlast-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they\nare early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the\nlist. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which\ncontains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we\nshould not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of\nthis kind.\n\nFrom the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to the Sergius\nPaulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius\n(A.D. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three\nor four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius\nPaulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.D. 150, and was\nhereafter to be consul for the second time in A.D. 168 (on this latter\noccasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held\nthe Prefecture of the City [296:1]. He is probably also the same person\nwho is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a\nChristian martyrdom [296:2]. This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many\nfeatures of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike\nare proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive\ndisposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may\nsuppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with\nthe lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to\nthe magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the\nApostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of\nGalen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as\nwell as in philosophical studies;' he is especially mentioned as a\nstudent of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen\ninterest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust\nthe reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two\naccounts. The same expression, 'who is also Paul' ([Greek: ho kai\nPaulos]), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts,\nand L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of\ncriticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author\nof the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen; and conversely I\nhave no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But if so,\nthe facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find\nfavour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely\nfurnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms\nso striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is\nsuggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us\nas 'Sergius who is also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in\nthe subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus\nsimply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in\nwhich the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name\nPaulus only.\n\n2. The transition from General Cesnola's _Cyprus_ to Mr Wood's _Ephesus_\ncarries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of St\nPaul. Here, again, we have illustrative matter of some importance. The\nmain feature in the narrative of the Acts is the manner in which the\ncultus of the Ephesian Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's\nsojourn in that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would\nhardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing\ncollection [297:1]. We seem to be reading a running commentary on the\nexcited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are informed that\n'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the\ngoddess, and statues erected and altars consecrated to her, on account\nof the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' ([Greek: tas hup' autes\ngeinomenas enargeis epiphaneias]); that 'the greatest proof of the\nreverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name, being\ncalled Artemision among ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians\nand the other nations of Greece and their respective cities;' that\nduring this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held,\nand more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own\nEphesian goddess' ([Greek: te tropho tes idias theou tes Ephesias]); and\nthat therefore 'the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet that\nthe whole of this month which bears the divine name ([Greek: ton\neponumon tou theiou onomatos]) should be kept holy, and dedicated to the\ngoddess,' has decreed accordingly. 'For so,' concludes this remarkable\ndocument, 'the cultus being set on a better footing, our city will\ncontinue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time.' The sense\nof special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame, which\npervades the narrative in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than\nby this decree. But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly\nenhance the effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as 'the\ngreat goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 'the\nsupremely great goddess ([Greek: he megiste theos]) Artemis.' To her\nfavour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. She has\nnot only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her essenes, her\ndivines ([Greek: theologoi]), her choristers ([Greek: humnodoi]), her\nvergers ([Greek: skeptouchoi]), her tire-women or dressers ([Greek:\nkosmeteirai]), and even her 'acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of\nthese terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her;\nendowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images; decrees\nare issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her birthday is\nagain and again mentioned. She is seen and heard everywhere. She is\nhardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the Great Theatre. This\nlast-mentioned place--the scene of the tumult in the Acts--is brought\nvividly before our eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears\nas the recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed,\nand decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the\nleadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against\nSt Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by\nmemorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the\n'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion, 'What man is there\nthat knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the\ngreat goddess Artemis?' he had only to point to the inscriptions which\nlined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones would have cried out\nfrom the walls in response to his appeal.\n\nNor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by St Luke\nless complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned in the\nnarrative--the Roman proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), the governor of\nthe province and supreme administrator of the law, translated 'deputy'\nin our version; the recorder ([Greek: grammateus]) or chief magistrate\nof the city itself, translated 'town-clerk;' and the Asiarchs ([Greek:\nAsiarchai]), or presidents of the games and of other religious\nceremonials, translated 'the chief of Asia.' All these appear again and\nagain in the newly-discovered inscriptions. Sometimes two of the three\nmagistracies will be mentioned on the same stone. Sometimes the same\nperson will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch,\neither simultaneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially\nfrequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix\nevery date.\n\nBut besides these more general illustrations of the account in the Acts,\nthe newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in\nthe narrative. Thus where the chief magistrate pronounces St Paul and\nhis companions to be 'neither sacrilegious ([Greek: hierosulous]) nor\nblasphemers of our goddess' [299:1], we discover a special emphasis in\nthe term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing\nto the mutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the special\noffences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess.\n'Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' ([Greek: esto hierosulia\nkai asebeia]), says an inscription found in this very theatre [300:1],\nthough not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke. So again,\nwhere the same speaker describes the city of Ephesus as the 'neocoros,'\nthe 'temple sweeper,' or 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we\nfind in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this\nterm so applied. Though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of\ngeneral application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of Ephesus on\ncoins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of other Asiatic\ncities), it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity, but of\nthe Roman emperors. In this sense Ephesus is described as 'twice' or\n'thrice sacristan,' as the case may be, the term being used absolutely.\nThere was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed\nalso to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible but\nhighly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a\nmutilated inscription [300:2]. By a highly probable but not certain\ninterpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin [300:3].\nThere were analogies too which supported it. Thus the Magnesians are\nstyled on the coins 'sacristans of Artemis' [300:4]; and at Ephesus\nitself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of\nArtemis' [300:5]. Nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled\nitself 'the nurse of Artemis' should also claim the less audacious title\nof 'sacristan' to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty;\nand (so far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr Wood's\ninscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the city of the\nEphesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the Augusti according to\nthe decrees of the Senate and sacristan of Artemis' [301:1].\n\nOne other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, desirous of\npacifying the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms of law. 'If\nDemetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, 'have a matter against any\none, assizes are held, and there are proconsuls [301:2]. Let them indict\none another. But if you have any further question (_i.e._, one which\ndoes not fall within the province of the courts of justice), it shall be\nsettled in the lawful (regular) assembly.' By a 'lawful (regular)\nassembly' ([Greek: ennomos ekklesia]) he means one of those which were\nheld on stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to\nthose which were called together on special emergencies out of the\nordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be equally\n'lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in which the words\nwere uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful.' It provides\nthat a certain silver image of Athene shall be brought and 'set at every\nlawful (regular) assembly ([Greek: kata pasan nomimon ekklesian]) above\nthe bench where the boys sit' [301:3].\n\nWith these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient\nliterature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial\ntimes--the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and\nperseverance of Mr Wood--comparable for its life-like truthfulness to\nthe narrative of St Paul's sojourn there in the Acts.\n\nI am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient Christian\nwriter, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, writing to the\nEphesians from Smyrna in the early years of the second century, borrows\nan image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity, where the\nstatues, sacred vessels, and other treasures, of the temple are borne in\nsolemn procession. He tells his Christian readers that they all are\nmarching in festive pomp along the Via Sacra--the way of love--which\nleads to God; they all are bearers of treasures committed to them,--for\nthey carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their sacred things,\nin their heart [302:1]. The image was not new. It is found in Stoic\nwriters. It underlies the surname Theophorus, the 'God-bearer,' which\nIgnatius himself adopted. But he had in his company several Ephesian\ndelegates when he wrote; and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us\nthat the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh\nimpulse at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most\nimportant inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of\nnumerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the temple of\nArtemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endowment for their\ncustody. In one of these (dated A.D. 104) it is ordained that the\ntreasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple\nto the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly, and at the\ngymnastic contests, and on any other days that may be directed by the\nCouncil and the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming\nthe procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass through\nthe length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate and leaving by\nthe Coressian [302:2].\n\n\n\n\n[FOOTNOTES]\n\n\n[1:1] _Supernatural Religion; An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine\nRevelation._ Two Vols. Second Edition, 1874. [Subsequent editions are as\nfollows, Third and Fourth Editions (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions\n(1875), Third Volume (1877), Complete Edition, in Three Vols. (1879).]\n\n[3:1] Iren. v. 36. 1, 2.\n\n[4:1] _S.R._ II. p. 328 sq.\n\n[4:2] _Canon_ p. 63, note 2.\n\n[4:3] The Greek is [Greek: Einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos\n... kai dia touto _eirekenai ton Kurion_ en tois tou patros mou monas\neinai pollas k.t.l.]\n\n[4:4] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs:\n'But ... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.]\n\n[5:1] [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]\n\n[5:2] [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's\nsubsequent explanation is considered.]\n\n[5:3] [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (II. p. 328 n. 3), but\nobjection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too\npositive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see\nbelow, p. 53 sq.]\n\n[5:4] Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of\n'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting, \"say they.\"'\nTischendorf's words are, 'Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den\nAusspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the\nGerman idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words\nare not Irenaeus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any\nidea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has\nsuppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this\ntreatment of Tischendorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The language is\nmodified in ed. 4 (II. p. 326) 'Tischendorf renders the oblique\nconstruction of the text by inserting \"say they\" referring to the\nPresbyters of Papias,' where the point of grammar is silently conceded.]\n\nThe reader may compare _S.R._ II. p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy\nwith which the \"Great African\" proceeds is all the better illustrated by\nthe fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually\ndefines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never\nexisted etc.... he actually repeats the same charge on two other\noccasions.'\n\n[6:1] _S.R._ II. p. 334.\n\n[6:2] [On the wording of this footnote in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is\nomitted in ed. 6, where see II. p. 333.]\n\n[6:3] [See further on this subject below, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]\n\n[7:1] _c. Cels._ i. 8.\n\n[7:2] _c. Cels._ viii. 76.\n\n[7:3] _S.R._ II. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) II. p.\n229 sq.]\n\n[7:4] There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which\nour author has not quoted, [Greek: allo suntagma ... en ho didaxein\nepengeilato.]\n\n[8:1] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 46).]\n\n[8:2] [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (II. p.\n63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as [Greek:\npollachos] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houto makarizetai ... hoti\nopsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.]\n\n[8:3] [[Greek: to rhema] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but\n[Greek: zetesantes] still remains 'they who inquire' (ii. p. 265).]\n\n[8:4] II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.]\n\n[8:5] II. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.]\n\n[8:6] I. p. 448, comp. p. 455. [The latter passage is struck out in ed.\n6 (see I. p. 455); the former becomes 'committed no error'. See below,\np. 163.]\n\n[8:7] II. p. 384.\n\n[8:8] [But in ed. 6 (II. p. 384) I see that my translation is tacitly\nsubstituted.]\n\n[8:9] [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see below, p. 129), but corrected in\ned. 6, which also omits the first clause.]\n\n[9:1] [Other errors in translation are given below, p. 129.]\n\n[9:2] I. p. 113. The last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in\nthe first edition (I. p. 103). Thus the passage has undergone revision,\nand yet the author has not discovered the contradiction. [The author's\nown explanation of this discrepancy is given below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (I.\np. 113) the sentence ends, 'and it is argued that it was probably a\nlater interpolation,' while in the Complete Edition (I. p. 113) it is\nfurther qualified 'argued by some.']\n\n[10:1] II. p. 421. [The argument in favour of the genuineness is\nexpanded in the Complete Edition (II. pp. 419-423).]\n\n[10:2] [See below, p. 163 sq.]\n\n[11:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. [And so throughout all the editions.]\n\n[11:2] [See below, p. 111.]\n\n[11:3] i. pp. 444-485.\n\n[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.]\n\n[12:1] I. p. 441.\n\n[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.]\n\n[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.]\n\n[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, 'For the arguments of\napologetic criticism the reader may be referred to Canon Westcott's work\n_On the Canon_ pp. 112-139. Dr Westcott does not attempt to deny the\nfact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our\nGospels; but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' ['seem\nto us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author\nhad read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence\nwould doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by\narguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.'\n\n[13:1] II. p. 411.\n\n[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different\npurpose later on (II. p. 416).\n\n[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred\nto in the address to the Church of Ephesus: \"And thou didst try them\nwhich say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them\nfalse.\"' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No\nresult of criticism rests upon a more secure basis ... than the fact\nthat the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' _i.e._, after St Paul's\ndeath. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one\ndefinite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between\nthe two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands\nof fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this\nextravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English\nreview of high character.\n\n[14:2] 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the season of persecution arrived,\nand the constancy of Christians was tested in this very way, St Paul's\nown principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from\neven apparent complicity in idolatrous rites. There is every reason\ntherefore to believe that, if St Paul had been living when the\nApocalypse was written, he would have expressed himself not less\nstrongly on the same side. On the other hand these early Gnostics who\nare denounced in the Apocalypse seem, like their successors in the next\ngeneration, to have held that a Christian might conform to Gentile\npractices in these matters to escape persecution. St Paul combats this\nspirit of license, then in its infancy, in the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians.\n\n[14:3] [On the diction of the Fourth Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.]\n\n[14:4] II. p. 445.\n\n[15:1] [_The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_\n(1872). Macmillans.]\n\n[15:2] Our author (II. p. 444) speaks of 'the works of imagination of\nwhich the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is\nrecognized by all.' Is this a true description of the world in the early\nChristian ages? If not, it is nothing to the purpose.\n\n[15:3] II. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress on the _difference_ of theme.\n[See below, p. 131 sq.]\n\n[15:4] [He does however mention the term elsewhere; see below, p. 123.]\n\n[15:5] II. p. 468, and elsewhere.\n\n[16:1] II. p. 451.\n\n[16:2] [These passages are added without comment in the Complete Edition\nin a note on II. p. 453.]\n\n[16:3] [On this point see below, p. 131.]\n\n[17:1] II, p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, 271. [The statement stands\nunchanged in the Complete Edition (II. p. 474 sq).]\n\n[17:2] [See further, p. 99 sq.]\n\n[17:3] II. p. 421. Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly\nidentify Sychar with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This\nfact is not mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted'\n['evident' ed. 6] 'that there was no such place [as Sychar, [Greek:\nSuchar]], and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the\ndifficulty.' This is altogether untrue. Others besides 'apologists'\npoint to passages in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or\nSochar, or Sichar);' see Neubauer _La Geographie du Talmud_ p. 169 sq.\nOur author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch _Zeitschr. f.\nLuth. Theol._ 1856 p. 240 sq. He cannot have read the article, for these\nTalmudic references are its main purport.\n\n[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133\nsq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.]\n\n[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete\nEdition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).]\n\n[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).]\n\n[19:1] II. p. 423 sq.\n\n[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht fuer noethig\ngefunden, den Taeufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes\nauch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistes] zu\nunterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25,\n26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).'\n\n[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124\nsq.]\n\n[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459.\n\n[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which\nDr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileides, kan Glaukian\nepigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermenea].\n\n[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets\nwere inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been\nworth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After\nhaving been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is\ncut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).]\n\n[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123\nsq.]\n\n[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.]\n\n[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.]\n\n[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.]\n\n[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57.\n\n[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.).\n\n[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135.\n\n[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq.\n\n[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's\nconclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac,\nand Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace\nwith its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer\nmust be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to\nwhich he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the\nwhole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's\ncritical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the\nsuggestion, that the name of the fabulist AEsop is derived from\nSolomon's \"_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall,\" 1 Kings iv. 33:\n_Die Sprueche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq.\n\n[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which\ndepends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of\nCelsus (II. p. 228), etc.\n\n[25:3] [See further, p. 141.]\n\n[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.]\n\n[27:1] II. p. 484.\n\n[27:2] II. p. 487 sq.\n\n[27:3] II. p. 486.\n\n[27:4] II. p. 487 sq.\n\n[27:5] II. p. 489.\n\n[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490.\n\n[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv.\n\n[30:1] II. p. 492.\n\n[30:2] II. p. 492.\n\n[30:3] II. p. 492.\n\n[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to\nthe fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have\noccasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations\nfrom the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here\nquoted.\n\n[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27.\n\n[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432.\n\n[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the\nstatement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I\nfind elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop\nof the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the\nFathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to\nthis by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is\nvery probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar\nveneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated\nto be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these\ntwo passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Caesarea, in the\npreface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias\nmaintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in\nother words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness\nof this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the\nacquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore\nhave recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics,\nI ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.\n\n[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6\n(I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition\n(p. xxi).]\n\n[35:1] I. p. 435.\n\n[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]\n\n[35:3] II. p. 320.\n\n[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p.\n318).]\n\n[35:5] I. p. 483.\n\n[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of\nthis expression see below, p. 183 sq.]\n\n[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]\n\n[35:8] II. p. 322.\n\n[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]\n\n[35:10] II. p. 323.\n\n[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the\nsentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the\nwork of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']\n\n[35:12] II. p. 164.\n\n[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.]\n\n[36:1] II. p. 166.\n\n[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in\nthe Complete Edition.]\n\n[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ ton\nkata chronous ekklesiastikon sungrapheon _hopoiais kechrentai_ ton\nantilegomenon, _tina te peri_ ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon graphon\nkai _hosa peri_ ton me toiouton autois eiretai.] The words spaced will\nshow the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references\nor testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record\nof anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike.\nThe double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is\nincapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect\nthe question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of\nIrenaeus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle\nto the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and\nApocalypse alike.\n\n[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this\nEssay see below, p. 178 sq.]\n\n[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24.\n\n[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of\neconomising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which\nthe testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that\nthey are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been\nconfused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a\nclearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It\nmust be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the\namount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I\nrefer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved\nby Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies.\n\n[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5.\n\n[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223.\n\n[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the\nApostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel?\nOf a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikos]\nconcerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made\nparties ([Greek: proskliseis]).\n\n[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37.\n\n[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16.\n\n[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33.\n\n[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12.\n\n[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8.\n\n[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29.\n\n[41:6] _Rom._ 4.\n\n[41:7] _Ephes._ 12.\n\n[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius\ngenerally.\n\n[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36.\n\n[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16.\n\n[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4.\n\n[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc.\n\n[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6.\n\n[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages.\n\n[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14.\n\n[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36.\n\n[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66.\n\n[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I.\n\n[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18.\n\n[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24.\n\n[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq.\n\n[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22.\n\n[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474.\n\n[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24.\n\n[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq.\n\n[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6.\n\n[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8.\n\n[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26.\n\n[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26.\n\n[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18.\n\n[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20.\n\n[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14.\n\n[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1.\n\n[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1.\n\n[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.\n\n[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.\n\n[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483.\n\n[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later\neditions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition\n(1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however,\nwhich survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending\nnote.]\n\n[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341.\n\n[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.]\n\n[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62.\n\n[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66.\n\n[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.]\n\n[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.]\n\n[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised\nsome portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier\nand later editions.\n\n[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th\n[1874].\n\n[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.]\n\n[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.]\n\n[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.]\n\n[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.]\n\n[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views\nat the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has\nstated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven\nVossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness\nwill be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S.\nIgnatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he\nrefers his readers.]\n\n[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263.\n\n[62:1] I. p. 269.\n\n[62:2] I. p. 270.\n\n[62:3] I. p. 274.\n\n[63:1] I. p. 274.\n\n[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the\npreface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.]\n\n[63:3] I. p. 263 sq.\n\n[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn\nBunsen_, Tuebingen, 1848.\n\n[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz\neinverstanden' with Baur's view.\n\n[64:3] _Apostol. Vaeter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq.\n\n[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861).\n\n[64:5] _Die aelt. Zeugn._ p. 50.\n\n[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636.\n\n[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers,\nsupposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170.\n\n[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr.\nRecens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's\nZeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq.\n\n[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862).\n\n[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works,\nwhere he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian\nletters.\n\n[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignatianae_ p. 28 (ed. Churton).\n\n[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in\nJacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's\n_Vindiciae Ignatianae_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted\nby Jacobson, are taken.\n\n[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error\nin the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p.\n260 in that edition.]\n\n[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is\ngiven.\n\n[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his\nreferences. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I\nconfidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for\nthemselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however\n'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]\n\n[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).\n\n[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9.\n\n[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at\nConstantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi.\n\n[72:1] I. p. 264.\n\n[72:2] I. p. 265.\n\n[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions,\nand is imbedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this\ncollection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the\nGreek, before the MS of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian\nEpistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious\nEpistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian\nEpistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See\nZahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 111.\n\n[73:2] I. p. 262.\n\n[73:3] p. 164.\n\n[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: ego ginosko nun archomai\nmathetes einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but\nare wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences.\n\n[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269.\n\n[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267.\n\n[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von\nAntiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered\nby anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I\nventure to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to\nhave attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important\ncontribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since\nCureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn\ndefends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.\n\n[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.)\n\n[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere\ncoepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem\nrefrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut\nfratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum\neis.'\n\n[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12.\n\n[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no\nlonger a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon\ntais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathekas tinas kai\nparaineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi touto presbeutas ton hetairon\necheirotonese nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This\ndescription exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of\nIgnatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonesai_ tina ...\nhos dunesetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders\nreported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp\nwhen he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly\nLucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and\nbelieved by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from\nthe pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by\nburning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the\ncredulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to\nhave had at least a superficial acquaintance.\n\n[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the\nEpistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such\ncircumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles\nare more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a\nsoldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still\ngreater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in\nparts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton,\nhas expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian\nLetters.\n\nOur author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian\nLetters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227.\nEven the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as\nmany hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty,\nIgnatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his\nguards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than\nweeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at\nevery stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two\nstages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written\neither at Smyrna or at Troas.\n\n[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the\nmeaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._\n5.\n\n[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268.\n\n[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the\nfourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published\nseparately.\n\n[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq.\n\n[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.).\n\n[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a\ndifferent time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53.\n\n[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the\nother by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those\nof the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have\nno independent value, being compacted from these two.\n\n[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's\n_Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq.\n\n[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhaeltniss des Textes der drei Syrischen\nBriefe etc._ p. 7.\n\n[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.).\n\n[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the\nlatter by Zahn, p. 67.\n\n[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found\nin Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the\ncredibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traianou], is\ntreated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S.\nPolycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).]\n\n[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.]\n\n[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered\ndown (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire\nfor another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti]\nis substituted for [Greek: philouelon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per\nmateriam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation,\nbut has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from\nthe Greek.\n\n[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq.\n\n[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aidios, ouk] apo\nsiges proelthon.]\n\n[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245.\n\n[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in\nthe _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq.\n\n[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq.\n\n[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoekonta kai hex ete echo douleuon\nauto]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek:\necho douleuon] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuo].\n\n[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere);\nPolycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p.\n958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18.\n\n[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D.\n170-180).\n\n[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq.\n\n[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii.\n31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given\nreasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the\nApostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.\n\n[91:5] Papias, _l.c._\n\n[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1.\n\n[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4.\n\n[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4.\n\n[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Praescr. Haer._ 32.\n\n[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4.\n\n[93:2] _ib._ Sec. 8.\n\n[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq.\n\n[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain\nwritings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_\n(Sec. 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or\nothers like him (Sec. 3).\n\n[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been\nmuch disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the\nfact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament,\nbut also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I\nfind the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr.\n2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE.\nFECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be\nhazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son\nof a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of\nDomitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of\nChristianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the\nname _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some\ndependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian\nprinces.\n\n[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi.\n\n[94:3] _Phil._ Sec.10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10,\nxii. 9.\n\n[95:1] _Phil._ Sec. 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et\nnolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,'\nevidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26.\n\n[95:2] _ib._ Sec. 1. [Greek: hon egeiren ho Theos lusas tas odinas tou\nhadou], from Acts ii. 24.\n\n[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]\n\n[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference\nto Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the\ncoincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt.\n\n[96:1] _Phil._ Sec. 8.\n\n[97:1] [Greek: ton autopton tes zoes tou Logou.] I would gladly\ntranslate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i.\n1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek\norder. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text.\nThe Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living\nWord.'\n\n[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20.\n\n[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to\nAsia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe\n_Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there\nwere no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2)\nconsiders that the expression does not imply the presence of the\nimperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a\ncourtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenaeus could hardly have\nexpressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The\nsucceeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost\nentirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones\nobiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._\n7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years\nof his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of\nJohn Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his\nreturn (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rheteur AElius\nAristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early\npart of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is\ntoo late for our purpose.\n\nAs no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a\nconjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia\n(Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or\nthree years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne,\nand is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite,\nand Irenaeus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in\na loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a\nvisit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the\ncircumstances.\n\n[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.\n\n[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek:\nparechorese ten eucharistian.]\n\n[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.\n\n[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.\n\n[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Roemischen Bischoefe_ p. 263.\n\n[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.\n\n[103:3] See his _Memoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rheteur AElius\nAristide_ in the _Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202\nsq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's\n_Voyage Archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure_.\n\n[104:1] _L'Antechrist_ p. 566.\n\n[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188\n(1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.\n\n[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.\n\n[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional\nguarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of\nAsia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiae conventu legitur.'\n\n[108:1] _Phil._ Sec. 5.\n\n[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly\ncorrect; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a\ncareful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in\nthe ordinary theological language of the two writers.\n\n[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]\n\n[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence\nwith 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to\nanother,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid\non the occurrence of these few obvious words.\n\n[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).\n\n[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]\n\n[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]\n\n[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the\nthirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as\nworthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must\nhave been [Greek: ton met' autou].\n\n[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.\n\n[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq.\n[See also below, p. 189.]\n\n[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ Sec. 3.\n\n[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]\n\n[115:2] The words of Irenaeus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos\nMarkioni pote eis opsin auto elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496)\nremarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of\ntime than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding\nsentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident\nfrom the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.\n\n[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.\n\n[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ Sec. 7.\n\n[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.\n\n[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.\n\n[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian\nletters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.\n\n[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come\n([Greek: eleluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that\nconfesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing\nthe suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be\n[Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: me\nhomologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of\nIrenaeus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32)\nsays that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of\nIrenaeus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts\nclearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to\nconceive that the very simple [Greek: me homologei] would be altered\ninto [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all\nevents [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably\nfrom a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it\nwell describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in\nIrenaeus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per\nmulta dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere\neos praecepit dicens' etc.\n\n[119:1] Die aeltesten Zeugnisse p. 41.\n\n[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.\n\n[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.\n\n[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.\n\n[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.\n\n[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.\n\n[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Praescr. Haer._\n33.\n\n[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references\nthere given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum\nquidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens\nDeum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with\nthe context.\n\n[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of\nhis martyrdom (Sec. 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai\npro tes polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in\nEusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tes\nmarturias].\n\n[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Vaeter_ p. 273) evidently feels this\ndifficulty, and apologises for it.\n\n[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's\nnote.\n\n[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.\n\n[124:1] See above, p. 20.\n\n[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.\n\n[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.\n\n[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.\n\n[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the\nlanguage of the other writers to whom he gives references in his\nfootnote is too clear to be misunderstood.\n\n[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning,\nbut it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not\npretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a\nquotation of Matt. xx. 16, \"Thus the last shall be first, and the first\nlast\" ([Greek: outos esontai oi eschatoi protoi kai oi protoi\neschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of\nthe saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite\nfalse, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange\nto say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the\nfamous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears\ntwice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30,\nit is quoted again with slight variation: \"But many first shall be last,\nand last first,\"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.\n\n[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.\n\n[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that\nSt Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course,\nto which a passing reference is sufficient.\n\n[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]\n\n[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.\n\n[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.\n\n[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]\n\n[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.\n\n[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]\n\n[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he\n'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de ten\ndiastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of showing the\nconstruction.' The impression however which his own language left on my\nmind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not\nfor this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was\nnothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's\n'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of\n'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more\nespecially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural\nReligion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong\njustification I had for taking this view.\n\n[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.\n\n[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been\nmade in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a\ncorrespondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the\nearlier editions.\n\n[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of\nthe writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf\nand Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc....\nHis own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the\ncritical point in question Irenaeus passes from the direct to the\nindirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the\ninfinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no\nmeans of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such\nphrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply\ndenote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to\nthrow the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to\nfasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is\ncombating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship\nupon himself.'\n\nThis occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.\n\n[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.\n\n[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.\n\n[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These\ntwo examples ... Commentaries of Caesar.']\n\n[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]\n\n[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]\n\n[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire\nwhether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same\nidea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author\nassumes in his reply.\n\n[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]\n\n[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.\n\n[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.\n\n[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]\n\n[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been\nlater than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been\nsuperseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware,\nwhich is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight\nyears. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is\nonly a probability.\n\n[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]\n\n[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in\nregarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in\nHebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on\nthe whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic\nGreek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four\neditions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly\nReview_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read\n'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By\n'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by\nthe mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect\nlike the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._,\nGreek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.\n\n[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.\n\n[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]\n\n[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.\n\n[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference\nshould be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before\nthis Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains\nunaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the\nComplete Edition.]\n\n[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition\nsubstitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']\n\n[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.\n\n[136:2] John iv. 35.\n\n[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]\n\n[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.\n\n[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]\n\n[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]\n\n[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.\n\n[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on\na 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may\nbe so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand\nhimself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that\nhe has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as\napplied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions\nmay be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly.\nNo educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity\nin the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble\npassage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In\nanother sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his\nanthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and\nbeneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from\nthe study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to\nconceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this\nwider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged\nhimself from it.\n\nIn spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the\nwriter of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a\nbeliever in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand\nPersonality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes\nwill and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of\npersonality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a\nbelief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God\nwho cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of\nthe work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with\nthese beliefs.\n\n[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Ioannou men akoustes, Polukarpou de\nhetairos gegonos].\n\n[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk okneso de soi kai hosa pote\npara ton presbuteron kalos emathon kai kalos emnemoneusa sunkatataxai]\n[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermeneiais, diabebaioumenos huper\nauton aletheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the\nnotices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise\nstated.\n\n[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.\n\n[145:1] _Haer._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3;\nv. 36. 1, 2.\n\n[145:2] _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenaeus.' Clement\nof Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantaenus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.\n\n[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.\n\n[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.\n\n[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated\nat great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office\nthroughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent\nwriters. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von\nHierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das\nPapias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are\ndistinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings\nPapias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent\nwresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that\nit is not likely to find much favour.\n\n[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the\nLetter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied\nto the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.\n\n[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.\n\n[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.\n\n[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.\n\n[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the\nlast (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_\ngave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still\nliving.\n\n[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.\n\n[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used\nany other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the\nextant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.\n\n[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the\nSyriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schoene). The\nsource of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.\n\n[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.\n\n[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I\nwrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but\nI think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony\npoints to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in\n_Colossians_ p. 45 sq.\n\n[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.\n\n[150:1] See above, p. 90.\n\n[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third\nbook; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the\nfourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin\nMartyr and events connected with him.\n\n[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te\nAristion kai ho presbuteros Ioannes ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143],\nand hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living\nwhen the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a\nchronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a\nhistoric present introduced for the sake of variety.\n\n[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.'\nElsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second\nhalf of the second century.'\n\n[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307);\nIrenaeus _Haer._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr.\nCarn._ 24.\n\n[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ Sec. 15.\n\n[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.\n\n[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.\n\n[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel;\n_H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.\n\n[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hen to kat' Hebraious euangelion\nperiechei].\n\n[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of\nAlexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite\nthe same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot\nhave remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses\nauthority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it\nin the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553).\n'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute\nline of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even\nillustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by\nthat of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation.\n_Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts\nwould carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of\nthe use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\n\n[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not\nknow the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well\nacquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to\nrender this very doubtful.\n\n[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii soteri].\n\n[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.\n\n[153:3] Boeckh 3817.\n\n[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kuehn).\n\n[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7;\n_Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p.\n16.\n\n[153:6] See above, p. 142.\n\n[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.\n\n[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in\nthe original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr.\nGraec._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given);\nthe second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where\nagain only the Latin 'celebris' is given).\n\n[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural,\n'Exposition' ([Greek: exegesis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exegeseis]),\nI need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias\nuses [Greek: logion], not [Greek: logon], 'oracles,' not 'words' or\n'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakon logion], not [Greek: logion\ntou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall\nhave occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are\nsignificant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than\nif he had used the alternative expressions.\n\n[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq.\n\n[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it\nis certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little\nimportance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of\ninformation regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq.\n\n[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8.\n\n[156:3] See below, p. 160.\n\n[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154.\n\n[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes,\nwas not [Greek: exegesis] but [Greek: diegesis], which Eusebius uses\nseveral times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39.\n\n[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das\nPapias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to\nthe real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such\nviolent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of\nviolence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon,\nand that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words\n[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parekolouthekos], which occur several lines\nbelow. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermeneiais] 'the interpretations\nbelonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in\nthe extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced\nimpossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact\nwill still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_.\nWeiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the\ntwo writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared,\nHilgenfeld and Leimbach.\n\n[158:2] Haer. v. 33. 1 sq.\n\n[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the\nlooseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenaeus,\ndoes not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines\nfeatures from all the three.\n\n[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his\ninterpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld\nin his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p.\n238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq.\nBut it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical\nconclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical\nnarratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in\nlittle esteem.\n\n[160:1] _Haer._ Praef. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to\nmake their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings]\nby perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek:\nexegeseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to\nwrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek:\ndia tes exegeseos].\n\n[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.\n\n[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of\nthe Naassenes; _Haer._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous\ndiscourses ([Greek: pollon panu logon]), which they say that James,'\netc.\n\n[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied\nseveral times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the\nwriter is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.\n\n[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his\n_History of the Canon_ p. 288.\n\n[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.\n\n[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly\ninstructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's\nview (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found\nit better to inquire \"what John or Matthew, or what any other of the\ndisciples of the Lord ... say,\" if he had known of Gospels such as\nours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete\nEdition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they\nhad to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere\ncollection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the\nApostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author\npractically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which\nelsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and\nas a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other\nwords, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical\nrecords, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he\ncannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author\nhimself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at\nall affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did\nnot contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from\nthese perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of\nbooks is intended, as I have explained in the text.\n\n[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would\nappreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I\npointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated\n[Greek: ouden hemarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,'\nthus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the\nresult of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in\nthe last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus\nwriting,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.\n\n[165:1] I. p. 456.\n\n[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete\nEdition.]\n\n[166:1] I. p. 459.\n\n[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the\nComplete Edition.]\n\n[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.\n\n[167:3] I. p. 447.\n\n[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from\nits context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenaeus, ii. 22.\n5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem\nseniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes\nseniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini\nconvenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis\nusque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et\nalios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur\nde hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have\nenclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.\n\n[169:1] I. p. 474.\n\n[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]\n\n[171:1] I. p. 465.\n\n[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng.\nTransl.), where there is more to the same effect.\n\n[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse\nAufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine\nblosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollstaendiges Evangelium laesst schon\nPapias den Matthaeus hebraeisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq,\n454 sq.\n\n[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenaeus did not derive his information\nsolely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by\nPantaenus in certainly independent of Papias.'\n\n[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.\n\n[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.\n\n[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]\n\n[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555).\nElsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books\n(of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chresmoi]) pronounced ([Greek:\nchresthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different\nkinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).\n\n[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].]\nElsewhere (Sec. 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis\ntas graphas].\n\n[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.\n\n[174:4] Iren. _Haer._ i. 8. 1.\n\n[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p.\n392.\n\n[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. Sec. 6\n(III. p. 447).\n\n[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).\n\n[175:3] See p. 163.\n\n[176:1] I. p. 466.\n\n[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logon]\nfor [Greek: logion] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading\nof the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument;\nbut the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek:\nlogion].\n\n[177:1] Iren. _Haer._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.\n\n[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of\nPapias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural\nReligion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.\n\n[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the\nPreface to this Reprint.]\n\n[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.\n\n[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]\n\n[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]\n\n[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore\nproposes--however precise.']\n\n[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.\n\n[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]\n\n[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.\n\n[182:1] Iren. _Haer._ iii. 11. 1.\n\n[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is\nscarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the\nfacts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about\nthe Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,'\netc.\n\n[182:3] Iren. _Haer._ iii. 1. 1.\n\n[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.\n\n[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.\n\n[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.\n\n[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]\n\n[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]\n\n[184:3] II. p. 166.\n\n[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]\n\n[184:5] I. p. 483.\n\n[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]\n\n[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]\n\n[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.\n\n[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for\nthe present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me)\nunanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June\n[1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of\n_Supernatural Religion_.\n\n[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.\n\n[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of\nTregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514\nsq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an\nunskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_,\nthat the extant copy of this translation has been written by an\nextremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts\nhowever do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on\nall the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.\n\n[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which\nis obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit\nita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert\n'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped\nout owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem,\nprout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek:\nkai autos, kathos hedunato parakolouthein, outos etheke, k.t.l.]), 'And\nhe too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of\nfollowing them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage\nis quite independent of any textual conjectures.\n\n[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek ton matheton],\nwhere [Greek: mathetes], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and\nIrenaeus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who\nhad been taught directly by Christ.\n\n[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a\nsingle letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when\nsome obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum\nsi Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet\nipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot\nhelp suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta\npropherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legon eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts\nforward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle\nalso respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly\nattached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former\npart of the sentence.\n\n[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great\nimportance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary\nReview_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of\nits bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a\nsubstantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this\nGospel was composed.\n\n[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II.\np. 323.\n\n[191:2] See above, p. 49.\n\n[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]\n\n[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.\n\n[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note\nis omitted in the Complete Edition.]\n\n[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]\n\n[194:1] Iren. _Haer._ v. 36. 1, 2.\n\n[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]\n\n[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in\nhis last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly,\nthough from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they\nteach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But\nhe has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other,\nin his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek:\nen tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making\n[Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from\n[Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be\naware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see\nLobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the\nelders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are\nmentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in\nparadise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage\nruns 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia\nenim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum\nverbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things\nare of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word\nsays, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to\nall by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a\nparaphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.\n\nA few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher\nstammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether\nthis be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after\n(p. 332), I find the work of Irenaeus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of\nthe _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenaeus and\nPolycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed.\nII. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked\ninto the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_\nwas in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the\ntreatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such\nerrors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special\nrevisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page\nto be 'carefully revised.'\n\n[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).\n\n[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).\n\n[196:1] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1.\nEven in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of\nlectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on\nHeresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures\nof Irenaeus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils\ntaking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed.\nKuehn). The discourses which Irenaeus reports from the lips of this\nanonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate,\nthat the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to\naccount for them.\n\n[197:1] See above, p. 143.\n\n[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.\n\n[198:1] See above, p. 158.\n\n[198:2] Iren. _Haer._ v. 6. 1.\n\n[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.\n\n[199:2] See above, p. 143.\n\n[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]\n\n[200:2] _Patrol. Graec._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).\n\n[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views\nas wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a\nphilosophical allegory, and Irenaeus, who regards it as a supramundane\nabode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are\nboth opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main\npoint which he has in view.\n\n[201:1] _Patrol. Graec._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.\n\n[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.\n\n[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from\nPapias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence\nseems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be\nvery meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse,\nemphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this\nshows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p.\n186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign\nthis exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who\nmentions paradise (xxiii. 43).\n\n[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.\n\n[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55.\n\n[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.\n\n[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.\n\n[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.\n\n[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.\n\n[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]\n\n[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.\n\n[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.\n\n[208:1] Euseb. _Quaest. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome,\nwho seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist.\n120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui\nevangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam\n_sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non\n_sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'\n\n[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.\n\n[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.\n\n[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis\nanapempsantes _anankaios_ nun prosthesomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek:\ntauta d' hemin _anankaios_ pros tois ektetheisin epiteterestho].\n\n[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by\nCardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until\nattention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7\nsq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._\n\n[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.\nTheol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be\nfound in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.\n\n[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.\nTheol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).\n\n[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the\nresult in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About\nthe same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and\nannounced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.\n\n[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog.\nQuartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of\nfragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._\n(1875), p. 258.\n\n[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was\nsuggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have\ninserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which\nGeorgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6\n(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma\nebaptisthesan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Herodes men apekteinen\nIakobon ton Ioannou machaira, ho de Rhomaion basileus, hos he paradosis\ndidaskei, katedikase ton Ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon\neis Patmon ten neson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this\npassage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus\nmistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error\nwhich I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John\nMalalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).\n\n[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237\n(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes\nMarcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in\nthe text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a\nlater date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of\nthe passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in\n_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.\n\n[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly\nsubstituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's\nsuggestion of the spurious Papias.\n\n[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by\nthe Palaeographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.\n\n[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Graec. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder),\n[Greek: haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to\nheautou mathete Papia eubioto] (_sic_) [Greek: to hierapolite, k.t.l.].\n\n[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsa\n(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].\n\n[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]\n\n[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]\n\n[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Caesarea will be found in Routh _Rel.\nSacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the\nApocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name.\nOur author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It\nseems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though\nhe may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony\nof Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use\nby Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that\nEusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant\nhis words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the\nChiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had\nmistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was\nsaid by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en\nhupodeigmasi].\n\n[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]\n\n[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius\n(_Haer._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with\nspecial reference to the Gospel, by Irenaeus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus\nwrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which\nwas apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that\nEpiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.\n\n[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.\n\n[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote\nabout A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons\nsome years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was\nreally written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868);\nand I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether\nthis be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii.\n28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The\nimportant discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq,\n1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from\nHippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the\nidentity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.]\n\n[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.\n\n[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.\n\n[218:1] See above, p. 189.\n\n[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tes\nHellados, ho Ionikos].\n\n[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.\n\n[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.\n\n[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.\n\n[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.\n\n[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.\n\n[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.\n\n[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.\n\n[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.\n\n[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.\n\n[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 1.\n\n[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 6 [Greek: ho kekleromenos to auto onoma,\nHerodes epilegomenos], where [Greek: kekleromenos] (not [Greek: kai\nkleronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,'\n_i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.\n\n[221:2] _ib._ Sec. 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the\nexpression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.\n\n[221:3] _ib._ Sec. 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi huperchon].\n\n[221:4] _ib._ Sec. 8.\n\n[221:5] _ib._ Sec. 7 [Greek: hos epi lesten]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark\nxiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.\n\n[221:6] _ib._ Sec. 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.\n\n[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are\nnot serious. See above, p. 103.\n\n[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.\n\n[222:1] John xii. 28.\n\n[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. Sec. 5.\n\n[222:3] _ib._ Sec. 12 [Greek: edei gar to tes ... optasias plerothenai hote\n... eipen, k.t.l.]\n\n[222:4] John xii. 33.\n\n[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iesou plerothe, hon\neipen semainon k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when\nthe change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch\nsays (Sec. 12), [Greek: _me einai exon_ auto, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case,\nthe language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hemin ouk exestin_\napokteinai oudena.]\n\n[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 16 [Greek: exelthe [peristera kai] plethos\nhaimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words\n[Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka]\naccording to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted\naltogether as in the text of Eusebius.\n\n[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.\n\n[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 15.\n\n[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.\n\n[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 16.\n\n[223:2] _ib._ Sec. 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.\n\n[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.\n\n[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and\nWaddington's _Voyage Archeologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p.\n507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.\n\n[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.\n\n[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antoninon biblidion].\nThe meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally\naccepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.\n\n[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[224:2] See above, p. 218.\n\n[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_\nspeaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error\nsurvives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete\nEdition].\n\n[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts\nrelating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise\nstated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the\nworks in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences\nare not important enough to be considered here.\n\n[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the\nSyriac fragments.\n\n[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.\n\n[227:1] See above, p. 177.\n\n[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against\nthe genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.\n\n[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnemoneumata ton\napostolon e ta sungrammata ton propheton anaginosketia k.t.l.], compared\nwith _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' auton\napomnemoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].\n\n[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.\n\n[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in\nOtto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.\n\n[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.\n\n[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.\n\n[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.\n\n[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.\n\n[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Graec._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.\n\n[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.\n\n[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in\nCureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.\n\n[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered\nthis expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this\nmakes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I\nhave given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have\ndisappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction\nbetween [Greek: phone] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the\nsecond and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as\nIgnatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this\ndistinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek:\nphone boontos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].\n\n[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is\nwell known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.]\n'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or\nMeletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to\nstate a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the\nearly Church bearing the name of Melito.\n\n[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 61 (p. 284).\n\n[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 34 (p. 251).\n\n[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 100 (p. 327).\n\n[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 100 (p. 327).\n\n[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences\nin the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.\n\n[237:1] See above, p. 202.\n\n[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.\n\n[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.\n\n[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.\n\n[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts\nrelating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.\n\n[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.\n\n[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.\n\n[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollon para pollois sozomenon, ta\neis hemas elthonta esti tade.]\n\n[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera\nsungrammata axiomnemoneuta einai, ois oupo hemeis enetuchomen.]\n\n[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).\n\n[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.\n\n[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.\np. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius,\n_l.c._\n\n[240:1] [See above, p. 17].\n\n[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many\nbeen conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the\nthird century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives\nreferences to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh,\napparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to\nreject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel.\nSacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont,\nwhere he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of\nTillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p.\n91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers\nin the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria\nis likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the\nquestion of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is\nreserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._\np. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not\nmention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be\nadded that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the\nPassover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Osee logos]; see\nPhotius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of\nPhotius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment\nfrom the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition\nof Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are\ntacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the\ntext.]\n\nOur author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a\nwitness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same\nauthority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage\nbears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an\nApologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the\nApology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without\nhesitation.\n\n[242:1] _Die aelt. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.\n\n[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete\nEdition.]\n\n[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.\n\n[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'\n\n[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.\n\n[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.\n\n[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.\n\n[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]\n\n[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent\ndiscussion arose as to the day upon which \"the true Passover of the\nLord\" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it\nshould be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what\nApollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris\n([Greek: to alethinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne\ntestimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself\ntaking the opposite view.\n\n[245:2] Iren. _Haer._ ii. 22.\n\n[247:1] See above, p. 131.\n\n[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]\n\n[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of\nIsaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not\n[Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some\nadversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental\nconfirmation of the statement of Irenaeus respecting the Asiatic elders.\n\n[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this\nelder with Papias.\n\n[248:3] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.\n\n[248:4] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 27 sq.\n\n[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.\n\n[249:2] Acts v. 29.\n\n[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in\nGreek at this time and for many generations afterwards.\n\n[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1.\n\n[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may\nbe read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.\n\n[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Memoires_ II. p. 343.\n\n[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3.\n\n[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4.\n\n[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.\n\n[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated\n'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find\nsubstituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption\nof this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition\n(II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is\nsubstituted for the above, and defended at some length.]\n\n[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44.\n\n[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom,\n_which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out\ninstances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New\nTestament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues\nthroughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers\nwas perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]\n\nThe _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded\npartly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are\nborrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken\n(_e.g._ Sec.Sec. 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is\nmost easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51,\nthe writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's\nfather. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned\nto the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about\nthe middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the\nmore important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of\nSec. 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx.\n25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which\nClement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we\nhave better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other\nportion of the work.\n\n[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381.\n\n[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons]\nsome time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and\nPhrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events\nwhich had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by\nEusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenaeus] was\ndeputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of\nRome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their\nsufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete\nEdition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenaeus is made the\nbearer of the Epistle.\n\nThis is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the\nChurches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution,\nwhich is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenaeus was\ncertainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which\nIrenaeus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist\ncontroversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence\nrecommending Irenaeus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained\nreferences to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb.\n_H.E._ v. 3, 4.\n\n[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3.\n\n[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1.\n\n[260:3] _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus\nPius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M.\nAurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus\nlikewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next,\nand was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus\ntranslated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign\nof the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the\nbefore-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his\ntranslation; with more of the same kind. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also\nassigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year\nA.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that\nhe repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed.\n\nI should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that\neven in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but\nit is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him\njust where it would be most in place.\n\n[261:1] _S.R._ II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of\nthe episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the _first\nthree books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written,\nand the rest _must_ be assigned to a later period under the episcopate\nof Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics\nare my own.\n\n[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case,\nthen, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection\nwith Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons]\nand our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way\nindicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary,\nin association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to\nevents unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled\nelsewhere. It follows clearly, and _few venture to doubt the fact_, that\nthe allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not\nto our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I\nhave disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is\nstill more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any\ninterpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the\nfacts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those\nextraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former\noccasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth\nGospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics\nthe least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by\nHilgenfeld (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die aeltesten\nZeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is\nconsiderably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in\nthe Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third\nSynoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a\nGospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.']\n\n[263:1] _S.R._ II. p. 474.\n\n[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en te\nprote hemon helikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar\nparemeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu\ngeraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage\nsuggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life,\nIrenaeus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to\nmean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenaeus saw\nhim, since the words [Greek: panu geraleos] refer, not to the period of\ntheir intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a\nparallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine\ngar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus\nlimited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily\nimply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage\nare taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon_ p.\n15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenaeus geboren_ p. 622 sq\n(in _Stud. u. Krit._ 1873), in answer to Ziegler.\n\n[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq.\n\n[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1.\n\n[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq.\n\n[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.\n\n[265:4] See above, p. 253.\n\n[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq.\n\n[266:2] See above, p. 196, note.\n\n[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq.\n\n[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself\n(II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenaeus remained in\nRome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat\nprotracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the\nvarious tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc.\n\nThere is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The\nnotice at the end of the Moscow MS of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_,\nrecently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875, p.\n362 sq), states that Irenaeus, 'being in Rome at the time of the\nmartyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his\nwritings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice\nannouncing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some\nfoundation in fact.\n\n[267:2] Photius _Bibl._ 121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where\nthese lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only\nas the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood,\nthe metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct\nevidence.\n\n[267:3] [See above, p. 219.]\n\n[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an\nintelligent author like Tacitus (_Hist._ v. 1. sq). It is related, he\nsays, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time\nwhen Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence\ncalled _Iudaei, i.e. Idaei_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being\nover-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their\nchieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He\nstates it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores\nconsentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their\ntemple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious\nsprings of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days\ncontinuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where\nthey built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this\nhe writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of\nthousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively\nvenial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity _Semo Sancus_ for\n_Simo Sanctus_, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.\n\n[270:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553.\n\n[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.]\n\n[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the\nfollowing:--Tatian _Orat. ad Graec._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenaeus i. 28. 1;\nRhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12,\np. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29;\nEpiphanius _Haer._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Haer. Fab._ i. 20. The statements\nin the text are justified by one or other of these references.\n\n[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in this article\nwill be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq.\n\n[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's\ncomment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p.\n686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli\nepistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli\npronuntiandam credidit.'\n\n[274:1] Hort (_Journal of Philology_, iii. p. 155 sq, _On the date of\nJustin Martyr_) places it as early as A.D. 148.\n\n[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1.\n\n[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq.\n\n[274:4] Clem. Alex. _Strom_. i. 1 (p. 322).\n\n[275:1] See Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 116 sq, where this point is\nbrought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve\nof the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it.\n\n[277:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 29.\n\n[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I.\np. 150.]\n\n[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15,\n44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8,\n56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59.\n\n[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's\nposthumous volume, _Ancient Syriac Documents_ p. 6 sq (London, 1864),\nfrom MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire\nby Dr Phillips, _The Doctrine of Addai_ (London, 1876), from a St\nPetersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the\nword is corrupted into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton\nconjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (see pp. 15; 158), and\nhis conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly\nso reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (_Lettre\nd'Abgare_, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of the _Trinity_ is\nsubstituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if\nso, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of\nCapua, mentioned below.\n\n[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083.\n\n[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13.\n\n[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Goetting. Gelehrte\nAnzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to\naccept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work\nitself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages\ncontaining these anachronisms are interpolations.\n\n[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the\nBritish Museum (Wright's _Catalogue_ p. 947) as 'Ann. Graec. 684.'\n\n[280:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should\nbe warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading.\nMore correct renderings are given here.\n\n[281:1] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammonios men ho\nAlexandreus ... to dia tessaron hemin kataleloipen euangelion, to kata\nMatthaion tas homophonous ton loipon euangeliston perikopas paratheis,\nhos ex anankes sumbenai ton tes akolouthias heirmon ton trion\ndiaphtharanai, hoson epi to huphei anagnoseos]--_i.e._ 'He placed side by\nside with the Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of\nthe other Evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of\nsequence in the three was destroyed, so far as regards the order\n(texture) of reading.'\n\n[281:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 158. See Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_\np. 77.\n\n[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without\ndifficulty:--\n\n(i) Bar-Hebraeus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem.\n_Bibl. Orient._ i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Caesarea, seeing the\ncorruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of\nthe _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, which commenced, _In the\nbeginning was the Word_, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four\nGospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from\nthe language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of\nBar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood\nhim, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the\ncoincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear\nthat the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this\ninterpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus\nobliterated the resemblance.\n\n(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the\nbeginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but\nthe men. He writes (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which\nwas compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and\nhe called it _Diatessaron_.' He too supposed the two independent\nsentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to\nhis collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's\nwork which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum\nevangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum\nscriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis\nadmirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo\ncum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta\nfuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script.\nVet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).\n\n(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes.\nSyr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made)\nfrom the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in\nAlexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of\nAlexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with\nAmmonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul\nflourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice\nwere really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this\nconfusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown\nby accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can\nnever be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original\ncompiler.\n\nSince writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr\nHoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611,\n_i.e._, A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as\nit is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through\nProfessor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul.\nThus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than\nBar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language.\n\n[282:1] _H.E._ i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who\nflourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian\nomitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869\nsq.\n\n[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze).\n\n[283:2] Zahn (_Goett. Gel. Anz._ p. 184) points out that Aphraates also,\na somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used this\n_Diatessaron_. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And\nChrist is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in\nthe beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour--_In the beginning was the\nWord._' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337.\n\n[284:1] Epiphan. _Haer._ xlvi. 1.\n\n[284:2] See the reference in the last note.\n\n[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome\nrelating to it, will be found in Westcott's _Introduction to the\nGospels_ p. 462 sq.\n\n[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is\ngiven.\n\n[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq.\n\n[286:1] _Patrol. Lat._ lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish\ntranslation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more\nthan once; _e.g._ by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841).\n\n[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained\nthis by inquiry.\n\n[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (_Einleitung_ p. 79);\nand curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is\nconsistent with the facts.\n\n[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has\nbeen published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]\n\n[291:1] _Les Apotres_ p. xviii.\n\n[291:2] _Les Evangiles_ p. 436.\n\n[292:1] xvii. p. 840.\n\n[293:1] Sub ann. 46.\n\n[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Roem. Alterth._ III. i. p. 294 sq. Even\nDe Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to\nStrabo Cyprus was governed by propraetors,' and he therefore supposes\nthat Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands\nuncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.\n\n[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12.\n\n[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4.\n\n[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr.\nGraec._ 2631, 2632.\n\n[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's\n_Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 39.\n\n[294:4] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription\ndiscovered by Mr Wood.\n\n[294:5] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 218.\n\n[294:6] Cesnola's _Cyprus_ p. 425.\n\n[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous\nwriters, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two\nothers--the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen--whom he\ndescribes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is\na mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as\nconsul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year\n94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of\nGalen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first\ntime, as suffectus, _i.e._ about A.D. 150. See Marini _Atti e Monumenti\nde' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces\nAsiatiques_ p. 731.\n\n[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1\n(_Op._ ii. p. 218, ed. Kuehn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tes\nRhomaion poleos, andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois\nen philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Praenot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p.\n612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun\nchronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tes poleos, kai\nPhlabios, hupatikos men on ede kai autos, espeukos de peri ten\nAristotelous philosophian, hosper kai ho Paulos, hois diegesamenos,\nk.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho\nPaulos] in Kuehn and other earlier printed editions which I have\nconsulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by\nWetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading\nrests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense;\nfor (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct\nfrom Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that\nplainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage\nSergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as\nof Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho]\naltogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii.\np. 504.\n\n[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des\nProvinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.]\n\n[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Graec._ 2954. The first sentence which I\nhave quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document\nbears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our\nown day.\n\n[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated\n'robbers of churches.'\n\n[300:1] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 14.\n\n[300:2] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neokoron ton Sebaston,\nmono]n hapa[son] de tes Artemidos.]\n\n[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESION\nTRIS NEOKORON KAI TES ARTEMIDOS.]\n\n[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153, _Suppl._ vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.\n\n[300:5] Xen. _Anab._ v. 3, 6.\n\n[301:1] _Inscr._ vi. 6, p. 50.\n\n[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hemerai]] [Greek:\nagontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there\nare deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court\ndays are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second\nclause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as _e.g._ in Euripides\n(_Iph. Taur._ 1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from\nthe land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek ges xoana\nkai thuepolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess.\n\n[301:3] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 38.\n\n[302:1] Ign. _Ephes._ 9.\n\n[302:2] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 42.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDICES.\n\n\nI.  INDEX OF SUBJECTS.\nII. INDEX OF PASSAGES.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\nAberle, 210, 213 n\n\nAbgarus, 279\n\nAchaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292\n\n_Acts of Peter_, 37\n\nActs of the Apostles;\n  Eusebius' method with regard to, 46;\n  used by Polycarp, 95;\n  by Polycrates, 249;\n  ascribed by Irenaeus to St Luke, 44;\n  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 257;\n  Renan on its authorship, 291;\n  recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq\n\nAddai; see _Doctrine of Addai_\n\nAElian, credulity of, 269\n\nAEsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n\n\nAfrican martyrs, 76, 83\n\nAgathonice, 148\n\nAlcibiades, 254\n\nAlexander, 253\n\nAlford, 9, 294, 295 n\n\nAlogi, 215 n\n\nAmbrosius, the friend of Origen, 7\n\nAmmonius of Alexandria;\n  his date, 280;\n  his Harmony of the Gospels, 280;\n  Eusebius' account of it, 280;\n  its scope distinct from Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;\n  but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq\n\nAnastasius of Sinai;\n  his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq;\n  quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq\n\nAndreas of Caesarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214\n\nAndrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193\n\nAnger, 165\n\nAnicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102\n\nAnthropomorphism, 139 n\n\nAntinomianism, 119 sq\n\nAntioch;\n  Trajan at, 79;\n  Antoninus Pius at, 98 n;\n  earthquake at, 79 sq\n\nAntoninus Pius;\n  proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n;\n  his movements as emperor, 98 n\n\nAphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 283 n, [288]\n\nAphthonius, 280\n\nApion, as a critic, 269\n\nApocalypse;\n  its date, 14 n, 132;\n  its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq;\n  the term Logos in, 15, 123;\n  supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq;\n  the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n;\n  its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47;\n  Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq;\n  Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214;\n  Justin Martyr, 43, 216;\n  Irenaeus, 45, 47, 216;\n  Eusebius, 144;\n  the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq;\n  notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216;\n  in Melito, 47;\n  his commentary on it, 216;\n  in the Muratorian Canon, 216;\n  in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216;\n  in Apollonius, 47\n\n_Apocalypse of Peter_, 37, 47\n\nApollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis;\n  a contemporary of Melito, 237;\n  his date, 237 sq;\n  his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238;\n  his orthodoxy, 238 sq;\n  his writings, 238, 242 sq;\n  Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq;\n  his _Apology_, 237;\n  his work against the Montanists, 238, 243;\n  against the Severians, 243;\n  on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq;\n  the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq;\n  not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245;\n  but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq;\n  genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq;\n  references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240;\n  to the Fourth Gospel, 240;\n  follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248;\n  mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237;\n  his prominence in the School of St John, 218\n\nApollonius;\n  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47;\n  extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n\n\nApologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275\n\nArethas, 201\n\nArianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69\n\nAristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270\n\nAristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266\n\nArnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n\n\nArtemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq\n\nAsia Minor;\n  imperial visits to, 98;\n  the proconsulate of, 293;\n  the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n;\n  its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252\n\nAsia Minor, the Churches of;\n  importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq;\n  Apostles resident in, 91, 217;\n  episcopacy in, 84, 218;\n  solidarity of, 102;\n  the arena of controversy, 84, 219;\n  literary activity of, 219, 249;\n  testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249;\n  the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249;\n  intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq;\n  Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n\n\nAsiarchs, 222 n, 299\n\nAskar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq\n\nAssemani, 280 n, 281 n\n\nAthanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80\n\nAttalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254\n\nAubertin, 66, 67\n\nAugustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq\n\n\nBalaam, as a type of St Paul, 13\n\nBar-Ali, the lexicographer;\n  his date, 282 n;\n  mentions Tatian, 282 n\n\nBar-Bahlul;\n  his date, 282 n;\n  Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n\n\nBar-Hebraeus;\n  his date, 281 n;\n  confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n\n\nBar-Salibi;\n  his date, 280;\n  his testimony to Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq\n\nBarnabas, Epistle of;\n  its date, 177;\n  quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227;\n  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;\n  Chiliasm in, 151\n\nBaronio, 293\n\nBasil (St), 175\n\nBasilides;\n  his date, 85, 161;\n  his work _On the Gospel_, 161;\n  fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161;\n  his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219;\n  the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85;\n  his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123\n\nBasnoge, 66, 67\n\nBassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n\n\nBaumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69\n\nBaur, 24, 61, 64, 70\n\nBeausobre, 68, 69\n\nBethesda, the pool of, 9, 126\n\nBleek, 65, 66, 69, 171\n\nBlondel, 66, 67\n\nBochart, 66, 67, 83\n\nBoehringer, 65\n\nBorghesi, 296 n\n\nBunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66\n\n\nCalvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66\n\nCarpus, 148\n\nCapitolinus, 98 n\n\nCasaubon, 66, 67\n\nCelsus, 6 sq, 25 n\n\nCerinthus;\n  encountered by St John, 101, 212;\n  his separationism, 118;\n  attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118;\n  according to Irenaeus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182;\n  the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215;\n  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219;\n  confused with Marcion, 210, 212\n\nCesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297\n\nChemnitz, 65, 66\n\nChiliasm;\n  of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n;\n  of the early Church generally, 151\n\nChristian literature;\n  compared with the classics as regards external evidence for\n    documents, 82;\n  plagiarisms in, 202\n\nChristian martyrs;\n  coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220;\n  zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq\n\nChristian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq\n\nChristology;\n  of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;\n  of Cerinthus, 118;\n  of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;\n  of Polycarp, 106, 108;\n  of Justin Martyr, 235;\n  of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq\n\nChrist's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq\n\n_Chronicon Paschale_; see _Paschal Chronicle_\n\nChrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80\n\n[Ciasca, 288]\n\nClaudius Apollinaris; see _Apollinaris_\n\nClemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n\n\nClement of Alexandria;\n  coincidence in the name, 94 n;\n  a pupil of Pantaenus, 274;\n  perhaps of Melito, 218, 224;\n  perhaps also of Tatian, 274;\n  quotes from Tatian, 273 n;\n  his wide learning, 269;\n  compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269;\n  his travels, 270;\n  his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270;\n  to St Mark, 167;\n  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;\n  to the labours of St John, 218;\n  accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel\n    and Apocalypse, 216;\n  employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47;\n  the Epistle of Barnabas, 47;\n  the _Apocalypse of Peter_, 47;\n  the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152;\n  quotes Basilides, 161;\n  his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq;\n  date of his _Stromateis_, 274;\n  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174\n\nClement of Rome;\n  his name, 94 n;\n  probably a Hellenist Jew, 94;\n  and a freedman, 94;\n  his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89;\n  scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110;\n  Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179;\n  its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49;\n  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;\n  its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n;\n  his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105;\n  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;\n  the story of the phoenix in, 268;\n  his place in modern German theories, 24\n\nClementines;\n  as a romance, 15;\n  Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n;\n  quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52\n\nCook, 66, 67\n\nCordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n\n\nCramer's _Catena_, 201\n\nCredner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186\n\nCrescens, the Cynic, 148, 272\n\nCureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n\n\nCuretonian Epistles, 61 sq;\n  see also _Ignatian Epistles_\n\nCyprian; his correspondence, 76;\n  accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216\n\nCyprus;\n  its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq;\n  the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294;\n  source of Pliny's information regarding, 295;\n  proconsuls and propraetors of, 294;\n  recent excavations at, 291 sq\n\nCyrrhestice, 282, 283\n\n\nDallaeus, 65, 114\n\nDe Wette, 9, 293 n\n\nDecian persecution, 76\n\nDelitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136\n\nDemetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301\n\nDenzinger, 63, 71\n\n_Diapente_, 279 n, 285 sq\n\n_Diatessaron_; see _Tatian_\n\nDion Cassius, 293\n\nDionysius of Alexandria;\n  his critical insight, 167;\n  assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216;\n  but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216\n\nDionysius of Corinth;\n  his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227;\n  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184\n\nDocetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n\n\n_Doctrine of Addai_;\n  discovery of the document, 278 n;\n  its subject, 278;\n  its date, 279;\n  its country, 279;\n  noticed in Eusebius, 279;\n  mentions Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 278;\n  the Armenian version, 279\n\nDodwell, 98 n, 264\n\nDogma and morality, 27 sq\n\nDonaldson, 241 n\n\nDressel, 80 n\n\nDutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36\n\n\nEbionism;\n  no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42;\n  nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq;\n  nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq\n\nEdessa, 278 sq\n\nElders;\n  quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq;\n  by Irenaeus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq;\n  who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq;\n  identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266\n\nEleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261;\n  Irenaeus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n\n\nElias of Salamia;\n  his _Diatessaron_, 280;\n  his name Aphthonius, 280\n\nEncratites;\n  Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243;\n  Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284\n\nEphesus;\n  St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq;\n  other Apostles at, 91;\n  Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq;\n  cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq;\n  the great theatre at, 298 sq;\n  the designation of magistrates, 299;\n  the title neocoros, 300;\n  the lawful assemblies, 301;\n  image-processions at, 301 sq;\n  gates of, 302\n\nEphraem of Antioch, 172\n\nEphraem Syrus;\n  date of his death, 280;\n  his commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;\n  [an Armenian version discovered, 287]\n\nEpiphanius;\n  date of his work on _Heresies_, 284;\n  his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n;\n  his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n;\n  his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285;\n  confuses Tatian's _Diatessaron_ with the _Gospel according\n    to the Hebrews_, 284\n\nEpiscopacy;\n  in the time of St John, 218;\n  in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84;\n  stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107;\n  especially in the Vossian Letters, 87;\n  the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61;\n  not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122;\n  prominent in the writings of Irenaeus, 122\n\nErnesti, 68\n\nEuodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq\n\nEusebius;\n  sources of his history, 32 sq;\n  his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq,\n     190 sq, 215 sq;\n  tested on extant literature, 40 sq;\n  what his silence means, 32 sq;\n  its value as a direct testimony, 51;\n  his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209;\n  his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209;\n  on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82;\n  on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq;\n  his estimate of Papias, 209;\n  on John the Presbyter, 143 sq;\n  his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228;\n  nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242;\n  dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225;\n  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245;\n  attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209;\n  for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208\n\nEvagrius, 80\n\nEwald, 63, 65, 136, 204\n\n[Greek: epi Traianou], 81\n\n[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189\n\n[Greek: exegesis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq;\n  and [Greek: diegesis], 157 n\n\n\nFathers, early;\n  compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq;\n  considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268;\n  the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works\n    accounted for, 33, 271;\n  explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237\n\nFelicitas, 83\n\nFlorinus;\n  a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq;\n  Irenaeus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n;\n  date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq;\n  his subsequent history, 98\n\nFour Gospels;\n  that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270;\n  in Irenaeus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;\n  in Eusebius, 39\n\nFourth Gospel;\n  its spirit, 13;\n  its Hebraic character, 14;\n  the minuteness of its details, 14 sq;\n  the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq;\n  compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq;\n  in Christology, 15 sq;\n  the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267;\n  compared with the Synoptists in chronology and\n    narrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq;\n  the relation of the Paschal controversy to this\n    question, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267;\n  historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq;\n  the personality of its author, 18 sq;\n  association of others with him in the work, 187;\n  anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;\n  probably dictated, 187, 214;\n  its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq;\n  testimony given by the growth of various readings\n    and interpolations, 9 sq, 52;\n  by the commentary of Heracleon, 52;\n  the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41;\n  of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq;\n  of the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_, 221 sq;\n  of the elders in Irenaeus, 48;\n  of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq;\n  of Claudius Apollinaris, 240;\n  of the School of St John generally, 249 sq;\n  of the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 258;\n  of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq;\n  of Origen, 216;\n  of Gaius, 216 n;\n  Irenaeus on its purpose, 48, 182;\n  quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;\n  significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq;\n  ascribed to Cerinthus, 215;\n  its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220\n\n\nGaius;\n  on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47;\n  of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n;\n  his date, 216 n;\n  his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n\n\nGalen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq\n\nGallican Churches;\n  a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq;\n  intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq;\n  persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq;\n  their letter to the brethren in Asia and\n    Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271;\n  its date, 259;\n  scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq;\n  their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253;\n  their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq\n\nGaul, called Galatia, 251\n\nGeorgius Hamartolos, 211 sq\n\nGfroerer, 69\n\nGlaucias, 21\n\nGnosticism;\n  the development of antinomian, 119;\n  the literature of, 160 sq;\n  the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202;\n  the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268;\n  the scene of the conflict with, 219;\n  attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119;\n  in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119;\n  in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq;\n  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;\n  an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219\n\nGobarus, 12\n\n_Gospel of Peter_, 37\n\n_Gospel according to the Hebrews_;\n  see _Hebrews, Gospel according to the_\n\nGospels;\n  see _Matthew's (St) Gospel_, _Mark's (St) Gospel_, _Luke's (St) Gospel_,\n    _Fourth Gospel_, _Four Gospels_\n\nGrabe, 98 n\n\nGriesbach, 68, 69\n\n[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n]\n\n\nHadrian, 98\n\nHagenbach, 68\n\nHarless, 69\n\nHase, 70\n\n_Hebrews, Gospel according to the_;\n  employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183;\n  by other fathers, 152;\n  perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153;\n  Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq;\n  translated by Jerome, 203, 285;\n  statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152;\n  confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285;\n  with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 284;\n  distinct scope of the last-named work, 285\n\nHebrews, Epistle to the;\n  in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52;\n  the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49;\n  of Irenaeus, 46, 47;\n  of Gaius, 47\n\nHefele, 63\n\nHegesippus;\n  his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39;\n  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185;\n  his attitude towards St Paul, 12;\n  towards tradition, 155;\n  employs the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 47, 183\n\n'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n\n\n[Hemphill, 287, 288]\n\nHenke, 68\n\nHeracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52\n\nHermas, the _Shepherd_ of;\n  its devotional character, 271;\n  hence does not quote Scripture, 271;\n  the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq;\n  quoted by Irenaeus, 45, 47, 184\n\nHerodes, the magistrate, 220, 221\n\nHeumann, 68\n\nHierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224\n\nHilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172,\n            176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n\n\nHippolytus;\n  pupil of Irenaeus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;\n  probably at Rome, 267 n;\n  opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219;\n  defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n;\n  plagiarisms of, 202;\n  plagiarisms from, 216 n;\n  Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161;\n  his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n\n\nHitzig, 24 sq\n\nHoffmann, 282 n\n\nHort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n\n\n\nIgnatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93;\n  three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60;\n    documents, 60;\n    date of the forgery, 60;\n  (2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq;\n    MSS and Versions, 61;\n    history of their discovery, 61;\n  (3) Curetonian Epistles, 61;\n    their discovery, 61;\n    questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistles\n       are prior, 61;\n    the view of _S.R._, 63, 74;\n    the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq;\n    arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from\n  (i) the Armenian Version, 60;\n    a translation from the Syriac Version of the\n         Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86;\n  (ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86;\n    the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters\n           answered, 60, 71, 72 sq;\n    the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq;\n  (B) whether any form is genuine, 61;\n    denied by _S.R._, 62, 74;\n   (i) internal evidence considered,\n    (_a_) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;\n    (_b_) the journey to Rome, 79 sq;\n    (_c_) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82;\n    (_d_) supposed anachronisms, 83;\n    (_e_) evidence of style, 84;\n   (ii) external evidence, 82;\n     result, 84, 88;\n    relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq;\n    argument from silence, 84 sq;\n    limit of their date, 85;\n    arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq;\n    result, 88, [59 n];\n    scriptural quotations in the, 41;\n   Eusebius' method tested on the, 41;\n   theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq;\n   Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;\n   a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302\n\nIgnatius; the name Theophorus, 302;\n  his letters (see _Ignatian Epistles_);\n  his journey to Rome, 59;\n  its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111;\n  his route, 93, 113;\n  his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;\n  his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113;\n  the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq;\n  his zeal for martyrdom, 82;\n  not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;\n  date of his martyrdom, 59;\n  days of commemoration of, 79;\n  extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80\n\nIrenaeus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264;\n  a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq;\n  his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n;\n  represents three Churches, 267;\n  his connexion with the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 259;\n  sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267;\n  at Rome more than once, 267 n;\n  his lectures there, 267;\n  his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;\n  date of his episcopate, 97;\n  his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100;\n  his literary activity, 267;\n  date of his _Refutation_, 259, 260;\n  the first great controversial treatise, 271;\n  its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271;\n  his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261;\n  Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184;\n  importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq;\n  appeals to the elders (see _Elders_);\n  his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq;\n  to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182;\n  to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;\n  to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;\n  to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq;\n  his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262;\n  his controversial treatises, 267;\n  his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219;\n  on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267;\n  on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246;\n  on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq;\n  on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216;\n  on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101;\n  on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116;\n  on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n;\n  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172;\n  his Chiliasm, 151, 197;\n  his evidence for episcopacy, 122;\n  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;\n  his literary obligations to Papias, 202;\n  to Melito, 236 sq;\n  considered as a critic, 268 sq\n\nJacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n\n\nJerome;\n  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285;\n  on the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 42, 152, 208, 285;\n  on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n;\n  on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n;\n  on Apollinaris, 242, 243\n\nJerusalem, results to the Christian Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217\n\nJohn (St);\n  at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq;\n  his church organisation, 218;\n  the founder of a school, 217 sq;\n  the repositary of Apostolic doctrine and practice, 218;\n  his encounter with Cerinthus, 101, 212;\n  his connexion with Polycarp, 89, 92;\n  with Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 210 sq;\n  with his namesake John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 187;\n  his longevity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246;\n  a story of his martyrdom explained, 211 sq;\n  traditions respecting him, 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;\n  see also _Fourth Gospel_\n\nJohn (St), the Epistles of;\n  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 46 sq;\n  two mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, 190;\n  the First Epistle employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 191 sq, 220;\n  by Papias, 49, 154, 186, 190 sq, 206, 220;\n  by Irenaeus, 45;\n  a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 186 sq, 190, 220;\n  the evidence of Papias, and of the Muratorian Canon, to this\n    fact, 189, 206\n\nJohn Malalas;\n  represents Ignatius as martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;\n  his historical blunders, 80 sq, 214, 269, 285;\n  on a visit of Antoninus Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n\n\nJohn the Baptist;\n  his designation in the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq;\n  his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq;\n  the [Greek: phone], 232 n\n\nJohn the Presbyter;\n  in Asia Minor, 91;\n  his connexion with Papias, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266;\n  with Pothinus, 266;\n  with the Apostle St John, 143 sq, 187\n\nJudith, date of the book of, 25 n\n\nJulian, the Emperor, 270\n\nJusta, the Syrophoenician, 129\n\nJustin Martyr;\n  his pupil Tatian, 272, 274;\n  his accuser Crescens, 148, 272;\n  his martyrdom, 148, 274;\n  the account in Eusebius, 150;\n  his evangelical quotations, 43;\n  looseness of his quotations from the O.T., 12, 43;\n  his lost writings, 33;\n  Eusebius' method tested upon his extant works, 43;\n  his Chiliasm, 151;\n  his error as to Simon Magus, 268;\n  his Logos doctrine compared with Melito, 235;\n  his references to the Virgin Mary, 236;\n  his evidence to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 43;\n  to the public use of the Gospels, 227\n\n\nKestner, 68, 69\n\n\nLampe, 68\n\nLardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 109 n, 241 n\n\nLechler, 70\n\nLeimbach, 158 n, 264 n\n\nLinus, 45\n\nLipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n\n\nLogos;\n  the expression common to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 15;\n  as distinct from [Greek: phone], 232 n;\n  the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 86 sq;\n  in Justin Martyr, 235;\n  in Valentinus, 86;\n  in Melito, 232, 234 sq;\n  in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87;\n  its importance a characteristic of the second century, 235\n\nLucian;\n  illustrates the Ignatian Epistles, 76 sq;\n  the Epistle of Polycarp, 77 n\n\nLuke's (St) Gospel;\n  the source of Marcion's Gospel, 8, 186;\n  Papias acquainted with, 178 sq, 186;\n  the evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 189;\n  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255 sq;\n  Renan on its authorship, 291\n\nLuthardt, 14, 132\n\n[Greek: Leopardos], 67, 83\n\n[Greek: Logia], 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq\n\n\nMagdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66\n\nMalalas; see _John Malalas_\n\nManes, 81\n\nMansel, 28\n\nMarcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doctrine of, 87\n\nMarcion;\n  his date, 81, 116, 213 n;\n  confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212;\n  his Gospel, 6 n, 8, 186;\n  his Canon, 117, 227, 263, 273;\n  Papias' acquaintance with it, 186;\n  his attitude towards St Paul, 273;\n  his high moral character, 119;\n  his distinctive views, 117 sq;\n  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;\n  nor in Polycarp's Epistle, 101, 115, 212;\n  a supposed allusion considered, 106, 115 sq;\n  opposed by Justin Martyr, 33;\n  by Melito, 231;\n  scene of his heresy, 219, 227, 231;\n  the question of the Canon raised by it, 219, 225;\n  his views on the resurrection and judgment, 120\n\nMaries, the four, in Papias the lexicographer, 210 sq\n\nMark's (St) Gospel;\n  the account and criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq,\n    181, 205 sq;\n  the motive of Papias' allusion, 207;\n  compared by Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 205 sq;\n  identification of Papias' St Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq;\n  evidence of the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq\n\nMarseilles, 252\n\n_Martyrdom of Polycarp_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_\n\nMassuet, 98 n\n\nMatthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193\n\nMatthew's (St) Gospel;\n  the account in Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181;\n  his testimony to the Hebrew original, 168, 172;\n  its character, 170 sq;\n  a Greek St Matthew in existence in his day, 168 sq;\n  identical with the extant Gospel, 169 sq;\n  relation of the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170;\n  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, by Jerome, 285;\n  perhaps by Papias, 170;\n  motive of Papias' allusion, 208;\n  quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 227\n\nMeletius, confused with Melito, 231\n\nMelito;\n  his date, 223, 224;\n  a contemporary of Polycarp and Papias, 224;\n  perhaps one of the elders quoted in Irenaeus, 196 n, 224;\n  perhaps a teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 218, 224;\n  his travels, 224, 226;\n  his learning, 228;\n  his orthodoxy, 230;\n  range of his literary works, 32, 102, 224;\n  their popularity, 102, 224, 230;\n  his lost works, 223, 225, 229;\n  his _Apology_, 223, 241 n;\n  the preface to his _Selections_, 226;\n    (1) the extant Greek fragments, their genuineness, 228 sq;\n      supported by the evidence of Tertullian and Hippolytus to his\n         style, 229 sq, 234;\n      not the work of Meletius, 231;\n      their direct evidence to the Gospels, 231;\n    (2) the Syriac fragments, 232 sq;\n      their theology, 234 sq;\n  his doctrine of the Logos, 234;\n  his references to the Virgin Mary, 235 sq;\n  passages from his works incorporated into Irenaeus, 236 sq;\n  Armenian version of a fragment and its Syriac abridgment, 236 sq;\n  a quotation in _Chronicon Paschale_, 241 n;\n  his work on the Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;\n  evidence to the Fourth Gospel therefrom, 248;\n  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47, 216;\n  coincidences with St Paul's Epistles, 237;\n  his treatise against Marcion, 231;\n  date and manner of his death, 224\n\nMerx, 64, 71\n\nMill (J.S.), 28 sq, 204\n\nMilman, 65\n\nMinistry, the duration of our Lord's, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq\n\nMiracles, 26 sq\n\n[Moesinger, 288]\n\nMontanism;\n  its centre in Asia Minor, 219;\n  correspondence between the Churches of Asia and Gaul relating to, 253;\n  Irenaeus' mission to Rome respecting, 253, 259 n;\n  not referred to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;\n  nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;\n  opposed by Apollinaris, 238;\n  by Irenaeus, 267;\n  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219, 238, 267\n\nMorality and dogma, 27 sq\n\nMosheim, 68\n\nMozley, 28\n\nMuratori, 295 n\n\nMuratorian Canon;\n  date, 188;\n  original language, 188 n;\n  English translation, 189 sq;\n  emendations in the text, 189 n;\n  represents the Church of Rome, 53, 270;\n  its evidence to St Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq;\n  to St Luke's Gospel, 189, 206;\n  to the Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 206, 216;\n  to four Gospels, 164, 188 sq, 205 sq, 270;\n  its testimony compared with that of Papias, 205 sq;\n  perhaps borrowed from him, 207;\n  Matthew Arnold's estimate of, 190 n\n\n\nNaassenes, 161 n\n\nNature;\n  two meanings of the term, 29 sq;\n  its relation to a Personal God, 28 sq\n\nNeander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242\n\nNeocoros, 300\n\nNeubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136\n\nNicolaitans, 48, 182\n\nNiebuhr, 25\n\nNolte, 211 n\n\n\nOecumenius, 201\n\nOnesimus, the friend of Melito, 226\n\nOphites, 52, 161, 202, 219\n\nOrigen;\n  on Celsus, 7;\n  on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 216;\n  of the Apocalypse, 216;\n  uses the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152 n;\n  quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;\n  his accuracy in textual criticism, 269;\n  his use of the word 'oracles', 174\n\nOtto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n\n\nOudin, 67\n\nOverbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n\n\nOwen, 67\n\n[Greek: ouk oid' hopos], 277 sq\n\n\nPamphilus, 225\n\nPantaenus, 145 n, 172, 274\n\nPapias;\n  his date, 142, 147 sq;\n  his name and namesakes, 153, 211;\n  of heathen origin, 153;\n  a companion of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153, 218;\n  perhaps not a hearer of St John, 142, 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq;\n  his _Expositions_, 32, 39, 142;\n  its title, 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq;\n  its date, 150;\n  its nature, 11, 155;\n  directed against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 175, 202;\n  as affecting his attitude towards the written Gospels, 156, 159 n, 160;\n  the extant Gospels the text for his exegesis, 163 sq;\n  his method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 197;\n  his informants the 'elders', 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 197 sq;\n  especially Aristion and John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n,\n     164 sq, 266;\n  his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n;\n  not an Ebionite, 151 sq;\n  his attitude towards St Paul, 151 sq;\n  his use of the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ considered, 152, 203 sq;\n  his orthodoxy, 154;\n  story of his martyrdom explained, 147 sq, 211 sq;\n  his mention of St Matthew's Gospel, 163, 167 sq, 181, 208;\n  character of the original Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq;\n  the Greek extant in his time, 168, 208;\n  his mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq;\n  his acquaintance with St Luke's Gospel, 178 sq, 186;\n  with the Fourth Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq;\n  evidenced by his acquaintance with 1 John, 186 sq, 190 sq;\n  by other indications, 192 sq, 203 sq;\n  Eusebius' method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 178 sq;\n  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 34 n, 214;\n  his testimony to the Canon supported by that of the\n     Muratorian fragment, 205 sq;\n  which perhaps borrowed from him, 207;\n  obligations of Irenaeus to, 202;\n  of Eusebius, 208;\n  not the amanuensis of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq;\n  nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq;\n  confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211;\n  quotations in Irenaeus, 4 sq, 127, 194, 248 n;\n  the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the Gospels perhaps\n     from his work, 203 sq;\n  his position as an authority, 10, 218;\n  his credulity considered, 269\n\nPapias, the lexicographer, 211\n\nPapylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq\n\nParaclete;\n  the Montanist doctrine of the, 219, 267;\n  in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255, 258\n\nParker, 66, 67\n\n_Paschal Chronicle_;\n  confuses Papias and Papylus, 148 sq;\n  preserves quotations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 sq;\n  from Melito, 241 n;\n  sources of its information, 148 n, 260 n;\n  on the date of Theodotion's version of the LXX, 260 n\n\nPaschal controversy;\n  silence of the Ignatian Epistles upon, 85;\n  of the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;\n  Asia Minor the scene of, 219;\n  Polycarp's visit to Rome respecting, 99 sq, 121;\n  the account in Eusebius, 17, 245;\n  the treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;\n  of Apollinaris, 238 sq;\n  of Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq;\n  of Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n;\n  of Irenaeus, 242, 244 sq, 267;\n  action of the Gallican Churches with respect to, 253 sq;\n  the attitude of Victor upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq;\n  remonstrance of Irenaeus, 100;\n  of Polycrates, 248;\n  the error of _S.R._ regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 245;\n  its relation to the Canon, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267\n\nPaul (St);\n  in Cyprus, 294 sq;\n  at Ephesus, 299 sq;\n  his attack on Gnosticism, 119 sq;\n  his treatment as a prisoner, 75, 78;\n  his claim to work miracles, 125;\n  his directions as to idol-sacrifices, 14;\n  his connexion with Gaul, 251;\n  not aimed at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq;\n  attitude of Clement of Rome towards, 40;\n  of the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42;\n  of Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq;\n  of Hegesippus, 12;\n  of Papias, 151 sq;\n  of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273;\n  of the elders in Irenaeus, 248;\n  of Melito, 237;\n  of Tatian, 273;\n  of the School of St John generally, 251;\n  of the Churches in Gaul, 255;\n  position of his writings in the Canon of Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq;\n  see also _Tuebingen School_\n\n_Paul, Acts of_, 37\n\nPearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 83, 86\n\nPella, 90, 91\n\nPeregrinus Proteus, 76 sq\n\nPergamum, 147, 148\n\nPericope Adulterae, an insertion from Papias, 203 sq\n\nPerpetua, 76, 83\n\nPetau, 66, 67\n\n_Peter, Acts of_, 37\n\n_Peter, Apocalypse of_, 37, 47\n\n_Peter, Gospel of_, 37\n\n_Peter, Preaching of_, 37\n\nPeter (St), the Epistles of;\n  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 sq, 46;\n  Eusebius' method tested on, 43, 45, 47, 49;\n  the First Epistle largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;\n  employed by Papias, 186, 206 sq;\n  by Irenaeus, 45\n\nPeter of Alexandria, 241 n\n\nPetermann, 63, 71, 86 sq\n\nPhilip (St), the Apostle;\n  at Hierapolis, 91, 143, 149;\n  his daughters, 91, 149, 153;\n  his intercourse with Papias, 143, 146, 149, 193;\n  his identity, 91 n\n\nPhilip, the Asiarch, 222 n\n\nPhilippi, the Church at;\n  Ignatius' visit to, 93, 106;\n  Polycarp's correspondence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 (see\n     _Polycarp, Epistle of_);\n  episcopacy at, 106, 108\n\nPhilippians, German theories as to the Pauline Epistle to the, 24 sq\n\nPhillips, 279 n\n\nPhilo, 173 sq, 200 n\n\nPhotius, 196 n, 238, 239, 241 n, 242, 243, 267 n\n\nPierius of Alexandria, 241 n\n\nPliny;\n  his credulity and that of the early fathers, 269;\n  his informant Sergius Paulus, 294 sq\n\nPolycarp of Smyrna;\n  date of his birth, 90;\n  born at a crisis, 90 sq;\n  of Christian parents, 94;\n  reared in the centre of Christianity, 91 sq;\n  under the influence of St John, 89, 92;\n  bishop of Smyrna, 92;\n  entertains Ignatius, 92, 113;\n  his age at this time, 121;\n  his letter to the Philippians (see _Polycarp, Epistle of_);\n  a companion of Papias, 142, 150, 153, 218;\n  his old age, 96;\n  his pupils Florinus and Irenaeus, 96 sq, 264, 265;\n  his journey to Rome, 99 sq, 121;\n  preaches at Rome, 101;\n  his encounter with Marcion, 101, 115, 212;\n  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 99 sq;\n  date of his martyrdom, 90, 97, 103 sq, 147, 264;\n  details of it, 77 n, 103, 220 sq;\n  document preserving it (see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_);\n  his position and that of Clement of Rome, 89, 94;\n  the depositary of Apostolic tradition, 89 sq, 96;\n  the link with Irenaeus, 89, 100 sq;\n  the reverence inspired by, 121 n;\n  characteristic expressions of, 97, 115 sq;\n  his use of the word 'oracles', 174\n\nPolycarp, Epistle of;\n  date and circumstances of writing, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121;\n  incomplete in the Greek, 11;\n  its genuineness, 104 sq;\n  (1) external evidence for, 104;\n  (2) internal evidence, 105 sq;\n    from (i) its formula of evangelical quotations, 105, 109;\n    (ii) its picture of Church order, 106, 107 sq, 122;\n    (iii) its Christology, 106, 108;\n    (iv) the argument from silence, 106;\n    (v) its style and subject-matter compared with the\n          Ignatian Epistles, 106 sq;\n  Ritschl's theory of interpretations considered, 110 sq;\n  further objections dealt with, (_a_) the martyr journey of Ignatius, 111;\n    (_b_) alleged anachronisms, 11, 111 sq, 122;\n    (_c_) the Ignatian Epistles appended, 113 sq;\n    (_d_) the thirteenth chapter, 114;\n    (_e_) a supposed reference to Marcion, 115 sq;\n    (_f_) the age of the writer, 121;\n  scriptural quotations in, 42 sq, 49 sq, 93 sq, 109, 118, 227;\n  Eusebius' method tested on, 42 sq, 49;\n  the quotations from 1 Peter, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;\n  coincidence with 1 John, 49;\n  relation to the Pauline Epistles, 95 sq, 101 sq;\n  its testimony to the Ignatian Epistles, 11, 82, 113 sq\n\n_Polycarp, Martyrdom of_;\n  the document, 103, 220;\n  its date, 220;\n  emphasizes the coincidences with the Passion, 220 sq;\n  its evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 221 sq;\n  employed by the _Paschal Chronicle_, 148 n\n\nPolycrates of Ephesus;\n  his place in the School of St John, 218;\n  his work on the Paschal controversy, 244, 248 sq;\n  scriptural quotations in his letter to Victor, 248, 249;\n  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 249;\n  his reference to Melito, 224\n\nPontius Pilate, date of the termination of the procuratorship of, 131 n\n\nPothinus;\n  probably a native of Asia Minor, 253, 265;\n  date of his martyrdom, 253, 265;\n  perhaps one of the elders of Irenaeus, 196 n, 266\n\nPresbyter John; see _John the Presbyter_\n\nPresbyters in Irenaeus; see _Elders_\n\nProclus, Cominius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n\n\nProconsuls;\n  the title in imperial times, 292 sq;\n  the Greek equivalent, 292;\n  of Cyprus, 294\n\nPropraetors; the title in imperial times, 292;\n  the Greek equivalent, 292\n\n_Protevangelium_, 15, 256 sq\n\n\nQuadratus, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n\n\nQuadratus, Statius, the Asiatic proconsulship of, 103 sq\n\nQuartodeciman; see _Paschal controversy_\n\n\nRenan, 104, 232 n, 291\n\nRhodon, 272, 273 n, 274\n\nRitschl, 63, 65, 110 sq\n\nRivetus, 66, 67\n\nRoman Church, its influence in the time of Ignatius, 59\n\nRoman prisoners, treatment of, 75 sq\n\nRoman provinces;\n  Augustus' division of, 291 sq;\n  the titles of their governors, 292;\n  interchange of imperial and senatorial provinces, 292;\n  Asia and Africa the most sought after, 293\n\nRosenmueller, 68\n\nRouth, 154 n, 201 n, 214 n, 241 n, 252 n\n\nRufinus, 203\n\nRufus, 111\n\nRuinart, 76 n, 80\n\n\nSachau, 232 n\n\nSalutaris, C. Vibius, 302\n\nSanday;\n  on the Fourth Gospel, 15;\n  on Marcion's Gospel, 186 n\n\nSaturus, 76\n\nSaumaise, 66\n\nSchleiermacher, 171\n\nSchliemann, 70\n\nSchmidt, 68\n\nScholten, 64, 119, 242, 262 n\n\nSchroeckh, 68, 69\n\nSchwegler, 24\n\nSecond century;\n  its voluminous ecclesiastical literature, 32, 102;\n  meagre literary remains of the first three quarters, 33, 53, 89, 102;\n  small bearing on the Canon of the extant works, 33, 271;\n  importance of Irenaeus at the close of the century, 53, 89\n\nSemler, 68\n\nSerapion, 238\n\nSergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus;\n  perhaps an informant of Pliny, 294 sq;\n  Cyprian inscription mentioning him, 294, 297\n\nSergius Paulus, L.;\n  the friend of Galen, 296;\n  proconsul of Asia, 223, 296;\n  his date, 223;\n  his cursus honorum, 296;\n  his resemblance in character to his namesake in the Acts, 296;\n  his scientific studies, 297;\n  identification of an unknown, 295 n\n\nSeverians, Apollinaris' treatise against the, 238, 243\n\nSeverus of Antioch, 87\n\nShechem and Sychar, 17, 133 sq\n\nSilence, its place in the Gnostic Systems, 86 sq\n\nSiloam, 18, 203\n\nSimon Magus, 268\n\nSimonians, 86, 161\n\n_Smyrnaeans, Letter of the_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_\n\nSocinus, 66, 67\n\nSocrates, the historian, 239\n\nStephanus Gobarus, 12\n\nStrabo, 292, 293 n\n\n_Supernatural Religion_;\n  criticisms on his grammar and scholarship, 3 sq, 53 sq, 126 sq;\n  on his impartiality, 9 sq, 20 sq, 130 sq, 140 sq, 191 sq;\n  on the plan of his book, 26, 138 sq;\n  his charges against opponents, 20 sq, 137 sq;\n  his lists of references, 23, 65 sq;\n  his theological position, 139 n;\n  on the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq;\n  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 240 sq, 245;\n  clerical and other errors, and ambiguities in, 124 sq, 182 sq, 257\n\nSupernatural, meaning of the term, 29 sq\n\nSychar, identification of, 17 sq, 133 sq\n\nSynoptists;\n  their points of contrast with the Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;\n  recognized by the early fathers, 207 sq, 239;\n  their chronology compared, 16, 48, 131, 239 sq, 245 sq;\n  see also _Fourth Gospel_\n\n\nTacitus, 25, 268 n\n\nTatian;\n  an Assyrian, 272;\n  a heathen sophist, 272;\n  his travels, 272;\n  his conversion, 272;\n  a pupil of Justin Martyr, 272, 274;\n  his disciples at Rome, 272, 274;\n  removes to the East, 272;\n  his subsequent heretical opinions, 272;\n  his attitude towards St Paul and the Pauline Epistles, 273, 284;\n  his views anti-Judaic, 273;\n  date of his literary activity, 274;\n  his extant _Apology_, 274;\n  its date, 275;\n  quotes from the Fourth Gospel, 50, 275;\n  his formula of quotation, 276;\n  his _Diatessaron_, 277 sq;\n  its description in Eusebius, 277;\n  who knew but disparaged it, 278;\n  the evidence of the _Doctrine of Addai_, 278 sq;\n  the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, 280, 283;\n  [discovery of an Armenian Version, 288;]\n  Bar-Salibi's statements, 280 sq;\n  Theodoret's testimony to its circulation, 282 sq;\n  summary of evidence, 283 sq;\n  counter-statement of Epiphanius, 284 sq;\n  of Victor of Capua, 285 sq;\n  read in the Churches of Edessa, 278 sq;\n  of Cyrrhestice, 282 sq;\n  its opening words, 280, 281 n, 283;\n  its plan, 280 sq;\n  other than that of Ammonius' _Diatessaron_, 280 sq, 283;\n  confusion of the two works, 281 n;\n  Aphraates' knowledge of it, 283 n, [288];\n  the range of its circulation, 284;\n  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 284 sq;\n  [recent discovery of an Arabic Version, 288]\n\nTertullian;\n  gives evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 52;\n  his _Apologeticum_, 275;\n  on the episcopate of Polycarp, 92 n;\n  on the style of Melito, 229;\n  Chiliasm of, 151\n\nTheodoret;\n  date of his episcopate, 282;\n  his treatise on Heresies, 282;\n  his evidence for the Ignatian Epistles, 72;\n  for Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 282 sq;\n  for Apollinaris, 238, 239, 242 sq\n\nTheodotion's Version of the LXX, 260\n\nTheophilus of Antioch;\n  his works, extant and lost, 44;\n  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;\n  Eusebius' method tested on his _Autolycus_, 44, 52, 215;\n  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 44, 47, 216;\n  his investigations in comparative chronology, 269\n\nThiersch, 68\n\nThomas (St), 143, 193\n\nThomasius, 210 n\n\nTillemont, 241 n, 253 n\n\nTischendorf;\n  defended against _S.R.'s_ charges, 5 sq, 54 sq, 125 n, 127 n, 128 n, 138;\n  other references to, 4, 129, 165, 167, 210\n\nTuebingen School, criticised, 12, 24, 42, 64, 82, 89 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq,\n                 110 sq, 151 sq, 251\n\n\nUhlhorn, 63, 71\n\nUssher, 60, 61\n\n\nValens, the Presbyter, 108\n\nValentinianism;\n  its expressions anticipated in the Ignatian Epistles, 85, 86 sq;\n  opposed by Irenaeus, 98, 101, 219, 245 sq, 262;\n  by Hippolytus, 161;\n  its appeal to the Canon, 219, 262, 268;\n  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;\n  to uncanonical books, 263;\n  its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's Life, 245 sq;\n  its exegesis, 161\n\nVettius Epagathus, 255, 256\n\nVictor of Capua;\n  his date, 286;\n  discovers an anonymous Harmony of the Gospel, 286;\n  Frankish translation of this Harmony, 286 n;\n  assigns it to Tatian, 286;\n  [perhaps rightly, 288;]\n  the word _Diapente_ in his notice of Tatian, 279 n, 285 sq\n\nVictor of Rome;\n  his date, 261;\n  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq\n\nVienne and Lyons, Churches of; see _Gallican Churches_\n\nVirgin Mary, character of the allusions in Justin Martyr and Melito\n             to the, 235 sq\n\nVolkmar, 24 sq, 64, 71, 79 sq\n\nVoss, 61\n\nVossian Epistles; see _Ignatian Epistles_\n\n\nWaddington, 98 n, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n, 296 n\n\nWeiffenbach, 146 n, 158 n\n\nWeismann, 68, 69\n\nWeiss, 63, 65, 71\n\nWestcott;\n  defended against the attacks of _S.R._, 4 sq, 12 sq, 21 sq, 53 sq,\n                                          123 sq, 128 n, 137 sq;\n  other references to, 93, 130, 155, 161 n, 211 n, 226 sq, 275 n;\n  his reply to _S.R._, 79 n\n\nWhiston, 69\n\n_Wisdom of Solomon_, 46\n\nWood's discoveries at Ephesus, 294 n, 297 sq\n\nWordsworth, Bishop Christopher, 222 n\n\nWright, 282 n\n\n\nZacharias, 146 n, 255 sq, 262 n\n\nZahn, 63, 71, 75 n, 77 n, 79 n, 81 n, 115 n, 213 n, 279 n, 283 n, [287]\n\nZeller, 64\n\nZiegler, 68, 264 n\n\nZosimus, 111\n\nZunz, 153 n\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES.\n\n\n                                       PAGE\n\nGenesis      iv. 15                     174\n\nExodus       xxxii. 7 sq                174\n\nDeuteronomy  ix. 12 sq                  174\n             x. 9                       173\n             xxxi. 7, 23                221\n\n1 Kings      iv. 33                      25\n\nPsalms       iv. 4                       94\n\nIsaiah       xi. 6 sq                   198\n             lxv. 25 sq                 198\n             lxvi. 22               55, 198\n\nEzekiel      xxviii. 13                 200\n             xxviii. 15, 16             201\n\nHosea        ii. 6-17                   241\n\nTobit        iv. 10                      94\n             xii. 9                      94\n\nSt Matthew   v. 44                      123\n             x. 16                       41\n             xi. 27 sq                   16\n             xii. 33                     41\n             xiii. 8                      4\n             xix. 12                     41\n             xix. 29                    158\n             xix. 30                    125\n             xx. 16                     125\n             xxiii. 35                  256\n             xxiii. 37              16, 131\n             xxvi. 29              158, 205\n             xxvi. 42                   221\n             xxvi. 55                   221\n             xxviii. 1                  208\n\nSt Mark      x. 29, 30                  158\n             x.31                       125\n             xiv. 48                    221\n\nSt Luke      i. 1                       286\n             i. 3                       189\n             i. 5 sq                    146\n             i. 6                       255\n             i. 67                      255\n             ii. 24                     276\n             iii. 23                    231\n             x. 18            186, 200, 201\n             xi. 51                     257\n             xiii. 30                   125\n             xiii. 32, 33                16\n             xiii. 34               16, 131\n             xiv. 13, 14                158\n             xviii. 30                  158\n             xxi. 38                    204\n             xxii. 52                   221\n             xxiii. 43                  201\n\nSt John      i. 1             44, 232, 280,\n                              281, 283, 286\n             i. 3                       276\n             i. 5                       275\n             i. 18                       52\n             i. 44                       91\n             iii. 8                      41\n             iv. 5                  17, 133\n             iv. 18                      52\n             iv. 24                     275\n             iv. 35                     136\n             v. 3, 4             9, 52, 126\n             v. 29                      223\n             vii. 36                    204\n             vii. 37 sq                 203\n             vii. 52                    204\n             vii. 58-viii. 11           203\n             viii. 12 sq                204\n             viii. 15              204, 205\n             viii. 29                    41\n             viii. 44                    13\n             viii. 56                   248\n             viii. 57              246, 247\n             ix. 7                       18\n             xii. 21 sq                  91\n             xii. 28                    222\n             xii. 33                    222\n             xiii. 25                   249\n             xiv. 2         4, 54, 194, 247\n             xvi. 2                     258\n             xvii. 3                    223\n             xviii. 31, 32              222\n             xix. 28, 30                222\n             xix. 34 sq                 222\n             xix. 35                    187\n             xx. 1                      208\n             xx. 25                     257\n             xx. 31                     187\n             xxi. 20                    249\n\nActs         ii. 16                     276\n             ii. 24                      95\n             v. 29                      249\n             vii. 60                    257\n             xiii. 7          292, 294, 295\n             xiii. 40                   276\n             xix. 24 sq                 297\n             xix. 31                    299\n             xix. 35               299, 300\n             xix. 37, 38           299, 301\n             xxi. 9                     149\n             xxi. 14                    221\n\nRomans       i. 5                       237\n             iii. 2                     173\n             iv. 1 sq                   173\n             iv. 18                     276\n             viii. 18                   254\n             xv. 19                     125\n             xvi. 26                    237\n\n1 Corinthians vi. 12-18                 119\n              vii. 5                    273\n              viii. 1 sq                119\n              x. 1 sq                   173\n              x. 7, 8, 14, 21            14\n              xi. 8 sq                  173\n              xv. 12                    120\n\n2 Corinthians xii. 12                   125\n\nGalatians     ii. 9                      14\n              iv. 21 sq                 173\n\nEphesians     iv. 26                     95\n              v. 21                     109\n              vi. 14                     50\n              vi. 18                    123\n\nPhilippians   ii. 6                     254\n              ii. 7                     237\n              iii. 18                   123\n              iv. 2                      24\n\n1 Timothy     ii. 2                     123\n              iii. 15                   254\n              iv. 3                     273\n              iv. 3, 4                  255\n              v. 1, 2, 17, 19           146\n              vi. 7                     123\n              vi. 10                    122\n\n2 Timothy     ii. 18                    120\n              iv. 10                    251\n\nHebrews       v. 12                     173\n              xi. 2                     145\n\n1 Peter       i. 1                       92\n              i. 8                       50\n              i. 13                      50\n              i. 21                      50\n              ii. 11, 12                 50\n              ii. 17                50, 122\n              ii. 22, 24                 50\n              iii. 9                     50\n              iv. 7                 49, 191\n              iv. 14                     50\n              v. 5                  50, 109\n              v. 13                     207\n\n1 John        i. 1                  97, 190\n              iv. 2, 3                  118\n\nRevelation    i. 4                      133\n              ii. 2                      14\n              ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24     119\n              ii. 14                     13\n              xii. 9                    201\n              xix. 13                    15\n\nAnastasius of Sinai          154, 200, 201,\n                              202, 225, 230\n\nAndreas of Caesarea                      214\n\nAphraates\n     _Hom._ i. p. 13 (ed. Wright)       283\n\n_Apost. Constit._ ii. 24                203\n\nAristides Op. I. p. 453 (ed. Dind.)      98\n\n_Barnabae Ep._ 4, 5                      177\n                 15                     151\n\nBasil (St) _Hom._ xi. 5                 175\n      _Hom._ xii. 1                     175\n\nCapitol. _Vit. Anton._ 7                 98\n\n_Chronicon Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.)    238\n                   p. 481               148\n\nClaudius Apollinaris                    207\n\nClemens Alexandrinus\n    _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter)  174\n    _Exc. Theod._ 38                    273\n    _Strom._ i. 1                  218, 274\n    _Strom._ i. p. 392                  174\n    _Strom._ ii. 9                      152\n    _Strom._ iii. 12                    270\n    _Strom._ iii. 13               152, 270\n    _Strom._ iv. 12                     161\n    _Strom._ vii. p. 889                257\n    _Strom._ vii. 17           21, 161, 213\n    _Quis Div. Salv._ 42            91, 218\n\nClem. Rom. 5                             40\n          25                            268\n          45                            174\n          47                             40\n          53                            174\n\nDion Cassius liii. 12                   293\n             liv. 4                     294\n\nEuripides _Iph. Taur._ l. 1359          301\n\nEpiphanius\n    _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17          260\n    _Haer._ xlvi. 1                 273, 284\n    _Haer._ li. 1 sq                     215\n\nEusebius\n     _Chron._ (Syr. epit.) p. 216\n       (ed. Schoene)                     149\n     _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9                87\n     _Hist. Eccl._ i. 13                279\n                   iii. 3           37, 145\n                   iii. 23     48, 168, 209\n                   iii. 24               39\n                   iii. 25, 27          152\n                   iii. 30, 31           91\n                   iii. 36      41, 43, 152\n                   iii. 37               40\n                   iii. 39    91, 143, 150,\n                             152, 157, 193,\n                                        209\n                   iv. 14           43, 49,\n                                   150, 191\n                   iv. 15      77, 90, 121,\n                           148, 150, 220 sq\n                   iv. 16               273\n                   iv. 18                43\n                   iv. 21               239\n                   iv. 22          152, 183\n                   iv. 23     156, 177, 228\n                   iv. 24                44\n                   iv. 26      32, 47, 223,\n                              225, 243, 296\n                   iv. 27           82, 238\n                   iv. 28               273\n                   iv. 29          273, 277\n                   v. 1            146, 252\n                   v. 3,4          253, 259\n                   v. 6                  45\n                   v. 8        45, 145, 156\n                   v. 13                273\n                   v. 15                 98\n                   v. 18             47, 91\n                   v. 19                238\n                   v. 20       97, 98, 116,\n                                   218, 265\n                   v. 24      91, 100, 224,\n                              244, 248, 254\n                   v. 26                 46\n                   v. 28           102, 230\n                   vi. 13      47, 145, 244\n                   vi. 14           47, 145\n                   vi. 20                47\n                   vii. 25              216\n    _Quaest. ad Marin._ 2, iv.           208\n    _Quaest. ad Steph._ 1                 73\n    Op. IV. p. 1276 (ed. Migne)         281\n\nGalen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1            296\n      _de Praenot._ 2                    296\n       Op. XIX. p. 11 (ed. Kuehn)        196\n\nHippolytus\n      _Ref. Haer._ v. 7                  161\n      _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55       145, 202\n\nIgnatius _Ephes_. 1                      42\n         _Ephes_. 7                      42\n         _Ephes_. 9                     302\n         _Ephes._ 12                 41, 42\n         _Ephes._ 14                     41\n         _Ephes._ 19                     73\n         _Magn._ 8               41, 42, 86\n         _Magn._ 11                     118\n         _Magn._ 13                     109\n         _Trall._ 6                     161\n         _Trall._ 9                     118\n         _Rom._ inscr.                  161\n         _Rom._ 2                       232\n         _Rom._ 4               41, 42, 114\n         _Rom._ 5                73, 74, 78\n         _Rom._ 6                    42, 85\n         _Rom._ 7                        85\n         _Philad._ 3                    161\n         _Philad._ 6                     42\n         _Philad._ 7                     41\n         _Smyrn._ 1                     118\n         _Smyrn._ 6                      41\n         _Polyc._ 1-4                    93\n         _Polyc._ 2                      41\n         _Polyc._ 3                  42, 93\n         _Polyc._ 7                  77, 93\n\nIrenaeus\n    _Haer. pref._ i.                     160\n           i. 3. 6                      160\n           i. 8. 1                      174\n           i. 26. 1                     118\n           i. 27. 2                     117\n           i. 27. 3                117, 120\n           i. 28. 1                273, 274\n           ii. 22. 5       48, 91, 92, 131,\n                             168, 209, 217,\n                              218, 245, 264\n           ii. 31. 2                    120\n           iii. 1. 1                48, 182\n           iii. 3. 3                    260\n           iii. 3. 4     92, 101, 115, 217,\n                                   218, 264\n           iii. 11. 1                48,182\n           iii. 11. 9                   215\n           iii. 12. 12                  117\n           iii. 16. 8                   118\n           iii. 21. 1                   260\n           iii. 25. 2                   120\n           iii. 25. 3                   120\n           iv. 26. 2                    218\n           iv. 27. 1 sq           145, 196,\n                                   248, 266\n           iv. 30. 1               145, 196\n           iv. 31. 1          145, 196, 248\n           iv. 32. 1                    196\n           v. 5. 1            145, 198, 218\n           v. 20. 2                     177\n           v. 30. 1                     218\n           v. 31. 1 sq                  151\n           v. 33. 1                     158\n           v. 33. 3                145, 218\n           v. 33. 4                     142\n           v. 86. 1, 2          3, 54, 126,\n                              145, 194, 199\n\nJerome\n    _de Vir. Illust._ 16                 42\n    _de Vir. Illust._ 17                105\n    _de Vir. Illust._ 24                229\n    _de Vir. Illust._ 26                243\n    _Ep. ad Magnum_ (p. 83)             243\n    _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428)                239\n    _Ep._ 120 _ad Hedib._ (I. p. 826)   208\n    _praef. ad Tit._ vii.                273\n\nJohn Malalas p. 276 (ed. Bonn.)          79\n             p. 280                      98\n\nJustin Martyr _Apol._ i. 26             268\n              _Apol._ i. 66, 67     43, 227\n              _Dial._ 34                235\n              _Dial._ 51 sq             151\n              _Dial._ 61                235\n              _Dial._ 80 sq             151\n              _Dial._ 100          235, 236\n\nLucian _de Morte Peregr._ 12             76\n       _de Morte Peregr._ 41             77\n\n_Martyr. Polyc._ 1                      220\n                 5                      222\n                 6, 7, 8                221\n                 9                  90, 221\n                12                      222\n                13                      121\n                14                      223\n                15                      222\n                16             77, 222, 223\n\nOrigen _c. Cels._ pref. etc.            278\n       _c. Cels._ i. 8                    7\n       _c. Cels._ viii. 76                7\n       _de Princ._ iv. 11               175\n       _in Matth._ x. 6                 175\n       _in Matth._ xvi. 6               212\n       _in Luc. Hom._ i.                152\n\nPhilo _de Conj. Erud. Grat._ 24         174\n      _de Profug._ 11                   174\n      _Vit. Moys._ iii. 23              174\n\nPhotius _Bibl._ 14                 238, 239\n        _Bibl._ 119                     241\n        _Bibl._ 121                196, 267\n\nPliny _Nat. Hist._ ii. 90, 97, 112      295\n      _Nat. Hist._ xviii. 12, 57        295\n\nPolycarp _Phil._ 1                   50, 95\n         _Phil._ 2                       50\n         _Phil._ 3         93, 96, 112, 114\n         _Phil._ 4                      122\n         _Phil._ 5                  50, 108\n         _Phil._ 7        49, 93, 115, 116,\n                                   174, 191\n         _Phil._ 8                       50\n         _Phil._ 9                 111, 112\n         _Phil._ 10                  50, 94\n         _Phil._ 12            95, 112, 122\n         _Phil._ 13        11, 93, 111, 114\n\n_Protevangelium_ 11, 12                 257\n                 23                     256\n\nSocrates _Hist. Eccl._ III. 7           239\n                       VII. 32          118\n\nTacitus _Hist._ v. 1 sq                 268\n\nTatian _Orat. ad Graec._ 4, 13           275\n       _Orat. ad Graec._ 19         273, 276\n       _Orat. ad Graec._ 29, 35, 42      273\n\nTertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24         151\n           _adv. Marc._ iv. 2             8\n           _adv. Marc._ v. 10           120\n           _de Praescr. Haer._ 32          92\n           _de Praescr. Haer._ 33         120\n           _de Resurr. Carn._ 19        120\n           _de Resurr. Carn._ 24        151\n\nTheodoret _Haer. Fab._ i. 20        273, 282\n          _Haer. Fab._ i. 21        238, 243\n          _Haer. Fab._ iii. 2       239, 243\n          _Ep._ 113                     283\n\nTheophilus _ad Autol._ ii. 22            44\n\nVictor Cap. _Praef. ad Anon. Harm.\n             Evang._                    286\n\nXenophon _Anab._ v. 3, 6                300","title":"Essays on the work entitled \"Supernatural Religion\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":123104}