{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37231/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37231","id":"gutenberg_37231","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37231","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Miracles","Supernatural"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL RELIGION:\n\nAN INQUIRY THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION\n\nBy Walter Richard Cassels\n\n\nIn Three Volumes: Vol. I.\n\nComplete Edition.\n\nCarefully Revised.\n\nLondon:\n\nLongmans, Green, And Co.,\n\n1879.\n\n\nPG EDITOR'S NOTE: This file has been provided with an image of the\noriginal scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the\nhtml file. Nearly every page in the text has many Greek passages which\nhave been indicated where they occur by [------] as have many complex\ntables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. Some of the\npages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is\ntaken up with complex footnotes in English, Greek and Hebrew. The reader\nmay click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page\nwith the footnotes. --DW\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE COMPLETE EDITION\n\nIn preparing a complete edition of this work, I have revised it\nthroughout. I have not hesitated to make any alterations, omissions or\nadditions which seemed to me likely to improve it. I have endeavoured as\nmuch as possible to avoid presenting openings for side issues, and, with\nthis object, I have softened statements which, however sustainable in\nthemselves, might give rise to discussions apart from the direct purpose\nof the Inquiry. Wherever my argument has appeared to me either involved\nor insufficiently expressed I have as freely recast it as my limits\npermitted, and I have in several parts introduced new data discovered\nor elaborated since the work was first written, or which I may then have\noverlooked.\n\nIn one instance only has any alteration been requisite which demands\nspecial mention here. Since the sixth edition was published, I have been\nconvinced that Marcion's Gospel was based upon our third Synoptic, and I\nhave accordingly so far modified my results. It may not be unnecessary,\nhowever, plainly to repeat that, with this exception, which is not\nof material consequence, my convictions not only remain fundamentally\nunchanged, but have been confirmed and strengthened both by thorough\nreconsideration of my own argument, and by careful attention to the\nreplies made by able official apologists. As regards the philosophical\nand other objections to miracles, their cogency is so fully recognized\nthat Bampton Lecturers and eminent Churchmen practically abandon\nmiracles as evidence, and press upon their brethren the necessity of\nreconstructing the Christian argument The necessity of reconstruction\nis indeed apparent, but the materials have not yet been made manifest.\nMeanwhile, such apologists have been forced virtually to repudiate the\ngreat Christian representatives who have hitherto defended the Faith.\nThe case may fairly be considered desperate when the crew throw their\nofficers overboard by way of lightening the ship. The historical\nargument is not in a better position. The learned professors and critics\nwho have undertaken to deal with it do not even pretend, except perhaps\nin the case of Papias, to do more than assert the anonymous use of the\nGospels by some of the Fathers, and their consequent existence; but,\nif this were established, what support could that give to the record\nof miracles? As for Papias, with his Hebrew Matthew and fragmentary\nindirect Mark, even if secured as a solitary witness to the composition\nof two Gospels, he would prove but a fatal friend to the apologetic\ncause.\n\nThe \"Conclusions\" have been almost entirely rewritten. This was\nessential to the finished work; but it was further necessary in order\nmore adequately to convey my own views, and to withdraw expressions\nregarding the Unknowable, hitherto used from consideration for prevalent\nideas and feelings, which I now recognize to have been too definite and\ncalculated to mislead.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.\n\nThis work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public,\nbut both in this country, and in America and elsewhere, it has been\nsubjected to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades\nof opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and\nto review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to\nexpress my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have\nbestowed generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged\nits completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my\nconclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for\nthe courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must\nnecessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such\na course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not\ndiminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.\n\nThere are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of\nargument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have\nobjected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition\nadvanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have\nbeen written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is\nonly necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now\nI contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the\nphilosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to\ncompleteness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation\nis not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently\nincredible. The counter allegation is that, although miracles may be\nantecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It\nis, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent\nincredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that\ncertain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into\nthe evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third parts.\nIndeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until other\nwitnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume.\n\nThe view I have taken is clearly supported by Mr. Mill. In his recently\npublished \"Essays on Religion,\" he directly replies to the question\nwhether any evidence can suffice to prove a Divine Revelation, and\ndefines what the nature and amount of that evidence must be. He shows\nthat internal evidences, that is to say, the indications which the\nRevelation itself is thought to furnish of its divine origin, can only\nbe negative. The bad moral character of the doctrines of an alleged\nRevelation, he considers, may be good reason for rejecting it, \"but the\nexcellence of their morality can never entitle us to ascribe to them a\nsupernatural origin: for we cannot have conclusive reason for believing\nthat the human faculties were incompetent to find out moral doctrines of\nwhich the human faculties can perceive and recognise the excellence. A\nRevelation, therefore,\" he decides, \"cannot be proved divine unless by\nexternal evidence; that is, by the exhibition of supernatural facts.\"(1)\nHe maintains that it is possible to prove the reality of a supernatural\nfact if it actually occurred; and after showing the great preponderance\nof evidence against miracles, or their antecedent incredibility, he\nproceeds: \"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such\npositive evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other\nwords, the positive evidences of miracles\"(2) This is precisely what I\nhave done. In order to show that Mr. Mill's estimate of the nature of\nthis positive evidence for miracles does not essentially differ from the\nresults of this work, the following lines may be quoted:--\n\n\"But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is\nnot, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence\nof our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, but\nresting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in the case\nof the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts asserted on their\nalleged testimony, are not of the transcendent character supposed in our\nexample, about the nature of which, or the impossibility of their having\nhad a natural origin, there could be little room for doubt. On the\ncontrary, the recorded miracles are, in the first place, generally such\nas it would have been extremely difficult to verify as matters of fact,\nand in the next place, are hardly ever beyond the possibility of having\nbeen brought about by human means or by the spontaneous agencies of\nnature.\"\n\nThe second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has\nfrequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to\nprove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of\nthe second century. This error is of course closely connected with that\nwhich has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how any\none who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the\nargument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The fact\nis that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the Gospels.\nThe evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, so far\nfrom their affording\n\n{viii}\n\nsufficient testimony to warrant belief in the actual occurrence of\nmiracles declared to be antecedently incredible, there is not a certain\ntrace even of the existence of the Gospels for a century and a half\nafter those miracles are alleged to have occurred, and nothing whatever\nto attest their authenticity and truth. This is a very different thing\nfrom an endeavour to establish some special theory of my own, and it is\nbecause this line of argument has not been understood, that some critics\nhave expressed surprise at the decisive rejection of mere conjectures\nand possibilities as evidence. In a case of such importance, no\ntestimony which is not clear and indubitable could be of any value, but\nthe evidence producible for the canonical Gospels falls very far\nshort even of ordinary requirements, and in relation to miracles it is\nscarcely deserving of serious consideration.\n\nIt has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special\ngospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in\nexistence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief\nas the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without\nshaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,\ntotally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the\nsuperstitious belief which is in question, but the reality of the\nmiracles, and the sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What\nsuch objectors urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe\nin the actual occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all\nexperience, out of a mass of false miracles which are reported but\nnever really took place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant\nand superstitious age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of\ncareful investigation, have written an account of them, and other\n\n{ix}\n\npersons, equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I\nventure to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am\nreferring can have realized the nature of the question at issue, and the\nrelation of miracles to the order of nature.\n\nThe last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the\nstatement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences\nprecisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain\nhow, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the\nfour Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the\nsecond century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers\nas Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account\nfor this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature\nin the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready\nacceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment\nregard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century\neither as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which\nconcerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but\nthe beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of\nIrenaeus, and later Fathers like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian,\n\nand Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except\nas personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are\nshown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct\ntrace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses\nfor miracles.\n\nAfter having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced\nagainst this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the\ntruth of its conclusions.\n\n{x}\n\nThe best and most powerful reasons which able divines and apologists\nhave been able to bring forward against its main argument have, I\nsubmit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by inference, shown it\nto be unassailable. Very many of those who have professedly advanced\nagainst the citadel itself have practically attacked nothing but some\noutlying fort, which was scarcely worth defence, whilst others, who\nhave seriously attempted an assault, have shown that the Church has no\nartillery capable of making a practicable breach in the rationalistic\nstronghold. I say this solely in reference to the argument which I have\ntaken upon myself to represent, and in no sense of my own individual\nshare in its maintenance.\n\nI must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,\nwith great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most\nelaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and\nofficial zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot\n\nand Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my\nbook. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of\ncourse could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in\nreply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has\nassailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,\nalthough I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done\nso in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of\nhostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or\nerror has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my\nmain argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.\nLightfoot, or indicated by Dr.\n\n{xi}\n\nWestcott, might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position. These\nobjections, I may say, refer solely to details, and only follow side\nissues, but the attack, if impotent against the main position, has\nin many cases been insidiously directed against notes and passing\nreferences, and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as \"misstatements\"\nand \"misrepresentations\" along the line may have given it a formidable\nappearance, and malicious effect, which render it worth while once for\nall to meet it in detail.\n\nThe first point (1) to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument\nby Dr. Lightfoot regarding the \"Silence of Eusebius.\" (2) I had called\nattention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,\nunder certain conditions;(3) and I might, omitting his curious\nlimitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as\nsingularly descriptive of the state of the case: \"In one province more\nespecially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence\noccupies a prominent place.\" Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this\n\"mysterious oracle,\" and he considers that \"the response elicited\nwill not be at all ambiguous.\" I might again agree with him, but that\nunambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for\nthe Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only\nthe eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere\nthat, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or\nsay anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous\n\n{xii}\n\nevidence that they were well acquainted with them, and considered them\napostolic and authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is,\nfor the present at least, limited to Eusebius.\n\nThe point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole\nof the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete\nblank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal\nworks and other indications they are not evidence against them, I\nsupplement this, in the case of Hegesippus,\n\nPapias, and Dionysius of Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius\ndoes not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the\nGospels, they actually did not contain any. But before proceeding to\ndiscuss the point, it is necessary that a proper estimate should be\nformed of its importance to the main argument of my work. The evident\nlabour which Professor Lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of\nhis attack, the space devoted to it, and his own express words, would\nnaturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital\nbearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot says, after quoting the\npassages in which I appeal to the silence of Eusebius:\n\n\"This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis of\nhis reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of\nthe argument falls to pieces, if this basis should prove to be unsound.\nA wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations\nfirst, and assured himself of their strength, before he piled up his\nfabric to this height. This our author has altogether neglected to do.\"\n(1)\n\nTowards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his\nbelief that his \"main conclusions are irrefragable,\" he further says:\n\n{xiii}\n\n\"If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of\nthe argument in 'Supernatural Religion' has crumbled to pieces.\" (1)\n\nI do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must\nallow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of\nthe importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the\nrepresentations made in the above passages are a very strange\nexaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with\ncriticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and\nstrength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,\nand which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after\nan amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that\nvital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,\nproved that I have omitted to dot an \"i,\" cross a \"t,\" or insert an\ninverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it\nwas. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument\nwhich is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding\nsome lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be\nwithdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is\nto discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers\nregarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of\nthree writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do\nnot find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works\nmentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing\nGospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in\nthis does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact\nthat Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these\n\n{xiv}\n\nwriters contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels,\nnor have we any statement from any other author to that effect. The\nobjection of Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of\nEusebius warrants the inference that, because he does not state that\nthese writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical\nbooks, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend\nto interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was\nthe purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,\nwhich I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose\nthat I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any\nkind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case\nstand? Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and\nDionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The\nreader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement\nDr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of \"Supernatural\nReligion\" would be affected even if he established much more than he has\nattempted to do.\n\nWe may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He\ncarefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared\nintention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention\nor use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of\nthe Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,\nmerely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his\nstatement into three paragraphs. He says:\n\n\"Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings in\ntwo different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.\n\n{xv}\n\n(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient\nwriter employs any book belonging to their class [--Greek--];\n\n(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books he only professes\nto mention them, when such a writer has something to tell about them\n[--Greek--]. Any anecdote of interest respecting them, as also respecting\nthe others [--Greek--], will be recorded.\n\n(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude\nto mere quotations however numerous and however precise.\"(1)\n\nIn order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we can\ndiffer, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to point\nout mere quotations of the books which he considered undisputed\"? As\na matter of fact, he actually did point such out in the case of the 1st\nEpistle of Peter and 1st Epistle of John, which he repeatedly and in the\nmost emphatic manner declared to be undisputed.(2) This is admitted by\nDr. Lightfoot. That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to\nthe Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by\nTheophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might\nbe set down as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that\nhe did mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged\nhimself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much\nmight be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little\nimportance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing it.\nIf my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise include\nthe supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations of the\n\"undisputed\" books, they are so far from limited to this very subsidiary\ntestimony that I\n\n     2  I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (S.\n     R., i. p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot\n     much trouble. I used the word \"quotation\" in the sense of a\n     use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one\n     sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have\n     made my meaning clear.\n\n{xvi}\n\nshould have no reluctance in waiving it altogether. Even if the most\ndistinct quotations of this kind had occurred in the lost works of the\nthree writers in question, they could have proved nothing beyond the\nmere existence of the book quoted, at the time that work was written,\nbut would have done nothing to establish its authenticity and\ntrustworthiness. In the evidential destitution of the Gospels,\napologists would thankfully have received even such vague indications,\nindeed there is scarcely any other evidence, but something much more\ndefinite is required to establish the reality of miracles and Divine\nRevelation. If this point be, for the sake of argument, set aside,\nwhat is the position? We are not entitled to infer that there were no\nquotations from the Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and\nDionysius of Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the\nother hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.\n\nThe only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius is\nprecisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his promise\nand practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient writer \"has\nsomething to _tell about_\" the Gospels, \"any _anecdote_ of interest\nrespecting them,\" Eusebius will record it. This is the only information\nof the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these\nwriters. So far, therefore, from producing the destructive effect upon\nsome of the arguments of \"Supernatural Religion,\" upon which he somewhat\nprematurely congratulates himself, Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned\narticle on the silence of Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive\nmanner.\n\n{xvii}\n\nBefore proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under\ndiscussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of\nEusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the\nmatter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have to\ntell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that Eusebius\nstates what he himself knows of the composition of the Gospels and\nother canonical works.(1) Upon two occasions he quotes the account which\nClement of Alexandria gives of the composition of Mark's Gospel, and\nalso cites his statements regarding the other Gospels.(2) In like manner\nhe records the information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart\nabout the four Gospels and other works,(3) and what Origen has to say\nconcerning them.(4) Interrogating extant works, we find in fact that\nEusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or interesting\nregarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot says that\nEusebius \"restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his\nsubject will allow,\" and he illustrates this by the case of Irenaeus. He\nsays: \"Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal passage in this author\nrelating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus, Ady. ILer. iii. 1, 1) he omits\nto mention others which contain interesting statements directly or\nindirectly affecting the question, e.g. that St. John wrote his Gospel\nto counteract the errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus,\nAdv. Haer. iii. 11, 1).\" I must explain, however, that the \"interesting\nstatement\" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, is\nnot advanced as information derived from any authority, but only in the\ncourse of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it from mere\npersonal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well have passed\nit over. Dr. Lightfoot farther says: \"Thus too when he quotes a few\nlines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic Elders who were\nacquainted with St. John,(6) he omits the context, from which we find\nthat this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of\nthe fourth 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.\"(7)\nNothing, however, could be further from the desire or intention of\nEusebius than to represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to\nsupport the one at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he\nenters into an elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no\ndiscrepancy between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular\nquotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three Synoptists\nonly to write the doings of the Lord for one year after\n\n{xviii}\n\nthe imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the other\nGospels before him, wrote an account of the period not embraced by the\nother evangelists.(1) Moreover, the extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus\nnot only contradict the Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and\nEusebius certainly could not have felt much inclination to quote such\nopinions, even although Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions\nhanded down by the Presbyters who were acquainted with John.\n\nIt being then admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to record\nwhen any ancient writer has something to \"tell about\" the undisputed\ncanonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant writings which\nwe can examine, he actually does so, let us sec the conclusions which we\nare entitled to draw in the case of the only three writers with regard\nto whom I have inferred anything from the \"silence of Eusebius.\"\n\nI need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held Hegesippus in very high\nestimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that\nhe not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.\nEusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the\nmartyrdom of James;(2) he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for\nthe statement that Simeon was a cousin [--Greek--] of Jesus, Cleophas his\nfather being, according to that author, the brother of Joseph;(3)\nhe confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by reference to\nHegesippus;(4) he quotes from Hegesippus a story regarding some members\nof the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who were brought before\nDomitian;(5) he cites his narrative of the martyrdom of Simeon, together\nwith other matters concerning the early Church;(6) in another place he\ngives a laudatory account of Hegesippus and his writings;(7) shortly\nafter, he refers to the\n\n{xix}\n\nstatement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of\nEleutherus,(1) and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions his\nobservation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about the\nChurch in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general state of\nthe Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters.(3) I mention these\nnumerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them in turning over\nthe pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have escaped me.\nEusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were used by\nHegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these was the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a single remark\nof any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate inference, and it\nis the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus did not say anything\nabout them. I may simply add that, as Eusebius quotes the account of\nMatthew and Mark from Papias, a man of whom he expresses something like\ncontempt, and again refers to him in confirmation of the statement of\nthe Alexandrian Clement regarding the composition of Mark's Gospel,(3)\nit would be against all reason, as well as opposed to his pledge and\ngeneral practice, to suppose that Eusebius would have omitted to record\nany information given by Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well\nacquainted, and of whom he speaks with so much respect.\n\nI have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted anything\nwith regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to go more\nclosely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No one can read\nEusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care with which he\nspeaks of John and his writings, and the substantially apologetic tone\nwhich he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any doubts expressed\n\n{xx}\n\nregarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to the authenticity of\nthe Apocalypse and second and third Epistles called by his name, with\nwhich Eusebius was so well acquainted, and the critical dilemma as to\nthe impossibility of the same John having written both the Gospel and\nApocalypse, regarding which he so fully quotes the argument of Dionysius\nof Alexandria,(1) evidently made him peculiarly interested in the\nsubject, and his attention to the fourth Gospel was certainly not\ndiminished by his recognition of the essential difference between that\nwork and the three Synoptics. The first occasion on which he speaks of\nJohn, he records the tradition that he was banished to Patmos during\nthe persecution under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes\nIrenaeus in support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at\nthe close of Domitian's reign.(3) He goes on to speak of the persecution\nunder Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command given by that\nEmperor to slay all the posterity of David,(3) as also Tertullian's\naccount,(4) winding up his extracts from the historians of the time by\nthe statement that, after Nerva succeeded Domitian, and the Senate had\nrevoked the cruel decrees of the latter, the Apostle John returned from\nexile in Patmos and, according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled\nat Ephesus.(5) He states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and\nevangelist, governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian\nand his return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan\nsucceeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from\nIremeus and Clement of Alexandria.(6) He then gives an account of\nthe writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must be\nuniversally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly put\nlast in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he gives an\nelaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his account of the\nfourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition, which he states\nto have been John's receiving the other three Gospels, and, whilst\nadmitting their truth, perceiving that they did not contain a narrative\nof the earlier history of Christ. For this reason, being entreated to\ndo so, he wrote an account of the doings of Jesus before the Baptist was\ncast into prison. After some very extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says\nthat no one who carefully considers the points he mentions can think\nthat the Gospels are at variance with each other, and he conjectures\nthat John probably omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke\nhad given them.(7) Without further anticipating what I have to say when\nspeaking of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware\nof, and interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the\nwritings attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and\nquoting traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,\nwould certainly have recorded with more special readiness any\ninformation on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so frequently\nlays under contribution, had his writings contained any.\n\n{xxi}\n\nIn regard to Papias the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius\nquotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,(1)\nalthough he had already given a closely similar narrative regarding Mark\nfrom Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in confirmation of\nit. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias\nknown anything of the other two Gospels, he would not have inquired\nabout them from the Presbyters and recorded their information? And is\nit either possible or permissible to suppose that if Papias had recorded\nany similar information regarding the composition of the third and\nfourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it? Certainly not;\nand Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not only pledged\nhimself to give such information, and does so in every case which we can\ntest, but he fulfils it by actually quoting what Papias had to say about\nthe Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very reference to the\nfirst two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims of the rest.\nThere are, however, special reasons which render it still more certain\nthat had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth Gospel,--and if\nthere was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have had something\nto tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The first quotation\nwhich he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop of\nHierapolis states the interest with which he had inquired about the\nwords of the Presbyters, \"what John or Matthew or what any other of the\ndisciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,\ndisciples of the Lord,\n\n     1 I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my\n     attention to the accidental insertion of the words   \"and\n     the Apocalypse\"   (S. E. i. p. 433).   This was a mere slip\n     of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is\n     effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. VOL. I.\n\n{xxii}\n\nsay.\"(l) Eusebius observes, and particularly points out, that the name\nof John is twice mentioned in the passage, the former, mentioned with\nPeter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, evidently being, he\nthinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly distinguished by\nthe designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this proves the truth\nof the assertion that there were two men of the name of John in Asia,\nand that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the name of John.\nEusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second of the two\nJohns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation. What an\noccasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the subject from\nPapias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted with both!\nHis attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very moment when\nhe makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I am fully\nwarranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the peculiar\ncircumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of Eusebius\nproves that Papias said nothing about either the third or fourth\nGospels.\n\nI need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning\nequally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a very few more\nwords to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he\nintended to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds\nto the constructive and, \"as a sober deduction from facts,\" makes\nthe following statement, which he prints in italics: _\"The silence of\nEusebius_ respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence\nin its favour.\"(2) Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down\n\n(xxiii)\n\nby Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,\nnot that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are\nwitnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply\nthat if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel\nby any one, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,\nclassed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does\nnot undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is\nvery small.\n\nProfessor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection\nwith \"The Ignatian Epistles,\"(1) which is equally abortive and limited\nto details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which the\narticle is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that\nreaders may safely be left to judge of the tone in which a controversy\nis carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of\nmis-statement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute\ncriticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression\nthat it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most\nright minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It\nis this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like\nthis, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it is not\npossible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course\nentitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even\nalive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a\nspirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be\naccurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations\n\n{xxiv}\n\nand it can be shown that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with\ndouble force upon himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for\nme to reply to all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr.\nWestcott with some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the\nIgnatian Epistles, and once for all to show the grave mis-statements to\nwhich they commit themselves.\n\nDr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon which\nhe enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its difficulty\nby no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says: \"The\nIgnatian 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.\"(1) My critic objects that I express my opinions with\ndecision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would here\npoint out that the very reasons which render it difficult for Dr.\nLightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question make it\neasy for me. It requires but little logical perception to recognize that\nEpistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult to establish,\ncannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels. The statement\njust quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, and war is\ndeclared in the following terms:--\n\n{xxv}\n\n\"The 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.\"(l)\n\nThis sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play\na very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to\nthem, and I have never desired that any should be, my argument would not\nbe in the least degree affected.\n\nThe first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is\none of mere critical history. I wrote: \"The strongest internal, as well\nas other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led\n(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most\ngenuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted\nby most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the\nepistles.\"(2)\n\nUpon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--\n\n\"No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results of the\nIgnatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac epistles than\nthis.\"(1)\n\nIt will be admitted that this is pretty \"decided language\" for one\nwho is preaching \"diffidence.\" When we come to details, however, Dr.\nLightfoot admits: \"Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian\nEpistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost\nevenly divided on this question of priority.\" He seems to consider\nthat he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or six critics on\neither side; but even\n\n{xxvi}\n\non this modified interpretation of my statement its correctness may\nbe literally maintained. To the five names quoted as recognizing the\npriority of the Syriac Epistles may be added those of Milman, Boehringer,\nDe Pressense, and Dr. Tregelles, which immediately occur to me. But I\nmust ask upon what ground he limits my remark to those who absolutely\nadmit the genuineness? I certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a\nmajority prefer the three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority\nis made up partly of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the\nletters, still consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form\nof the Epistles. This will be evident to any one who reads the context.\nWith regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say\nthat \"most\" is a slip of the pen for \"many,\" which I correct in this\nedition. Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity prefer\nthe Curetonian version. The Tubingen school are not unanimous on\nthe point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek, for\ninstance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the priority\nof the Curetonian \"im hoechsten Grade wahrscheinlich.,, Volkmar, Lipsius,\nand Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Light-foot says:--\n\n\"The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this\npoint. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of\nthe Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,\nretracted his former opinion on both questions alike.\"(2)\n\nDr. Lightfoot, however, has not rightly understood him. Lipsius has only\nwithdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but\nwhilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are\nspurious, he still\n\n{xxvii}\n\nmaintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He first announced\nthis change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: \"An dem\nrelativ grossern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenuber der kuerzeren\ngriechischen\n\nhalte ich ubrigens nach wie vor fest\"(1) In the very paper to which Dr.\nLightfoot refers Lipsius also again says quite distinctly: \"Ich bin\nnoch jetzt ueberzeugt, dass der Syrer in zahlreichen Fallen den relativ\nurspruenglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl. meine Nachweise in Niedner's\nZeitschr. S. 15fl).\"(2) With regard to the whole of this (2) point, it\nmust be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade\nof opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the Ignatian\nEpistles in all forms.\n\nDr. Lightfoot, however, goes on \"to throw some light on this point\" by\nanalysing my \"general statement of the course of opinion on this subject\ngiven in an earlier passage.\"(3) The \"light\" which he throws seems to\npass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather tempted\nto call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his attention to\nthis matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of\nmy notes and statements, which is singularly full of error and\nmisrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is as\nfollows:--\n\n\"Those three Syriac epistles hive been subjected to the severest\nscrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the\nonly authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit\nthat even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still\nprefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider them\nthe most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As early as\nthe sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were expressed\nregarding the authenticity\n\n{xxviii}\n\nof any of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators\nfirst attacked them, and Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be\nspurious,(1) an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallseus, and others,\nand similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed throughout\nthe seventeenth century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3)\nalthough the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as\nnow. That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller\nexamination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have\nconfirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognize that the\nauthenticity of none of these epistles can be established, and that they\ncan only be considered later and spurious compositions.(4)\"(1)\n\nIn the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Boehringer,\nCureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot\nproceeds to analyze my statements as follows: and I at once put his\nexplanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both\nto call more immediate attention to the point:--\n\nThe Text. Many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only\nauthentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others who do not admit that even\nthese are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to\nthe version of seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient\nform of the letters which we possess.(1)\n\nDr. Lightfoot's Statement.\n\n\"These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more\nimmediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers\n'who do 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.'\"(2)\n\nIt must be evident to any one who reads the context(3) that in this\nsentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian\nEpistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that\nsentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether\nof those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or\n\n{xxix}\n\nmerely the relative priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his\ncomments, the main statement of the text which the note illustrates, and\nthen \"throws light\" upon the point by the following remarks:--\n\nDr. Lightfoot's Statement:\n\n\"The reader, therefore, will hardly be prepared to hear that not one\nof these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters as spurious. Bleek\nalone leaves the matter in some uncertainty while inclining to Bunsen's\nview; the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the\nCuretonian letters.\"'\n\n\nThe Truth:\n\nCureton, Bunsen, Boehringer, Ewald, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss maintain\nboth the priority and genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. Bleek will not\ncommit himself to a distinct recognition of the letters in any form. Of\nthe Vossian Epistles, he says: \"Aber auch die Echtheit dieser Recension\nist keineswegs sicher.\" He considers the priority of the Curetonian \"in\nthe highest degree probable.\"\n\nLipsius rejects all the Epistles, as I have already said, but maintains\nthe priority of the Syriac.\n\nDr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of\nthe facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.\nNot one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but\nwould receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note\nwas totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.\n\nContinuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the\nground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that\nso early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed\nregarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed\n\n1 \"Contemporary Beview,\" February, 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. Lightfoot\nstates that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he\nstill maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian Epistles.\nCertainly they are so, but in the right place, two pages farther on, I\nrefer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still\nmaintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters\n\n{xxx}\n\nto Ignatius, and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and\nCalvin declared them to be spurious,(1) but Dr. Lightfoot says: \"The\ncriticisms of Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were\nfound in the Long Recension alone.\"(2) Of course only the Long Recension\nwas at that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's\nobjections were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted\nhim.(3) This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the\nwords of Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then\nsays:\n\n\"The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did\nnot folly share the opinion that they were spurious; on the contrary, he\nquotes them several times as authoritative; but he says that they 'seem\nto have been altered in many places to strengthen the position of the\nPapal power, do.' \"(4)\n\nPearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for\nChemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles\nas evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts\nof them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg\nCenturiators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing\nthem to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the \"Long Recension\" were\nbefore Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:\n\".... et multas habent non contemnendas sententias, presertim sicut\nGraece leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non\nreferunt gravitatem Apostolicam.\n\n     1 Calvin's expressions are: Nihil moniis illis, quro sub\n     Ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis\n     est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se\n     instruunt.   Inst. Chr. Bel. i. 13, p39.\n\n{xxxi}\n\nAdulteratas enim jam esse illas epistolas, vel inde colligitur.\" He\nthen shows that quotations in ancient writers purporting to be taken\nfrom the Epistles of Ignatius are not found in these extant epistles at\nall, and says: \"De Epistolis igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo\nferuntur, merito dubitamus: transformatse enim videntur in multis locis,\nad stabiliendum statum regni Pontificii.\"(l) Even when he speaks in\nfavour of them he \"damns them with faint praise.\" The whole of the\ndiscussion turns upon the word \"fully\", and is an instance of the\nminute criticism of my critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted\nwith Chemnitz. A shade more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying\nthe impression received from the words of a writer is scarcely worth\nmuch indignation.\n\nDr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes,\nand here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as\nfollows:--\n\n\"2 By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, Humfrey,\nRivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c; &c.; cf.\nJacobson, Patr. Apost., i. p. jolt.; Cureton Vindiciae Ignatianae, 1846,\nappendix.\"\n\nUpon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:\n\n\"But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are\nquoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted from the\ncontext as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles\nascribed to Ignatius.'\"(2)\n\nAs Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognizes what\nis \"the most important point of all,\" it is a pity that, throughout\nthe whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he\npersistently ignores my\n\n{xxxii}\n\nvery careful definition of \"the purpose for which they are quoted.\" It\nis difficult, without entering into minute classifications, accurately\nto represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers,\nand briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment.\nDesirous, therefore, of embracing a large class,--for both this note and\nthe next, with mere difference of epoch, illustrate the same statement\nin the text,--and not to overstate the case on my own side, I used what\nseemed to me a very moderate phrase, decreasing the force of the\nopinion of those who positively rejected the Epistles, and not unfairly\nrepresenting the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them.\nI said, then, in guarded terms,--and I italicise the part which Dr.\nLightfoot chooses to suppress,--that \"similar _doubts, more or less\ndefinite_,\" were expressed by the writers referred to.\n\nDr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and\nwould probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,\nBasnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook\npronounces them \"either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.\" So\nfar, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in\nsuccession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey \"considers that they have\nbeen interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the\nmain.\" Dr. Google has so completely warped the statement in the text,\nthat he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the\nEpistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and all of\nthese writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I should not\nhave limited myself to merely saying that they expressed \"doubts more\nor less definite,\" which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot says that Socinus\n\"denounces corruptions and\n\n{xxxiii}\n\nanachronisms, but so far as I can see does not question a nucleus of\ngenuine matter.\" His very denunciations, however, are certainly the\nexpression of \"doubts, more or less definite.\" \"Casaubon, so far from\nrejecting them altogether,\" Dr. Lightfoot says, \"promises to defend the\nantiquity of some of the Epistles with new arguments.\" But I have never\naffirmed that he \"rejected them altogether.\" Casaubon died before he\nfulfilled the promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what\narguments he might have used. I must point out, however, that the\nantiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a document.\nWith regard to Rivet the case is different I had overlooked the fact\nthat in a subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving\nArchbishop Ushers edition of the Short Recension, he had given his\nadhesion to \"that form of the Epistles.\"(1) This fact is also mentioned\nby Pearson, and I ought to have observed it.(2) Petau, the last of the\nwriters referred to, says: \"Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie\ninterpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: turn\naliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio Epistolas\nesse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio.\" He then goes\non to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles and the\nversion of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more decided\nopinion to express than: \"ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas\nesse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus illustribus\ntestimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit\"(3)\n\nThe next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the\n\n{xxxiv}\n\npreceding for convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and\ncomments upon it as follows:\n\n\"The next note, p. 260, is as follows:--(See scanned page. Ed.)\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 _Vindicia 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\nthe order 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?\"(1)\n\nI do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might\nsuffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is\nhere advanced as an important\n\n{xxxv}\n\npoint to observe, but I call attention to the unfair spirit in which\nDr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask every just-minded reader to\nconsider what right any critic has to insinuate, if not directly to\nsay, that, because some of the references in a note are also given by\nCureton, I simply took them from him, and thus \"imported into my notes a\nmass of borrowed and unsorted references,\" and further to insinuate\nthat I \"here and there transposed the order\" apparently to conceal\nthe source? This is a kind of criticism which I very gladly relinquish\nentirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent. Now, as full\nquotations are given in Cureton's appendix, I should have been perfectly\nentitled to take references from it, had I pleased, and for the\nconvenience of many readers I distinctly indicate Cureton's work, in the\nnote, as a source to be compared. The fact is, however, that I did not\ntake the references from Cureton, but in every case derived them from\nthe works themselves, and if the note \"seems to represent the gleanings\nof many years' reading,\" it certainly does not misrepresent the fact,\nfor I took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the \"by-paths of\nIgnatian literature.\" Now in analysing the references in this note it\nmust be borne in mind that they illustrate the statement that \"_doubts,\nmore or less definite_\" continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian\nEpistles. I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to\nWotton. His name is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the\nlast in a list on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding\nthis one, and was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up\nWeismann, whose doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine\nDr. Lightfoot's further statements. He says that Thiersch\n\n{xxxvi}\n\nuses the Curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether\nhe ought not to accept the Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he\ncannot quote either the seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says\ndistinctly: \"These three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that\nthey are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the\nother notes found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other\nhand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the\nform in which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely\nremoved. For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven\nEpistles attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius.\"(1)\nThiersch, therefore, does express \"doubts, more or less definite.\" Dr.\nLight-foot then continues: \"Of the rest a considerable number, as, for\ninstance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach,\n\nKestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of\ncertainty or uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine\nnucleus.\"(2) The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of\nmy words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that\na leaning towards belief in a genuine \"nucleus\" on the part of some of\nthese writers, by no means excludes the expression of \"_doubts, more or\nless definite_,\" which is all I quote them for. I will take each name in\norder.\n\n_Lardner_ says: \"But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves\nare the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a question\nthat has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest\ncritics. And whatever positiveness some may have\n\n{xxxvii}\n\nshown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult\nquestion.\" The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: \"it appears\nto me _probable_, that they are _for the main_ the genuine epistles\nof Ignatius.\" _Beausobre_ says: \"Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre\nl'authenticite' des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas\nveritables, elles ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes; et l'opinion,\nqui me paroit la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete\ninter-poises.\"\n\n_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for\nthe shorter (Vossian) Epistles \"many doubts arise which make them\nsuspicious.\" He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and\nanachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the\nwhole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and\nother difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which cannot be\nreconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are interpolations of\na later time. He concludes with the pertinent observation: \"However\nprobable this is, it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which\nare the interpolated passages.\" In fact it would be difficult to point\nout any writer who more thoroughly doubts, without definitely rejecting,\nall the Epistles.\n\n_Grtesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express \"doubts more or less definite,\"\nbut to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy too much\nspace.\n\n_Neander_.--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from the\nEnglish translation of the first\n\n{xxxviii}\n\nedition of Neander's History given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not\nattended to the brief German quotation from the second edition, and has\nnot examined the original at all, or he would have seen that, so far\nfrom pronouncing \"in favour of a genuine nucleus,\" Neander might well\nhave been classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian\nEpistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who merely\nexpress doubt. Neander says: \"As the account of the martyrdom of\nIgnatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose the\ncorrectness of this suspicious legend, do not bear throughout the\nimpress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who is\naddressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical purpose\nis not to be mistaken.\" In an earlier part of the work he still more\nemphatically says that, \"in the so-called Ignatian Epistles,\" he\nrecognizes a decided \"design\" (absichtlichkeit) and then he continues:\n\"as the tradition regarding the journey of Ignatius to Rome, there to\nbe cast to the wild beasts, seems to me for the above-mentioned reasons\nvery suspicious, his Epistles, which pre-suppose the truth of this\ntradition, can no longer inspire me with faith in their\nauthenticity.\" He goes on to state additional grounds for disbelief.\n_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven\nEpistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the\nextant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note he\nexcepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers.\n\n{xxxix}\n\nHe seems to agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are\nprobably the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form\nbeing more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic interest. Some\nyears later he remarked that inquiries into the Epistles, although\nnot yet concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the\nShorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the\nshorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations (Ueberarbeitungen)\nfrom interpolations. This very cautious statement, it will be observed,\nis wholly relative, and does not in the least modify the previous\nconclusion that the original material of the letters cannot be\nascertained.\n\nDr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly\nunfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.\n\n     1 Dr. Lightfoot doubts, and a large mass of critics\n     recognize _that the authenticity of none_ of these Epistles\n     _can be established_ and that they can only be considered\n     later and spurious compositions.\"\n\nHe proceeds to the next \"note (4)\" with the same unhesitating vigour,\nand characterizes it as \"equally unfortunate.\" Wherever it has been\npossible, Dr. Light-foot has succeeded in misrepresenting the \"purpose\"\nof my notes, although he has recognized how important it is to ascertain\nthis correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will put my\ntext and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses the\nnote, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he\naltogether disregards:--\n\n\"Further examination and more References to twenty authorities\ncomprehensive knowledge of the are then given, as belonging to the\nsubject have confirmed earlier a large mass of critics who recognize\n\n{xl}\n\nthat the Ignatian Epistles, 'can only be considered later and spurious\ncompositions.'\"(1)\n\nThere are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two\napproximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the\nEpistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming\nto establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively\npronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred\nto, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what\nhe states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that a\nreservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be\ndefined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does not.\nIt is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant,\nletters cannot be established without denying that there may have been\nsome original nucleus upon which these actual documents may have been\nbased. I will analyse the six references.\n\nBleek.--Dr. Lightfoot says: \"Of these Bleek (already cited in a previous\nnote) expresses no definite opinion.\"\n\nDr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek directly,\nbut by \"Cf.\" merely request consideration of his opinions. I\nhave already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some\ndifficulties, he says generally: \"It comes to this, that the origin of\nthe Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful.\" He refuses\n\n{xli}\n\nto make use of a passage because it is only found in the Long Recension,\nand another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he does not consider\nevidence, because, first, he says, \"The authenticity of this Recension\nalso is by no means certain,\" and, next, the Cureton Epistles discredit\nthe others. \"Whether this Recension (the Curetonian) is more original\nthan the shorter Greek is certainly not altogether certain, but.... in\nthe highest degree probable.\" In another place he refuses to make use\nof reminiscences in the \"Ignatian Epistles,\" \"because it is still very\ndoubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity\nof these Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions\nin which we possess them.\"(1) In fact he did not consider that their\nauthenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him here\nat all.\n\n_Gfroerer_.--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite this\nwriter like the others, but by a \"Cf.\" merely suggest a reference to his\nremarks.\n\n_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, \"avows that he must 'decidedly\nreject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent\ntimes' the opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles\nare 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine\nbecause it stands in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long\nRecension.\"\n\nThis is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with Paul's\nEpistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: \"In this case the\ndisadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is in\n\n{xlii}\n\npart removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have\nthe passage.\" He recognizes that the completeness of the proof that\necclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is\nsomewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of Ignatius. He\ndid not in fact venture to consider the Ignatian Epistles evidence even\nfor the first half of the second century.\n\n_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, \"says that 'the external testimonies\noblige him to recognize a genuine substratum,' though he is not\nsatisfied with either existing recension.\"\n\nNow what Schliemann says is this: \"Certainly neither the Shorter and\nstill less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles can\nlay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless, without doubt\nsuppose a genuine substratum,\" &c. In a note he adds: \"The external\ntestimonies oblige me to recognize a genuine substratum--Poly-carp\nalready speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his Epistle. But that in\ntheir present form they do not proceed from Ignatius the contents\nsufficiently show.\"\n\n_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, \"commits himself to no opinion.\"\n\nIf he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what that\nopinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he says, bears\nthe marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion of an invention\nin favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not fully attested\neither. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical\ntext give the impression of being an epitome. \"But\n\n{xliii}\n\neven if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet\nthey would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the\nsecond century.\" These last words are a clear admission of his opinion\nthat the authenticity cannot be established. _Lechler_ candidly\nconfesses that he commenced with a prejudice in favour of the\nauthenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension, but on reading\nthem through, he says that an impression unfavourable to their\nauthenticity was produced upon him which he had not been able to shake\noff. He proceeds to point out their internal improbability, and other\ndifficulties connected with the supposed journey, which make it \"still\nmore improbable that Ignatius himself can really have written these\nEpistles in this situation.\" Lechler does not consider that the\nCuretonian Epistles strengthen the case; and although he admits that\nhe cannot congratulate himself on the possession of \"certainty and\ncheerfulness of conviction\" of the inauthenticity of the Ignatian\nEpistles, he at least very clearly justifies the affirmation that the\nauthenticity cannot be established.\n\nNow what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon\nmy notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with\nwhat is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian\nliterature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one\nname totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had\nbeen removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and\nconsequently\n\n{xliv}\n\nerroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose doubts I consider\nthat I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in dealing with such\na mass of references, or a difference of a shade more or less in the\nrepresentation of critical opinions, not always clearly expressed, may,\nI hope, be excusable, and I can only say that I am only too glad to\ncorrect such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks such\nreferences, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of\n\"misstatement\" and \"misrepresentation,\" was bound to be accurate, and I\nhave shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,\nbut unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be\nable to make use of his own words and say: \"I may perhaps have fallen\ninto some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but\nthe main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable.\"(l)\n\nThere are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I\nmust briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with\nunhesitating boldness:--\n\nOne highly 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\nkey to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since\nits publication_. One who (like our author) maintains the priority\nof the Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some\nconsideration, for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his\nopponents. This version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849,\nthe same year in which Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_,\nappeared, and therefore was unknown to him. Its _bearing occupies a\nmore or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have\nspecially discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a\ncentury. This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhom,\nwhom he cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he\nneglects to cite_.\n\nNow first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the 1 \"Contemporary\nReview,\" February, 1875, p. 183.\n\n{xlv}\n\npriority of the Curetonian Epistles in this book myself, indeed I\nexpress no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not\ncontained in that general declaration of belief, the decision of which\nexcites the wrath of my diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form\nhave \"any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the\nsecond or beginning of the third century, even if they have any value at\nall.\" I merely represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles.\nDr. Lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the\nArmenian version, and I call special attention to the passages in the\nabove quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture\nto say emphatically that, so far from being considered the \"key of\nthe position,\" this version has, with some exceptions, played a most\nsubordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and as Dr.\nLightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will state how the\ncase stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Merx, and Zahn\ncertainly \"more or less prominently\" deal with them. Denzinger, however,\nonly refers to Petermann's publication, which appeared while his own\n_brochure_ was passing through the press, in a short note at the end,\nand in again writing on the Ignatian question, two years after,(1)\nhe does not even allude to the Armenian version. Beyond the barest\nhistorical reference to Petermann's work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss\nthe Armenian version at all So much for the writers actually mentioned\nby Dr. Lightfoot.\n\nAs for \"the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question\nduring the last quarter of a century\": Cureton apparently did not\nthink it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of\nPetermann\n\n\n{xlvi}\n\nafter its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments in a few\npages of his \"Hippolytus\";(1) Baur, who wrote against Bunsen and the\nCuretonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's representation,\nshould have found this \"the most formidable argument\" against them,\ndoes not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even allude to the\nArmenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,(2) refers to\nPetermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian manipulated form\nof the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text; Dressel\ndevotes a few unfavourable lines to them;(3) Hefele(4) supports them at\nsomewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, Tischendorf, Bohringer,\nScholten, and others have not thought them worthy of special notice, at\nany rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have, so far\nas I am aware, introduced them into the controversy at all.\n\nThe argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to\nintroduce into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I\nrefer the reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may\nquote the following lines:\n\n\"But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven\nLetters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Coreton's text is\nan incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac idioms\nin the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply proves,\naccording to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must have once been\ntranslated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the Greek original of\n\n{xlvii}\n\nthis supposed Syriac version is the genuine text, and not an\ninterpolated and partially forged one?\" (l)\n\nDr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to introduce this argument, on\nthe ground that \"a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the\nCuretonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital\nproblem of which it was bound to give an account\" Now all this is\nsheer misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian\nEpistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek\nEpistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.\n\nPassing on to another point, I say:\n\n\"Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally\npurporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that number were\nmentioned by Eusebius.\"(2)\n\nAnother passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found\na little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon\nthis he writes as follows:\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\nin style 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.(3)\n\nAlthough I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are\nadvanced in favour of the seven Epistles,\n\n{xlviii}\n\nI contend that, reduced to its simplest form, the argument for that\nspecial number rests mainly, if not altogether, upon their mention by\nEusebius. The very first reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute\nme is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement, for the\neight Epistles are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century\nafter Eusebius, does not betray any knowledge of them, but the \"silence\nof Eusebius,\" the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and\nit merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of\nTheodoret. Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them,\nhow changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to\nwould have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has\nconferred upon the rest The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the\ncontroversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated\nthe \"prae-\" and \"post-Eusebian,\" making him the turning-point of the\ncontroversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: \"The\ntestimony of Eusebius first differentiates them.\"(1) The argument (2\nand 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and\ninterpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same\naccusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian\nEpistles.\n\nThe fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second\nparagraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which I\nhave reserved till now as it requires more detailed notice. It is this:\n\n\"It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned by\nEusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These Epistles\nare mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin MSS. with\nthe other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without\ndistinction of any kind, and all have equal honour.\"(2)\n\n{xlix}\n\nI will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast\nwith the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and\northodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:\n\nDr. Lightfoot. (4). \"It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles are\nmixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and Latin\nMSS., as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come after\nthe others; and this circumstance, combined with the facts already\nmentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition, borrowed from\nthe Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian letters.\"(1)\n\nDr. Tregelles. \"It is a mistake to speak of seven Ignatian Epistles in\nGreek having been transmitted to us, for no such seven exist, except\nthrough their having been selected by editors from the Medicean MS.\nwhich contains so much that is confessedly spurious;--a fact which some\nwho imagine a diplomatic transmission of seven have overlooked.\"(2)\n\nI will further quote the words of Cureton, for as Dr. Lightfoot advances\nnothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of\nothers rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement Cureton\nsays:\n\n\"Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us\nto look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of St.\nIgnatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient Latin\nversion corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles presumed to\nbe the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed up with others,\nwhich are almost universally allowed to be spurious. Both in the Greek\nand Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same footing, and no\ndistinction is drawn between them; and the only ground which has\nhitherto been a Note to \"Home's Int. to the Holy Scriptures,\" 12th ed.,\n1869, iv. p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.\n\n     1 \"Contemporary Beview,\" February, 1875, p. 347. Dr.\n     Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note:\n\n     \"The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its\n     companions, and is embedded in the Martyrology which stands\n     at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where\n     doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS. of this\n     latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come\n     together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious\n     Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the\n     Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious\n     Epistles follow. See Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 111.\"\n\n{l}\n\nassumed for their separation has been the specification of some of them\nby Eusebius and his omission of any mention of the others.\"'\n\n\"The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour\nof the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the\nPhilip-pians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which\nhave been received.' They are found in all the manuscripts, both Greek\nand Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two distinct and\nvery different recensions, if we except the Epistle to Polycarp, in\nwhich the variations are very few. Of these two recensions the shorter\nhas been most generally received: the circumstance of its being shorter\nseems much to have influenced its reception; and the text of the\nMedicean Codex and of the two copies of the corresponding Latin version\nbelonging to Cains College, Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College,\nOxford, has been adopted.... In all these there is no distinction\nwhatever drawn between the former and latter Epistles: all are placed\nupon the same basis; and there is no ground whatever to conclude either\nthat the arranger of the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin\nversion esteemed one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor\ncan any prejudice result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the\nAntiochians, and to Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed\nafter the others in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in\nchronological order, and rank after the rest as having been written from\nPhilippi, at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had\ndespatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence of\nall the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the recensions\nis to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the rejected Epistles,\nrather than of those which have been retained.\" (2)\n\nProceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly\nshow the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the\nprincipal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin\nversion of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which\nwas at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined\ntable I shall mark A,(3) and which also exhibits the order of Cod. Vat\n859, assigned to the eleventh century.(4) The next (B) is a Greek MS.\nedited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557,(5) and the order at\n\n{li}\n\nthe same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150.(1) The third (C)\nis the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published by\nArchbishop Usher.(2) The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean MS.\nassigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossiusin 1646.(3)\nThis also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G. V. 14.(4)\nI italicise the rejected Epistles: (See scanned page in the html file,\nEd.)\n\nI have given the order in MSS. containing the \"Long Recension\" as well\nas the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,\nthe variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have\nan undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is\nobvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and\nthe spurious, it contains\n\n{lii}\n\nthree of the false Epistles, and _does not contain the so-called genuine\nEpistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle to the Romans, in fact, is,\nto use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, \"embedded in the Martyrology,\"\nwhich is as spurious as any of the epistles. This circumstance alone\nwould justify the assertion which Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.\n\nI must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn\nfor a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst\nI have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out\nserious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my\nreferences which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before\nproceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. Dr.\nWestcott says:\n\n\"I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite capable of\nthinking for himself should have considered it worth his while to burden\nhis pages with lists of names and writings, arranged, for the most part,\nalphabetically, which have in very many cases no value whatever for a\nscholar, while they can only oppress the general reader with a vague\nfeeling that all 'profound' critics are on one side. The questions to\nbe discussed must be decided by evidence and by argument and not by\nauthority.\"(1)\n\nNow the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have\nalmost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in\nthis work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of\nthe Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted\nreverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a\nvery great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned\nand independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of\nlittle more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,\ntherefore, that I endeavour, to\n\n{liii}\n\nthe best of my ability, to decide these questions by evidence and\nargument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority, I refer\nreaders desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may\nfind them dis-. cussed. I must be permitted to add, that I do not\nconsider I uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm\nthe views in the text or discuss them, for it is right that earnest\nthinkers should be told the state of opinion, and recognize that belief\nis not so easy and matter of course a thing as they have been led to\nsuppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as English divines have\noften seemed to represent it Dr. Westcott, however, omits to state that\nI as persistently refer to writers who oppose, as to those who favour,\nmy own conclusions.\n\nDr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to\ninvestigate. He says:\n\n\"Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion which\nis involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than this, the\nreferences are not unfrequently actually misleading. One example will\nshow that I do not speak too strongly.\"(l)\n\nDr. Westcott has scrutinized this work with great minuteness, and, as I\nshall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.\nThe idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes\nby a single instance is somewhat startling, but to insinuate that a\nsupposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole\nwork, as he does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions,\nis scarcely worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean\nto be unfair. The example selected is as follows:\n\n\"It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but\nsuffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 2()th December, a.d. 115\n\n{liv}\n\nwhen he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in\nconsequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which\ntook place on the 13th of that month.4\"' The references in support\nof these statements are the following: 8 Baur, Urspr. d. Epiec.Tub.\nZeitschr. f.Theol. 1838, H. 3, p. 155 anm.; Bretschneider, Probabilia,\n&c, p. 185; Bleek, Einl.N. T., p. 144; Guericke, H*bucht Kt #., i p.\n148; Hagenbach, K. G., i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T.,i. p. 19;\nMayerhoff, Eitll. petr. Schr., p. 79; Scholten, Die Sit. Zeugnisse, p.\n40, p. 50 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 52; R'buch Einl. Apocr., i. p.\n121 f., p. 136.\n\n4 Volkmar, Wuch Einl. Apocr., i. p. 121 ff., 136 f.; Der Ursprung, p.\n52 ff.; Baur, Ursp. d. Episc. Tub. Zeitschr. f. Th. 1838, H. 3, p. 149\nf.; Gesch. chr. Kirehe, 1863, i. p. 440, anm. 1.; Davidson, Introd. N.\nT., Lp. 19; Scholten, Die Hit. Zeugnisse, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, Zur\nGesch. Trojans, u. s. w. 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vster, p.\n214.\n\nUpon this Dr. Westcott remarks:\n\n\"Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot but\nappear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are quoted\ntwice over emphasizes the implied precision of their testimony as to the\ntwo points affirmed.\"\n\nDr. Westcott, however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the\nfact that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes\ndiffer in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being\nabsent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do\nnot appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the\nplace referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed\nbeing significantly varied. For instance, in note 3 the reference to\nVolkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar\ntransposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations in\nthe pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the date\noccurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, placed\nat the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is\n\n{lv}\n\nmade. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious,\nbut which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,\nalthough it does not affect note 4. Headers are probably aware that\nthere has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only\nas to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I\nhave in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my\nomission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.\nThe fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add\nto the note: \"The martyrdom has been variously dated about a.d. 107, or\na.d. 115-116, but whether assigning the event to Home or to Antioch\na majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later\ndate.\" Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the\ntext with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement\nat the head of note 3, with reference to \"a.d. 115\" in the text, but\nunfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of\nthis intention, as well.as the addition of some fuller references to the\nwriters quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite\nregret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,\ntherefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in\nAntioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred\nto them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references(1)\nby placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyze the two notes in\ncontrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.\n\n     1 These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work\n     first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted\n     in the second note, but accidentally left out of the note 3.\n\n{lvi}\n\nSee page scan, Ed.\n\n{lvii}\n\nSee page scan, Ed.\n\n\n{lviii}\n\nSee page scan, Ed.\n\n\n{lix}\n\nIt will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the\nlater date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in\nwhich Dr. Westcott finds \"nothing in any way bearing upon the history\nexcept a passing supposition,\" really advances a weighty argument for\nit and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,\nthat argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has\nnot perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as\nstatements of evidence.\n\nTo sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine\nwriters support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,\nthree of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom\nto Rome, one (Brctschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is\ndoubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the\nmartyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the\npurpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,\nand the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,\nregarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of\nthe journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4,\nwhich I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's\nstatements, and here 1 beg the favour of the readers attention.\n\n(See page scans, lix to lxii Ed.)\n\n\n{lxiii}\n\nAt the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as\nfollows:\n\n\"In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments\nin support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the\nreferences is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, what\nScholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'\"(3)\n\n     3 On the Canon, Preface 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds,\n     in a note, \"It may be worth while to add that in spite of\n     the profuse display of learning in connexion with Ignatius,\n     I do not see even in the second edition any reference to the\n     full and elaborate work of Zahn.\" I might reply to this that\n     my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had reached\n     England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to\n     which reference was necessary.\n\n{lxiv}\n\nIt is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of\nthe fact than the statement that \"Volkmar alone offers any arguments in\nsupport of the statement in the text,\" and it is incomprehensible upon\nany ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate\nidea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but\nI hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to Dr.\nWestcott's remark on the \"alleged 'demonstration,'\" it must be evident\nthat when a writer states anything to be \"demonstrated\" he expresses his\nown belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity of opinion,\nand the only question in such a case is whether I refer to writers, in\nconnection with the circumstances which I affirm to be demonstrated,\nwho advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. A critic is quite\nat liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, but he is not at\nliberty to deny that there are any arguments at all when the elaborate\nreasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur and Hilgenfeld is referred to.\nTherefore, when he goes on to say:\n\n\"It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. Any one\nwho will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe, agree with\nme in thinking that such a style of annotation, which runs through the\nwhole work, is justly characterized as frivolous and misleading.\"(1)\n\nDr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his\nown criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is \"frivolous and\nmisleading,\" and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has\nbeen, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy\nof my references.\n\nAs Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments\n\n{lxv}\n\nof his own in regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to\nDr. Lightfoot, and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so\nwith extreme brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to\nthis subject, and must now come to a close. To the argument that it is\nimpossible to suppose that soldiers such as the \"ten leopards\" described\nin the Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for\nprofessing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every\nstage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was\ncondemned, as well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations\nfrom the various churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived\nfrom Zahn, regarding the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be\n\"known.\" These cases, however, are neither analogous, nor have they the\nforce which is assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious\nbelief should receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends,\nis anything but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to\nthem in many cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The\ncase of Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [--Greek--]\nbe that, although receiving bribes, the \"ten leopards\" only became more\ncruel, the very reverse of the leniency and mild treatment ascribed\nto the Roman procedure is described by the writer himself as actually\ntaking place, and certainly nothing approaching a parallel to the\ncorrespondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be pointed out in any known\ninstance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua, even if true, is no\nconfirmation, the circumstances being very different; (l) but in\n\n{lxvi}\n\nfact there is no evidence whatever that the extant history was written\nby either of them,(1) but on the contrary, I maintain, every reason to\nbelieve that it was not.\n\nDr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a\nChristian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who \"writes\nletters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with\nchurches and individuals as he desires.\"(2) It is scarcely possible\nto imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and\nPaul, as narrated in the \"Acts of the Apostles,\" although doubtless\nthe story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the\nlatter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a\nChristian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of\na Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly\ndeclared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds\n(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he\nhad appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one which\nsecured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius 'fights with\nbeasts from Syria even unto Rome,' and is cruelly treated by his\n\"ten leopards,\" but Paul is represented as receiving very different\ntreatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come\nand minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is\nsaid that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and\ngave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome\nhe was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him\n(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house.\n\n{lxvii}\n\nThese circumstances are totally different from those under which the\nEpistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.\n\n\"But the most powerful testimony,\" Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, \"is\nderived from the representations of a heathen writer.\"(1) The case of\nPeregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate than\nthat of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know little\nor nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as serious\nby any one. Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus, a cynic\nphilosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, found\nit convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his travels he\nfell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and, according to\nLucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his hands, so that\nhe became in his own person \"prophet, high-priest, and ruler of a\nsynagogue,\" and further \"they spoke of him as a god, used him as a\nlaw-giver, and elected him their chief man.\"(2) After a time he was put\nin prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real service to him\nafterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in prison, he is\nsaid to have received those services from Christians which Dr. Lightfoot\nquotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the Governor of\nSyria, who loved philosophy,(3) and travelled about living in great\ncomfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last they quarrelled\nin consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some forbidden food.\nFinally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself into the flames\nof a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An earthquake is said to\nhave taken\n\n{lxviii}\n\nplace at the time; a vulture flew out from the pile crying out with\na human voice; and shortly after Peregrinus rose again and appeared\nclothed in white raiment unhurt by the fire.\n\nNow this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct\nsatire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, \"a parody of the\nhistory of Jesus.\"(1) There are no means of ascertaining that any of\nthe events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is\nobvious that, Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access\nto prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians\nto Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point\nof the satire.\n\nThere is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account\nof Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as\nevidence for them.(2) \"The singular correspondence in this narrative\nwith the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences\nof expression,\" they argue, show \"that Lucian was acquainted with the\nIgnatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters.\" These are the\nwords of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in referring to this\nargument, by the words: \"if it be true,\" and does not express his own\nopinion; but he goes on to say: \"At all events it is conclusive for the\nmatter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners were treated in the\nvery way described in these epistles.\"(3) On the contrary, it is in no\ncase conclusive of anything. If it were true that Lucian employed, as\nthe basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles and Martyrology,\n\n{lxix}\n\nit is clear that his narrative cannot be used as independent testimony\nfor the truth of the statements regarding the treatment of Christian\nprisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be shown, his story remains\na mere satire with very little historical value. Apart from all this,\nhowever, the case of Peregrinus, a man confined in prison for a short\ntime, under a favourable governor, and not pursued with any severity, is\nno parallel to that of Ignatius condemned _ad bestias_ and, according\nto his own express statement, cruelly treated by the \"ten leopards\"; and\nfurther the liberty of pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all\nthat is said of Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and\nhold such free intercourse as they represent.\n\nI will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments\nof the writers referred to in the note(l) attacked by Dr. Westcott,\nin which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,\ndemonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered\nmartyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into\nthe matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and\nI will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating\nthe source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when\nnecessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies\nset forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria\nat least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch\nduring the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in\nthe amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,\nhe is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more\ndifficult land route. The ten soldiers who\n\n{lxx}\n\nguard him are described by himself as only rendered more cruel by the\npresents made to them to secure kind treatment for him, so that not in\nthe amphitheatre only, but all the way from Syria to Rome, by night\nand day, by sea and land, he \"fights with beasts.\" Notwithstanding\nthis severity, the Martyr freely receives deputations from the various\nChurches, who, far from being molested, are able to have constant\nintercourse with him, and even to accompany him in his journey. He not\nonly converses with these freely, but he is represented as writing long\nEpistles to the various Churches which, instead of containing the last\nexhortations and farewell words which might be considered natural\nfrom the expectant martyr, are filled with advanced views of Church\ngovernment, and the dignity of the episcopate. These circumstances, at\nthe outset, excite grave suspicions of the truth of the documents, and\nof the story which they set forth. When we inquire whether the alleged\nfacts of the case are supported by historical data, the reply is\nemphatically adverse. All that is known of the treatment of Christians\nduring the reign of Trajan, as well as of the character of the Emperor,\nis opposed to the supposition that Ignatius could have been condemned\nby Trajan himself, or even by a provincial governor, to be taken to Rome\nand there cast to the beasts. It is well known that under Trajan there\nwas no general persecution of Christians, although there may have been\ninstances in which prominent members of the body were either punished or\nfell victims to popular fury and superstition.(1)\n\n1 Dean Milman says: \"Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the\nalmost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the\nChristians.\" In a note, he adds: \"Excepting of Ignatius, probably of\nSimeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of\nTrajan.\"--Hist, of Christianity, 1867, ii. p. 103.\n\n{lxxi}\n\nAn instance of this kind was the martyrdom of Simeon, Bishop of\nJerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not condemned _ad bestias_,\nhowever, and much less deported to Rome for the purpose. Why should\nIgnatius have been so exceptionally treated? In fact, even during the\npersecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although Christians in Syria were\nfrequently enough cast to the beasts, there is no instance recorded in\nwhich any one condemned to this fate was sent to Rome. Such a sentence\nis quite at variance with the clement character of Trajan and his\nprinciples of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by Baur, says:\n\"As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere fanaticism, he\nalso probably thought that if severity were combined with clemency, if\ntoo much noise were not made about it, the open demonstration not left\nunpunished but also minds not stirred up by persecution, the fanatical\nenthusiasm would most easily cool down, and the matter by degrees come\nto an end.\"(1) This was certainly the policy which mainly characterized\nhis reign. Now not only would such a severe sentence have been contrary\nto such principles, but the agitation excited would have been enormously\nincreased by sending the martyr a long journey by land through Asia, and\nallowing him to pass through some of the principal cities, hold constant\nintercourse with the various Christian communities, and address long\nepistles to them. With the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent,\nsuch a journey would have been a triumphal progress, spreading\neverywhere excitement and enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an\nindication of the results of impartial examination, to\n\n{lxxii}\n\npoint out that Neander's inability to accept the Ignatian epistles\nlargely rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence\nand martyr-journey. \"We do not recognize the Emperor Trajan in this\nnarrative,\" (the martyrology) he says, \"therefore cannot but doubt\nevery thing which is related by this document, as well as that, during\nthis reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild beasts.\"(1)\n\nIf, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan\nhimself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, the\nstory does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that such an\nofficial would have ventured to act so much in opposition to the spirit\nof the Emperor's government Besides, if such a governor did pronounce\nso severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in Antioch? Why send\nthe prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the more conspicuous a\nseverity which was not likely to be pleasing to the clement Trajan. The\ncruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ would have been more\ngratified by execution on the spot, and there is besides no instance\nknown, even during the following general persecution, of Christians\nbeing sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome is in no case\ncredible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that Ignatius, like\nSimeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death during this reign,\nmore especially if the event be associated with some sudden outbreak of\nsuperstitious fury against the Christians, to which the martyr may at\nonce have fallen a victim. We are not without indications of such a\ncause operating in the case of Ignatius.\n\n{lxxiii}\n\nIt is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is\na.d. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake\noccurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated\nto excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here\nthe account of the earthquake given by Dean Milmau, who, although he\nmentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still\nassociates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:\n\"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account\nwith singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in\nAntioch.... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible\nand destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most\nappalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for\nthe Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings\nfrom all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;\nhouses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:\nthe Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped\nthrough a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some\ndays in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of\nthe Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards\nthe end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,\nwas arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of\npublic calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the\npanic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It may be\nthat, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by\nthe infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,\nthe execution was ordered to\n\n{lxxiv}\n\ntake place, not in Antioch, but in Rome.\"(1) I contend that these\nreasons, on the contrary, render execution in Antioch infinitely more\nprobable. To continue, however: the earthquake occurred on the 13th, and\nthe martyrdom of Ignatius took place on the 20th December, just a\nweek after the earthquake. His remains, as we know from Chrysostom\nand others, were, as an actual fact, interred at Antioch. The natural\ninference is that the martyrdom, the only part of the Ignatian story\nwhich is credible, occurred not in Rome but in Antioch itself, in\nconsequence of the superstitious fury against the [--Greek--] aroused by\nthe earthquake.\n\nI will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just\nmade, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the\nfirst place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13 th\nDecember. I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further\nimportant statement. He says:\n\n\"The words of John Malalas are:\n\n'The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when the\nvisitation of God (i.e. the earthquake) occurred. And at that time the\nholy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore\ntestimony), [--Greek--] before him [--Greek--]; for he was exasperated against\nhim, because he reviled him.'\"(2)\n\nDr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. He\nargues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, and,\ntherefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece of\ninformation may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere\nmay record stupid traditions.(3) If the narrative of foolish stories and\nfabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by\nthose who relate them, the\n\n{lxxv}\n\nwhole of the Fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all\ndo so. Dr. Lightfoot also asserts that the theory of the cause of the\nmartyrdom advanced by Volkmar \"receives no countenance from the story\nof Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language\nused to the emperor.\"(l) On the other hand, it in no way contradicts it,\nfor Ignatius can only have \"reviled\" Trajan when brought before him, and\nhis being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited\nby the earthquake, even if the language of the Bishop influenced his\ncondemnation; the whole statement of Malalas is in perfect harmony with\nthe theory in its details, and in the main, of course, directly supports\nit. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary\nargument:\n\n\"But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is capable\nof easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier\nauthority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words\n[--Greek--], which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the\nearlier ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to\nthe faith: the expression [--Greek--] again is ambiguous and might denote\neither 'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.'\nA blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either\nexpression.\"(2)\n\nThis is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not\nsufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his\nlanguage. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [--Greek--],\n\nalready used in that sense in the New Testament, were not, at the date\nat which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius which Malalas could\nhave had before him was written, employed to express martyrdom, when\napplied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in the\n\n{lxxvi}\n\nfirst instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so\nimplicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.\n\"The [--Greek--] together with [--Greek--] can only signify 'coram Trajano'\n('in the presence of Trajan'), and [--Greek--] only the execution.\"(1) Let\nany one simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering, which I have\nquoted above, and he will see that such quibbles are excluded, and that,\non the contrary, Malalas seems excellently well and directly to have\ninterpreted his earlier authority.\n\nThat the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the\nFathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that\nnone of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian\nEpistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,\nOrigen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and\nChrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas\nis the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and\ndifferent authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to\nRome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas\nlived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is\nobjected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet\nhe repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against\nMalalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of\nEpistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,\nand had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,\nsome two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly\nhave accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have\nbeen\n\n{lxxvii}\n\nwritten by the martyr himself, and that their story should have shaped\nthe prevailing tradition.\n\nThe remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,\nlong remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally,--in the\ntime of Theodosius, it is said,--were translated with great pomp\nand ceremony to a building which,--such is the irony of events,--had\npreviously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that\nthe relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum\nand carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some\ncenturies, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome\nto Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch\nto Rome.(1) The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead of\nthis double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in\nAntioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that\nthey had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which\nreconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend\nof the Ignatian Epistles.\n\nThe 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius\nin the Martyrology,(2) and Zahn admits that this interpretation is\nundeniable.(3) Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated\non that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin\nChurch it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that\nthis was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was\nevidently the\n\n     1 I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these\n     relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and\n     afterwards translated to Antioch.\n\n{lxxviii}\n\nview of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively contradict the\nviews of his own Church, says: \"Ignatii festum Graeci vigesima die\nmensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum fuisse Acta testantur;\nLatini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus\nreli-quiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat.\"(1) Zahn(2)\nstates that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was\ncelebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance\nwhich prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius.(3)\n\nOn the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess\nregarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that\nIgnatius was sent to Rme to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and\nall the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles\nthemselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in\nAntioch itself. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered\nfor the statement that Ignatius was sent to Rme is more or less directly\nbased upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which\nis in discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every\nkind. And what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian\nEpistles and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as\nEwald says, are \"the one more fabulous than the other.\" There are\nfifteen Epistles all equally purporting to be by\n\n{xxix}\n\nIgnatius, and most of them handed down together in MSS., without any\ndistinction. Three of these, in Latin only, are universally rejected, as\nare also other five Epistles, of which there are Greek, Latin, and other\nversions. Of the remaining seven there are two forms, one called the\nLong Recension and another shorter, known as the Vossian Epistles. The\nformer is almost unanimously rejected as shamefully interpolated and\nfalsified; and a majority of critics assert that the text of the Vossian\nEpistles is likewise very impure. Besides these there is a still shorter\nversion of three Epistles only, the Cure-tonian, which many able critics\ndeclare to be the only genuine letters of Ignatius, whilst a still\ngreater number, both from internal and external reasons, deny the\nauthenticity of the Epistles in any form. The second and third centuries\nteem with pseudonymic literature, but I venture to say that pious fraud\nhas never been more busy and conspicuous than in dealing with the Martyr\nof Antioch. The mere statement of the simple and acknowledged facts\nregarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample justification of the assertion,\nwhich so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, that \"the whole of the Ignatian\nliterature is a mass of falsification and fraud.\" Even my indignant\ncritic himself has not ventured to use as genuine more than the three\nshort Syriac letters(1) out of this mass of forgery which he rebukes me\nfor holding so cheap. Documents which lie under such grave and permanent\nsuspicion cannot prove anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian\nEpistles, whatever the value of their testimony, so far from supporting\nthe claims advanced in favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.\n\n{lxxx}\n\nI have now minutely followed Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in\ntheir attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian\nEpistles, and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges\nof \"misrepresentation\" and \"misstatement\" so lightly and liberally\nadvanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is\nimpossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,\nto escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but\nI have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture\nto think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the\nactual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has\nbeen made.\n\nBefore closing, I must say a few words regarding another of my critics,\nwho is, however, of a very different order. My system of criticism is\nnaturally uncongenial to Mr. Matthew Arnold, but while he says so with\ncharacteristic vigour, he likewise speaks of this work with equally\ncharacteristic generosity, and I cordially thank him. I could only be\nclassed by mistake amongst the \"objectors\" to \"Literature and Dogma,\"\nand however different may be the procedure in \"Supernatural Religion,\"\nthere is fundamental agreement between the two works, and the one may be\nconsidered the complement of the other. Some one must do the \"pounding,\"\nif religion is to be a matter of belief and not of mere shifty opinion.\nWe really address two distinct classes of readers. The reader who \"has\nread _and accepted_\" Mr. Matthew Arnold's \"half dozen lines about the\ncomposition of the Gospels,\" and his \"half dozen pages about miracles,\"\nmay in one sense be \"just in the same position as when he has read \"the\nwhole of this work,(1) but\n\n{lxxxi}\n\nI have written for those who do not accept them, and who,--as I think\nrightly,--distrust the conclusions merely forced upon them by ordinary\n\"reflection and experience,\" and in such important matters demand\nevidence of a much more tangible kind. I would put it to Mr. Arnold\nwhether, in seeming to depreciate any attempt to systematize and carry\nto logical conclusions the whole argument regarding the reality of\nMiracles and Divine Revelation, he does not do himself injustice, and\nenunciate a dangerous doctrine. No doubt his own clear insight and wide\nculture have enabled him to discern truth more surely, and with\nless apparent effort, than most of those whom he addresses, but in\nencouraging, as he thus practically does, the adoption by others\nof religious views with very little trouble or thought, which have\ncertainly cost himself years of training and study, he both cheapens his\nown intellectual labour, and advocates a superficiality which already\nhas too many attractions. Whether he address readers whose belief is\nalready established, or those who are ready to accept it second hand\nfrom himself, it seems to me that no work should be unwelcome which\nsupplies evidence of the results, which it has suited his own immediate\npurpose merely to assume.\n\nMr. Matthew Arnold objects that my book leaves the reader \"with the\nfeeling that the Bible stands before him like a fair tree all stripped,\ntorn and defaced, not at all like a tree whose leaves are for the\nhealing of the nations,\"(1) but if this be the case, I submit that it\nis a necessary process through which the Bible must go, before it can\nbe successfully transplanted into that healthy soil, in which alone its\nleaves can truly be for the 44 Contemporary Boviow,\" October, 1874, p.\n798.\n\n{lxxxii}\n\nhealing of any one. Under such circumstances, destructive must precede\nconstructive criticism. It is only when we clearly recognize that the\nBible is not the \"word of God\" that we can worthily honour and \"enjoy\"\nit as the word of Man. Mr. Matthew Arnold finely says, with regard\nto what Jesus said and did, that: \"his reporters were incapable of\nrendering it, he was so much above them\"; and he rightly considers that\nthe governing idea of our criticism of the four Evangelists should be\n\"to make out what in their report of Jesus, is Jesus, and what is the\nreporters.\" I hold, however, that it is only after such an examination\nas I have endeavoured to carry out, and which for the time must seem\nhard and wanting in sympathetic appreciation, that most persons educated\nin Christendom can rightly put any such governing idea into practice. It\nis only when we are entitled to reject the theory of miraculous Divine\nRevelation that the Bible attains its full beauty, losing the blots\nand anomalies which it presented in its former character, and acquiring\nwondrous significance as the expression of the hopes and aspirations of\nhumanity, from which every man may learn wisdom and derive inspiration.\nThe value of such a Book seems to me indestructible. I heartily\nsympathise with Mr. Arnold's desire to secure due appreciation for the\nvenerable volume, of the beauty of which he has so fine and delicate a\nperception. A truer insight into its meaning may certainly be imparted\nby such eloquent and appreciating criticism, and no one is a better\njudge than Mr. Matthew Arnold of the necessity to plead for the Book,\nwith those who are inclined thoughtlessly to reject it along with the\nerrors which have grown with and been based upon it. But, in the end,\nevery man who\n\n{lxxxiii}\n\nhas a mind and a heart must love and honour the Bible, and he who has\nneither is beyond the reach of persuasion.\n\nThis work has been revised throughout.(1) It was, as I stated at\nthe time, originally carried through the press under very great\ndifficulties, and the revision of details, upon which I had counted, was\nnot only prevented, but, beyond a careful revision of the First Part\nfor the second edition, circumstances have until now even prevented my\nseriously reading through the work since it has been in print. To those\nwho have been good enough to call my attention to errors, or to suggest\nimprovements, I return very sincere thanks. In making this revision I\nhave endeavoured to modify unimportant points, in some of which I\nhave been misunderstood, so as to avoid as far as possible raising\ndifficulties, or inviting discussion without real bearing upon the main\nargument. As I know the alacrity with which some critics seize upon\nsuch points as serious concessions, I beg leave to say that I have not\naltered anything from change of opinion. I trust that greater clearness\nand accuracy may have been secured.\n\nMarch 15th, 1875.\n\n     1 It is right to mention that, whilst I have examined a\n     great many of the references, I have not had time to verify\n     them all.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\nThe present work is the result of many years of earnest and serious\ninvestigation, undertaken in the first instance for the regulation\nof personal belief, and now published as a contribution towards the\nestablishment of Truth in the minds of others who are seeking for it.\nThe author's main object has been conscientiously and fully to state the\nfacts of the case, to make no assertions the grounds for which are not\nclearly given, and as far as possible to place before the reader the\nmaterials from which a judgment may be intelligently formed regarding\nthe important subject discussed.\n\nThe great Teacher is reported to have said: \"Be ye approved\nmoney-changers,\" wisely discerning the gold of Truth, and no man need\nhesitate honestly to test its reality, and unflinchingly to reject base\ncounterfeits. It is obvious that the most indispensable requisite in\nregard to Religion is that it should be true. No specious hopes or\nflattering promises can have the slightest value unless they be\ngenuine and based upon substantial realities. Fear of the results of\ninvestigation, therefore, should deter no man, for the issue in any case\nis gain: emancipation from delusion, or increase of assurance. It is\npoor honour to sequester a creed from healthy handling, or to shrink\nfrom the serious examination of its doctrines. That which is true in\nReligion cannot be shaken; that which is false no one can desire to\npreserve.\n\n{lxxxvi}\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\nThe Author has taken advantage of the issue of a second edition to\nrevise this work. He has re-written portions of the first part, and\notherwise re-arranged it. He hopes that the argument has thus been made\nmore clear and consecutive.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nTheoretically, the duty of adequate inquiry into the truth of any\nstatement of serious importance before believing it is universally\nadmitted. Practically, no duty is more universally neglected. This is\nmore especially the case in regard to Religion, in which our concern is\nso great, yet the credentials of which so few personally examine. The\ndifficulty of such an investigation and the inability of most men to\npursue it, whether from want of opportunity or want of knowledge, are no\ndoubt the chief reasons for this neglect; but another, and scarcely less\npotent, obstacle has probably been the odium which has been attached\nto any doubt regarding the dominant religion, as well as the serious,\nthough covert, discouragement of the Church to all critical examination\nof the title-deeds of Christianity. The spirit of doubt, if not of\nintelligent inquiry, has, however, of late years become too strong for\nrepression, and, at the present day, the pertinency of the question of a\nGerman writer: \"Are we still Christians?\" receives unconscious\n\n{xcii}\n\nillustration from many a popular pulpit, and many a social discussion.\n\nThe prevalent characteristic of popular theology in England, at this\ntime, may be said to be a tendency to eliminate from Christianity, with\nthoughtless dexterity, every supernatural element which does not quite\naccord with current opinion, and yet to ignore the fact that, in so\ndoing, ecclesiastical Christianity has practically been altogether\nabandoned. This tendency is fostered with profoundly illogical zeal by\nmany distinguished men within the Church itself, who endeavour to arrest\nfor a moment the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief which press upon\nit, by practically throwing to them, scrap by scrap, the very doctrines\nwhich constitute the claims of Christianity to be regarded as a Divine\nRevelation at all. The moral Christianity which they hope to preserve,\nnoble though it be, has not one feature left to distinguish it as a\nmiraculously communicated religion.\n\nChristianity itself distinctly pretends to be a direct Divine Revelation\nof truths beyond the natural attainment of the human intellect. To\nsubmit the doctrines thus revealed, therefore, to criticism, and to clip\nand prune them down to the standard of human reason, whilst at the\nsame time their supernatural character is maintained, is an obvious\nabsurdity. Christianity must either be recognized to be a Divine\nRevelation beyond man's criticism, and in that case its doctrines must\nbe received even though Reason cannot be satisfied, or the claims of\nChristianity to be such a Divine Revelation must be disallowed, in which\ncase it becomes the legitimate subject of criticism like every other\nhuman system. One or other of these alternatives must be adopted, but to\n\n{xciii}\n\nassert that Christianity is Divine, and yet to deal with it as human, is\nillogical and wrong.\n\nWhen we consider the vast importance of the interests involved,\ntherefore, it must be apparent that there can be no more urgent problem\nfor humanity to solve than the question: Is Christianity a supernatural\nDivine Revelation or not? To this we may demand a clear and decisive\nanswer. The evidence must be of no uncertain character which can warrant\nour abandoning the guidance of Reason, and blindly accepting doctrines\nwhich, if not supernatural truths, must be rejected by the human\nintellect as monstrous delusions. We propose in this work to seek a\nconclusive answer to this momentous question.\n\nIt appears to us that at no time has such an investigation been more\nrequisite. The results of scientific inquiry and of Biblical criticism\nhave created wide-spread doubt regarding the most material part of\nChristianity considered as a Divine Revelation. The mass of intelligent\nmen in England are halting between two opinions, and standing in what\nseems to us the most unsatisfactory position conceivable: they abandon,\nbefore a kind of vague and indefinite, if irresistible, conviction, some\nof the most central supernatural doctrines of Christianity; they try to\nspiritualize or dilute the rest into a form which does not shock their\nreason; and yet they cling to the delusion, that they still retain the\nconsolation and the hope of truths which, if not divinely revealed, are\nmere human speculation regarding matters beyond reason. They have, in\nfact, as little warrant to abandon the one part as they have to retain\nthe other. They build their house upon the sand, and the waves which\nhave already carried away so much may any day engulf the rest. At the\nsame time, amid this general eclipse of faith, many\n\n{xciv}\n\nan earnest mind, eagerly seeking for truth, endures much bitter\npain,--unable to believe--unable freely to reject--and yet without the\nmeans of securing any clear and intelligent reply to the inquiry: \"What\nis truth?\" Any distinct assurance, whatever its nature, based upon solid\ngrounds, would be preferable to such a state of doubt and hesitation.\nOnce persuaded that we have attained truth, there can be no permanent\nregret for vanished illusions.\n\nWe must, however, by careful and impartial investigation, acquire the\nright to our belief, whatever it may be, and not float like a mere waif\ninto the nearest haven. Flippant unbelief is much worse than earnest\ncredulity. The time is ripe for arriving at a definite conviction as to\nthe character of Christianity. There is no lack of materials for a final\ndecision, although hitherto they have been beyond the reach of most\nEnglish readers, and a careful and honest examination of the subject,\neven if it be not final, cannot fail to contribute towards a result more\nsatisfactory than the generally vague and illogical religious opinion\nof the present day. Even true conclusions which are arrived at either\naccidentally or by wrong methods are dangerous. The current which by\ngood fortune led to-day to truth may to-morrow waft us to falsehood.\nThat such an investigation cannot, even at the present time, be carried\non in England without incurring much enmity and opposition need\nscarcely be remarked, however loudly the duty and liberty of inquiry be\ntheoretically proclaimed, and the reason is obvious.\n\nIf we look at the singular diversity of views entertained, not only with\nregard to the doctrines, but also to the evidences, of Christianity, we\ncannot but be struck by the helpless position in which Divine Revelation\nis now placed.\n\n{xcv}\n\nOrthodox Christians at the present day may be divided into two broad\nclasses, one of which professes to base the Church upon the Bible, and\nthe other the Bible upon the Church. The one party assert that the Bible\nis fully and absolutely inspired, that it contains God's revelation to\nman, and that it is the only and sufficient ground for all religious\nbelief; and they maintain that its authenticity is proved by the most\nample and irrefragable external as well as internal evidence. What then\nmust be the feeling of any ordinary mind on hearing, on the other\nhand, that men of undoubted piety and learning, as well as unquestioned\northodoxy, within the Church of England, admit that the Bible is totally\nwithout literary or historical evidence, and cannot for a moment be\nupheld upon any such grounds as the revealed word of God; that none of\nthe great doctrines of ecclesiastical Christianity can be deduced\nfrom the Bible alone;(1) and that, \"if it be impossible to accept\nthe literary method of dealing with Holy Scripture, the usual mode of\narguing the truth of Revelation, _ab extra_, merely from what are called\n'Evidences'--whether of Miracles done or Prophecies uttered thousands of\nyears ago,--must also be insufficient.\"?(2) It cannot be much comfort\nto be assured by them that, notwithstanding this absence of external\nand internal evidence, this Revelation stands upon the sure basis of the\ninspiration of a Church, which has so little ground in history for any\nclaim to infallibility. The unsupported testimony of a Church which in\nevery age has vehemently maintained errors and denounced truths which\nare now universally recognized is no\n\n{xcvi}\n\nsufficient guarantee of Divine Revelation. Obviously, there is no ground\nfor accepting from a fallible Church and fallacious tradition doctrines\nwhich, avowedly, are beyond the criterion of reason, and therefore\nrequire miraculous evidence.\n\nWith belief based upon such uncertain grounds, and with such vital\ndifference of views regarding evidence, it is not surprising that\necclesiastical Christianity has felt its own weakness, and entrenched\nitself against the assaults of investigation. It is not strange that\nintellectual vigour in any direction should, almost unconsciously, have\nbeen regarded as dangerous to the repose and authority of the Church,\nand that, instead of being welcomed as a virtue, religious inquiry\nhas almost been repelled as a crime. Such inquiry, however, cannot be\nsuppressed. Mere scientific questions may be regarded with apathy by\nthose who do not feel their personal bearing. It may possibly seem\nto some a matter of little practical importance to them to determine\nwhether the earth revolves round the sun, or the sun round the earth;\nbut no earnest mind can fail to perceive the immense personal importance\nof Truth in regard to Religion--the necessity of investigating, before\naccepting, dogmas, the right interpretation of which is represented as\nnecessary to salvation,--and the clear duty, before abandoning reason\nfor faith, to exercise reason, in order that faith may not be mere\ncredulity. As Bacon remarked, the injunction: \"Hold fast that which is\ngood,\" must always be preceded by the maxim: \"Prove all things.\" Even\nArchbishop Trench has said: \"Credulity is as real, if not so great, a\nsin as unbelief,\" applying the observation to the duty of demanding a\n\"sign\" from any one professing to be the utterer of a revelation: \"Else\nmight he lightly\n\n{xcvii}\n\nbe persuaded to receive that as from God, which, indeed, was only the\nword of man.\"(1) The acceptance of any revelation or dogma, however\napparently true in itself, without \"sign\"--without evidence satisfying\nthe reason, is absolute credulity. Even the most thorough advocate of\nFaith must recognise that reason must be its basis, and that faith can\nonly legitimately commence where reason fails. The appeal is first to\nreason if afterwards to faith, and no man pretending to intellectual\nconscience can overlook the primary claim of reason. If it is to be\nmore than a mere question of priority of presentation whether we are\nto accept Buddhism, Christianity, or Mahometanism, we must strictly and\nfearlessly examine the evidence upon which they profess to stand. The\nneglect of examination can never advance truth, as the severest scrutiny\ncan never retard it, but belief without discrimination can only foster\nignorance and superstition.\n\nIt was in this conviction that the following inquiry into the reality\nof Divine Revelation was originally undertaken, and that others should\nenter upon it. An able writer, who will not be suspected of exaggeration\non this subject, has said: \"The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their\nbelief rather to the outward influence of custom and education, than to\nany strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many\nif they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would\nnot find their belief so easy, and so matter-of-course a thing as they\nappear to find it.\"(2) To no earnest mind can such inquiry be otherwise\nthan a serious and often a\n\n{xcviii}\n\npainful task, but, dismissing preconceived ideas and preferences derived\nfrom habit and education, and seeking only the Truth, holding it,\nwhatever it may be, to be the only object worthy of desire, or capable\nof satisfying a rational mind, the quest cannot but end in peace and\nsatisfaction. In such an investigation, however, to quote words of\nArchbishop Whately: \"It makes all the difference in the world whether\nwe place Truth in the first place or in the second place.\"--for if Truth\nacquired do not compensate for every pet illusion dispelled, the path is\nthorny indeed, although it must still be faithfully trodden.\n\n\n\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. MIRACLES IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY\n\nAt the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true character\nof Christianity we are brought face to face with the Supernatural.\nChristianity professes to be a Divine Revelation of truths which the\nhuman intellect could not otherwise have discovered. It is not a form of\nreligion developed by the wisdom of man and appealing to his reason,\nbut a system miraculously communicated to the human race, the central\ndoctrines of which are either superhuman or untenable. If the truths\nsaid to be revealed were either of an ordinary character or naturally\nattainable they would at once discredit the claim to a Divine origin.\nNo one could maintain that a system discoverable by Reason would be\nsupernaturally communicated. The whole argument for Christianity turns\nupon the necessity of such a Revelation and the consequent probability\nthat it would be made.\n\n{2}\n\nThere is nothing singular, it may be remarked, in the claim of\nChristianity to be a direct Revelation from God. With the exception\nof the religions of Greece and Rome, which, however, also had their\nsubsidiary supposition of divine inspiration, there has scarcely been\nany system of Religion which has not been proclaimed to the world as\na direct divine communication. Long before Christianity claimed this\ncharacter, the religions of India had anticipated the idea. To quote the\nwords of an accomplished scholar:--\"According to the orthodox views of\nIndian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human\nauthors. The whole Veda is in some way or other the work of the Deity;\nand even those who received it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals,\nbut beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable,\ntherefore, to error in the reception of revealed truth.\"(1) The same\norigin is claimed for the religion of Zoroaster, whose doctrines, beyond\ndoubt, exercised great influence at least upon later Jewish theology,\nand whose Magian followers are appropriately introduced beside the\ncradle of Jesus, as the first to do honour to the birth of Christianity.\nIn the same way Mahomet announced his religion as directly communicated\nfrom heaven.\n\nChristianity, however, as a religion professing to be divinely revealed,\nis not only supernatural in origin and doctrine, but its claim to\nacceptance is necessarily based upon supernatural evidence; for it is\nobvious that truths which require to be miraculously communicated do\nnot come within the range of our intellect, and cannot, therefore, be\nintelligently received upon internal testimony. \"And, certainly,\" says\na recent able Bampton Lecturer, \"if it was the will of God to give a\nrevelation, there are\n\n{3}\n\nplain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary as\nthe guarantee and voucher for that revelation. A revelation is, properly\nspeaking, such only by virtue of telling us something which we could not\nknow without it. But how do we know that that communication of what\nis undiscoverable by human reason is true? Our reason cannot prove the\ntruth of it, for it is by the very supposition beyond our reason. There\nmust be, then, some note or sign to certify to it and distinguish it\nas a true communication from God, which note can be nothing else than a\nmiracle.\"(1) In another place the same Lecturer stigmatizes the belief\nof the Mahometan \"as in its very principle irrational,\" because he\naccepts the account which Mahomet gave of himself, without supernatural\nevidence.(2) The belief of the Christian is contrasted with it as\nrational, \"because the Christian believes in a supernatural\ndispensation upon the proper evidence of such a dispensation, viz., the\nmiraculous.\"(3) Mahomet is reproached with having \"an utterly barbarous\nidea of evidence, and a total miscalculation of the claims of reason,\"\nbecause he did not consider miraculous evidence necessary to attest a\nsupernatural dispensation;\" whereas the Gospel is adapted to perpetuity\nfor this cause especially, with others, that it was founded upon a true\ncalculation, and a foresight of the permanent need of evidence; our Lord\nadmitting the inadequacy of His own mere word, and the necessity of\na rational guarantee to His revelation of His own nature and\ncommission.\"(4)\n\n{4}\n\nThe spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence, indeed, has always\nbeen advanced as a special characteristic of Christianity, logically\nentitling it to acceptance in contradistinction to all other religions.\n\"It is an acknowledged historical fact,\" says Bishop Butler, \"that\nChristianity offered itself to the world, and demanded to be received,\nupon the allegation, i. e,, as unbelievers would speak, upon the\npretence, of miracles, publicly wrought to attest the truth of it in\nsuch an age;... and Christianity, including the dispensation of the Old\nTestament, seems distinguished by this from all other religions.\"(1)\n\nMost of the great English divines have clearly recognized and asserted\nthe necessity of supernatural evidence to establish the reality of\na supernatural revelation. Bishop Butler affirms miracles and the\ncompletion of prophecy to be the \"direct and fundamental proofs\" of\nChristianity.(2) Elsewhere he says: \"The notion of a miracle, considered\nas a proof of a divine mission, has been stated with great exactness by\ndivines, and is, I think, sufficiently understood by every one. There\nare also invisible miracles, the Incarnation of Christ, for instance,\nwhich, being secret, cannot be alleged as a proof of such a mission; but\nrequire themselves to be proved by visible miracles. Revelation itself,\ntoo, is miraculous; and miracles are the proof of it.\"(3) Paley states\nthe case with equal clearness: \"In what way can a revelation be made but\nby miracles? In none which we are able to conceive.\"(4) His argument in\nfact is founded upon the principle that: \"nothing but miracles\n\n{5}\n\ncould decide the authority\" of Christianity.(1) In another work he\nasserts that no man can prove a future retribution, but the teacher\n\"who testifies by miracles that his doctrine comes from God.\"(2) Bishop\nAtterbury, again, referring to the principal doctrines of ecclesiastical\nChristianity, says: \"It is this kind of Truth that God is properly said\nto reveal; Truths, of which, unless revealed, we should have always\ncontinued ignorant; and 'tis in order only to prove these Truths to have\nbeen really revealed, that we affirm Miracles to be Necessary.\"(3)\n\nDr. Heurtley, the Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of\nOxford, after pointing out that the doctrines taught as the Christian\nRevelation are such as could not by any possibility have been attained\nby the unassisted human reason, and that, consequently, it is reasonable\nthat they should be attested by miracles, continues: \"Indeed, it seems\ninconceivable how without miracles--including prophecy in the notion\nof a miracle--it could sufficiently have commended itself to men's\nbelief? Who would believe, or would be justified in believing, the\ngreat facts which constitute its substance on the _ipse dixit_ of an\nunaccredited teacher? and how, except by miracles, could the first\nteacher be accredited? Paley, then, was fully warranted in the\nassertion.... that 'we cannot conceive a revelation'--such a revelation\nof course as Christianity professes to be, a revelation of truths which\ntranscend man's ability to discover,--' to be\n\n{6}\n\nsubstantiated without miracles.' Other credentials, it is true, might\nbe exhibited _in addition_ to miracles,--and such it would be natural\nto look for,--but it seems impossible that miracles could be dispensed\nwith.\"(1) Dr. Mansel, the late Dean of St. Paul's, bears similar\ntestimony: \"A teacher who proclaims himself to be specially sent by God,\nand whose teaching is to be received on the authority of that mission,\nmust, from the nature of the case, establish his claim by proofs\nof another kind than those which merely evince his human wisdom or\ngoodness. A superhuman authority needs to be substantiated by superhuman\nevidence; and what is superhuman is miraculous.\"(2)\n\nDr. J. H. Newman, in discussing the idea and scope of miracles, says: \"A\nRevelation, that is, a direct message from God to man, itself bears in\nsome degree a miraculous character;... And as a Revelation itself, so\nagain the evidences of a Revelation may all more or less be considered\nmiraculous.... It might even be said that, strictly speaking, no\nevidence of a Revelation is conceivable which does not partake of the\ncharacter of a Miracle; since nothing but a display of power over the\nexisting system of things can attest the immediate presence of Him by\nwhom it was originally established.\"(3)\n\nDr. Mozley has stated in still stronger terms the necessity that\nChristianity should be authenticated by the evidence of miracles. He\nsupposes the case that a person of evident integrity and loftiness of\ncharacter had appeared, eighteen centuries ago, announcing himself as\npre-existent from all eternity, the Son of God, Maker\n\n{7}\n\nof the world, who had come down from heaven and assumed the form and\nnature of man in order to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins\nof the world, and so on, enumerating other doctrines of Christianity.\nDr. Mozley then asks: \"What would be the inevitable conclusion of sober\nreason respecting that person? The necessary conclusion of sober\nreason respecting that person would be that he was disordered in his\nunderstanding... By no rational being could a just and benevolent life\nbe accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements. Miracles are the\nnecessary complement, then, of the truth of such announcements, which,\nwithout them, are purposeless and abortive, the unfinished fragments of\na design which is nothing unless it is the whole. They are necessary to\nthe justification of such announcements, which indeed, unless they\nare supernatural truths, are the wildest delusions.\"(1) He, therefore,\nconcludes that: \"Christianity cannot be maintained as a revelation\nundiscoverable by human reason, a revelation of a supernatural scheme\nfor man's salvation, without the evidence of miracles.\"(2)\n\nIn all points, Christianity is emphatically a Supernatural Religion\nclaiming to be divine in its origin, superhuman in its essence and\nmiraculous in its evidence. It cannot be accepted without an absolute\nbelief in Miracles, and those who profess to hold the religion whilst\nthey discredit its supernatural elements--and they are many at the\npresent day--have widely seceded from ecclesiastical Christianity.\nMiracles, it is true, are external to Christianity in so far as they\nare evidential, but inasmuch as it is admitted that miracles alone can\nattest the reality of Divine Revelation they are still inseparable\n\n{8}\n\nfrom it; and as the contents of the Revelation are so to say more\nmiraculous than its attesting miracles, the supernatural enters into the\nvery substance of Christianity and cannot be eliminated. It is obvious,\ntherefore, that the reality of miracles is the vital point in the\ninvestigation which we have undertaken. If the reality of miracles\ncannot be established, Christianity loses the only evidence by which\nits truth can be sufficiently attested. If miracles be incredible the\nsupernatural Revelation and its miraculous evidence must together be\nrejected.\n\nThis fact is thoroughly recognized by the ablest Christian divines. Dean\nMansel, speaking of the position of miracles in regard to Christianity,\nsays: \"The question, however, assumes a very different character when it\nrelates, not to the comparative importance of miracles as evidences, but\nto their reality as facts, and as facts of a supernatural kind. For if\nthis is denied, the denial does not merely remove one of the supports of\na faith which may yet rest securely on other grounds. On the contrary,\nthe whole system of Christian belief with its evidences... all\nChristianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far\nas it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of Christ,\nis overthrown at the same time.\"(1) A little further on he says: \"If\nthere be one fact recorded in Scripture which is entitled, in the\nfullest sense of the word, to the name of a Miracle, the Resurrection of\nChrist is that fact. Here, at least, is an instance in which the\nentire Christian faith must stand or fall with our belief in the\nsupernatural.\"(2) He, therefore, properly repudiates the view, \"which\nrepresents the question of the possibility\n\n{9}\n\nof miracles as one which merely affects the _external accessories_\nof Christianity, leaving the _essential doctrines_ untouched.\"(1) Dr.\nMozley in a similar manner argues the inseparable union of miracles\nwith the Christian faith. \"Indeed not only are miracles _conjoined_ with\ndoctrine in Christianity, but miracles are inserted _in_ the doctrine\nand are part of its contents. A man cannot state his belief as a\nChristian in the terms of the Apostles' Creed without asserting them.\nCan the doctrine of our Lord's Incarnation be disjoined from one\nphysical miracle? Can the doctrine of His justification of us and\nintercession for us, be disjoined from another?... If a miracle is\nincorporated as an article in a creed, that article of the creed, the\nmiracle, and the proof of it by a miracle, are all one thing. The great\nmiracles, therefore, upon the evidence of which the Christian scheme\nrested, being thus inserted in the Christian Creed, the belief in the\nCreed was of itself the belief in the miraculous evidence of it.... Thus\nmiracles and the supernatural contents of Christianity must stand or\nfall together.\"(2) Dr. Heurtley, referring to the discussion of the\nreality of miracles, exclaims: \"It is not too much to say, therefore,\nthat the question is vital as regards Christianity.\"(3) Canon Westcott\nnot less emphatically makes the same statement. \"It is evident,\" he\nsays, \"that if the claim to be a miraculous religion is essentially\nincredible apostolic Christianity is simply false.... The essence of\nChristianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is\neither impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of\nits history is superfluous\n\n{10}\n\nin a religious point of view.\"(1) Similarly, a recent Hulsean lecturer,\nDr. Farrar, has said: \"However skilfully the modern ingenuity of\nsemi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is\nclear to every honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be\nincredible, Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles,\nthen the Gospels are untrustworthy;... If the Resurrection be merely\na spiritual idea, or a mythicized hallucination, then our religion has\nbeen founded on an error....\" (2)\n\nIt has been necessary clearly to point out this indissoluble connection\nbetween ecclesiastical Christianity and the supernatural, in order\nthat the paramount importance of the question as to the credibility of\nmiracles should be duly appreciated. Our inquiry into the reality\nof Divine Revelation, then, whether we consider its contents or its\nevidence, practically reduces itself to the very simple issue: Are\nmiracles antecedently credible? Did they ever really take place? We do\nnot intend to confine ourselves merely to a discussion of the abstract\nquestion, but shall also endeavour to form a correct estimate of the\nvalue of the specific allegations which are advanced.\n\n2.\n\nHaving then ascertained that miracles are absolutely necessary to attest\nthe reality of Divine Revelation we may proceed to examine them\nmore closely, and for the present we shall confine ourselves to the\nrepresentations of these phenomena which are given in the Bible.\nThroughout the Old Testament the doctrine is inculcated\n\n{11}\n\nthat supernatural communications must have supernatural attestation. God\nis described as arming his servants with power to perform wonders, in\norder that they may thus be accredited as his special messengers.\nThe Patriarchs and the people of Israel generally are represented as\ndemanding \"a sign\" of the reality of communications said to come from\nGod, without which, we are led to suppose, they not only would not\nhave believed, but would have been justified in disbelieving, that the\nmessage actually came from him. Thus Gideon(1) asks for a sign that\nthe Lord talked with him, and Hezekiah(2) demands proof of the truth of\nIsaiah's prophecy that he should be restored to health. It is, however,\nunnecessary to refer to instances, for it may be affirmed that upon all\noccasions miraculous evidence of an alleged divine mission is stated to\nhave been required and accorded.\n\nThe startling information is at the same time given, however, that\nmiracles may be wrought to attest what is false as well as to accredit\nwhat is true. In one place,(3) it is declared that if a prophet actually\ngives a sign or wonder and it comes to pass, but teaches the people,\non the strength of it, to follow other gods, they are not to hearken\nto him, and the prophet is to be put to death. The false miracle is,\nhere,(4) attributed to God himself: \"For the Lord your God proveth you,\nto know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with\nall your soul.\" In the book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the case is stated\nin a still stronger way, and God is represented as directly deceiving\nthe prophet: \"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a\nthing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will\n\n{12}\n\nstretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my\npeople Israel.\"(1) God, in fact, is represented as exerting his almighty\npower to deceive a man and then as destroying him for being deceived. In\nthe same spirit is the passage(2) in which Micaiah describes the Lord as\nputting a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets who incited Ahab\nto go to Ramoth-Gilead. Elsewhere,(3) and notably in the New Testament,\nwe find an ascription of real signs and wonders to another power than\nGod. Jesus himself is represented as warning his disciples against false\nprophets, who work signs and wonders: \"Many will say to me in that day,\nLord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out\ndevils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?\" of whom he should\nsay: \"I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.\"(4) And\nagain in another place: \"For false prophets shall arise, and shall\nwork signs and wonders [--Greek--] to seduce, if it were possible, the\nelect.\"(5) Also, when the Pharisees accuse him of casting out devils\nby Beelzebub the prince of the devils, Jesus asks: \"By whom do your\nchildren cast them out?\"(6) a reply which would lose all its point if\nthey were not admitted to be able to cast out devils. In another passage\nJohn is described as saying: \"Master, we saw one casting out devils\nin thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbad him.\"(7) Without\nmultiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of the fact\n\n{13}\n\nthat the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is admitted in the\nBible.\n\nThe obvious deduction from this representation of miracles is that\nthe source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena must always\nbe exceedingly uncertain.(1) Their evidential value is, therefore,\nprofoundly affected, \"it being,\" as Dr. Newman has said of ambiguous\nmiracles, \"antecedently improbable that the Almighty should rest the\ncredit of His Revelation upon events which but obscurely implied His\nimmediate presence.\"(2) As it is affirmed that other supernatural beings\nexist, as well as an assumed Personal God, by whose agency miracles are\nperformed, it is impossible to argue with reason that such phenomena are\nat any time specially due to the intervention of the Deity. Dr. Newman\nrecognizes this, but passes over the difficulty with masterly lightness\nof touch. After advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of\nspirits is only derived from Scripture, and that their existence cannot\nbe deduced from nature, whilst he asserts that the being of a God--a\nPersonal God be it remembered--can be so discovered, and that,\ntherefore, miracles can only properly be attributed to him, he proceeds:\n\"Still it may be necessary to show that on our own principles we are\nnot open to inconsistency. That is, it has been questioned whether,\nin admitting the existence and power of Spirits on the authority of\nRevelation, we are not in danger of\n\n{14}\n\ninvalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests. For the\ncogency of the argument for Miracles depends on the assumption, that\ninterruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from God;\nwhich is not true, if they may be effected by other beings without His\nsanction. And it must be conceded, that, explicit as Scripture is in\nconsidering Miracles as signs of divine agency, it still does seem to\ngive created Spirits some power of working them; and even, in its\nmost literal sense, intimates the possibility of their working them in\nopposition to the true doctrine. (Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2\nThess. ii. 9-ll.)\"(1) Dr. Newman repudiates the attempts of various\nwriters to overcome this difficulty by making a distinction between\ngreat miracles and small, many miracles and few, or by referring to the\nnature of the doctrine attested in order to determine the author of the\nmiracle, or by denying the power of spirits altogether, and explaining\naway Scripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative\nof the Lord's Temptation. \"Without having recourse to any of these\ndangerous modes of answering the objection,\" he says, \"it may be\nsufficient to reply, that, since, agreeably to the antecedent sentiment\nof reason, God has adopted miracles as the seal of a divine message, we\nbelieve He will never suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive\nthe humble inquirer.\"(2) This is the only reply which even so powerful\na reasoner as Dr. Newman can give to an objection based on distinct\nstatements of Scripture itself. He cannot deny the validity of the\nobjection, he can only hope or believe in spite of it Personal belief\nindependent of evidence is the most common and the weakest of arguments;\nat the\n\n{15}\n\nbest it is prejudice masked in the garb of Reason. It is perfectly clear\nthat miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to God and to\nother spirits they cannot be considered a distinctive attestation of\ndivine intervention; and, as Spinoza finely argued, not even the mere\nexistence of God can be inferred from them; for as a miracle is a\nlimited act, and never expresses more than a certain and limited power,\nit is certain that we cannot from such an effect, conclude even the\nexistence of a cause whose power is infinite.(1)\n\nThis dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in defining the\nevidential function and force of miracles, and we may best appreciate\nthe dilemma which is involved by continuing to follow the statements and\narguments of divines themselves. To the question whether miracles are\nabsolutely to command the obedience of those in whose sight they\nare performed, and whether, upon their attestation, the doer and his\ndoctrine are to be accepted as of God, Archbishop Trench unhesitatingly\nreplies: \"It cannot be so, for side by side with the miracles which\nserve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of\nwonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most\nHigh.\"(2) The deduction is absolutely logical and cannot be denied.\n\"This fact,\" he says, \"that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less\nthan the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles\ncannot be appealed\n\n{16}\n\nto absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of\nthem proclaims.\" This being the case, it is important to discover how\nmiracles perform their function as the indispensable evidence for a\nDivine Revelation, for with this disability they do not seem to possess\nmuch potentiality. Archbishop Trench, then, offers the following\ndefinition of the function of miracles: \"A miracle does not prove the\ntruth of a doctrine, or the divine mission of him that brings it to\npass. That which alone it claims for him at the first is a right to be\nlistened to: it puts him in the alternative of being from heaven or from\nhell. The doctrine must first commend itself to the conscience as being\n_good_, and only then can the miracle seal it as _divine_. But the first\nappeal is from the doctrine to the conscience, to the moral nature of\nman.\"(1) Under certain circumstances, he maintains, their evidence\nis utterly to be rejected. \"But the purpose of the miracle,\" he says,\n\"being, as we have seen, to confirm that which is good, so, upon the\nother hand, where the mind and conscience witness against the doctrine,\nnot all the miracles in the world have a right to demand submission to\nthe word which they seal. On the contrary, the great act of faith\n\n{17}\n\nis to believe, against, and in despite of them all, in what God has\nrevealed to, and implanted in the soul of the holy and the true; not to\nbelieve another Gospel, though an Angel from heaven, or one transformed\ninto such, should bring it (Deut. xiii. 3; Gal. i. 8); and instead of\ncompelling assent, miracles are then rather warnings to us that we keep\naloof, for they tell us that not merely lies are here, for to that the\nconscience bore witness already, but that he who utters them is more\nthan a common deceiver, is eminently 'a liar and an Anti-christ,'\na false prophet, --standing in more immediate connection than other\ndeceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness, so that Satan has\ngiven him his power (Rev. xiii. 2), is using him to be an especial\norgan of his, and to do a special work for him.\"(1) And he lays down the\ndistinct principle that: \"The miracle must witness for itself, and the\ndoctrine must witness for itself, and then, and then only, the first is\ncapable of witnessing for the second.\"(2)\n\nThese opinions are not peculiar to the Archbishop of Dublin, but are\ngenerally held by divines, although Dr. Trench expresses them with\nunusual absence of reserve. Dr. Mozley emphatically affirms the same\ndoctrine when he says: \"A miracle cannot oblige us to accept any\ndoctrine which is contrary to our moral nature, or to a fundamental\nprinciple of religion.\"(3) Dr. Mansel speaks to the same effect: \"If a\nteacher claiming to work miracles proclaims doctrines contradictory to\npreviously established truths, whether to the conclusions of natural\nreligion or to the teaching of a former revelation, such a contradiction\nis allowed even by the most zealous defenders of the evidential value of\nmiracles, to\n\n{18}\n\ninvalidate the authority of the teacher. But the right conclusion from\nthis admission is not that true miracles are invalid as evidences, but\nthat the supposed miracles in this case are not true miracles at all;\ni. e., are not the effects of Divine power, but of human deception or\nof some other agency.\"(1) A passage from a letter written by Dr. Arnold\nwhich is quoted by Dr. Trench in support of his views, both illustrates\nthe doctrine and the necessity which has led to its adoption: \"You\ncomplain,\" says Dr. Arnold, writing to Dr. Hawkins, \"of those persons\nwho judge of a revelation not by its evidence, but by its substance. It\nhas always seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of\nits evidence; and that miracles wrought in favour of what was foolish or\nwicked would only prove Manicheism. We are so perfectly ignorant of the\nunseen world, that the character of any supernatural power can only be\njudged by the moral character of the statements which it sanctions.\nThus only can we tell whether it be a revelation from God or from the\nDevil.\"(2) In another place Dr. Arnold declares: \"Miracles must not be\nallowed to overrule the Gospel; for it is only through our belief in the\nGospel that we accord our belief to them.\"(3)\n\n{19}\n\nIt is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus established\nbetween miracles and the doctrines in connection with which they are\nwrought destroys the evidential force of miracles, and that the first\nand the final appeal is made to reason. The doctrine in fact proves the\nmiracle instead of the miracle attesting the doctrine. Divines of course\nattempt to deny this, but no other deduction from their own statements\nis logically possible. Miracles, according to Scripture itself, are\nproducible by various supernatural beings and may be Satanic as well as\nDivine; man, on the other hand, is so ignorant of the unseen world that\navowedly he cannot, from the miracle itself, determine the agent by whom\nit was performed;(l) the miracle, therefore, has no intrinsic evidential\nvalue. How, then, according to divines, does it attain any potentiality?\nOnly through a favourable decision on the part of Reason or the \"moral\nnature in man\" regarding the\n\n{20}\n\ncharacter of the doctrine. The result of the appeal to Reason respecting\nthe morality and credibility of the doctrine determines the evidential\nstatus of the miracle. The doctrine, therefore, is the real criterion\nof the miracle which, without it, is necessarily an object of doubt and\nsuspicion.\n\nWe have already casually referred to Dr. Newman's view of such a\nrelation between Miracle and doctrine, but may here more fully quote his\nsuggestive remarks. \"Others by referring to the nature of the doctrine\nattested,\" he says, \"in order to determine the author of the miracle,\nhave exposed themselves to the plausible charge of adducing, first the\nmiracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine, and then the doctrine to\nprove the divinity of the Miracle.\"(1) This argument he characterizes as\none of the \"dangerous modes\" of removing a difficulty, although he does\nnot himself point out a safer, and, in a note, he adds: \"There is an\nappearance of doing honour to the Christian doctrines in representing\nthem as _intrinsically_ credible, which leads many into supporting\nopinions which, carried to their full extent, supersede the need of\nMiracles altogether. It must be recollected, too, that they who are\nallowed to praise have the privilege of finding fault, and may reject,\naccording to their _a priori_ notions, as well as receive. Doubtless\nthe divinity of a clearly immoral doctrine could not be evidenced by\nMiracles; for our belief in the moral attributes of God is much stronger\nthan our conviction of the negative proposition, that none but He can\ninterfere with the system of nature.(3) But there is always\n\n{21}\n\nthe danger of extending this admission beyond its proper limits, of\nsupposing ourselves adequate judges of the _tendency_ of doctrines; and,\nbecause unassisted Reason informs us what is moral and immoral in\nour own case, of attempting to decide on the abstract morality of\nactions;... These remarks are in nowise inconsistent with using (as\nwas done in a former section) our actual knowledge of God's attributes,\nobtained from a survey of nature and human affairs, in determining the\nprobability of certain professed Miracles having proceeded from Him. It\nis one thing to infer from the experience of life, another to imagine\nthe character of God from the gratuitous conceptions of our own\nminds.\"(1) Although Dr. Newman apparently fails to perceive that he\nhimself thus makes reason the criterion of miracles and therefore incurs\nthe condemnation with which our quotation opens, the very indecision of\nhis argument illustrates the dilemma in which divines are placed. Dr.\nMozley, however, still more directly condemns the principle which we\nare discussing--that the doctrine must be the criterion of the\nmiracle--although he also, as we have purposes for which it never was\nintended, and is unfitted. To rationalise in matters of Revelation is to\nmake our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed;\nto stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them\ntheir own justification; to reject them, if they come in collision with\nour existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty\nharmonised with our existing stock of knowledge\" (Essays, Crit. and\nHist., 1872, vol. i. p. 31); and a little further on: \"A like desire of\njudging for one's self is discernible in the original fall of man. Eve\ndid not believe the Tempter any more than God's word, till she perceived\n\"the fruit was good for food '\" (76., p. 33). Dr. Newman, of course,\nwishes to limit his principle precisely to suit his own convenience,\nbut in permitting the rejection of a supposed Revelation in spite\nof miracles, on the ground of our disapproval of its morality, it is\nobvious that the doctrine is substantially made the final criterion of\nthe miracle.\n\n{22}\n\nseen, elsewhere substantially affirms it. He says: \"The position that\nthe revelation proves the miracles, and not the miracles the revelation,\nadmits of a good qualified meaning; but taken literally, it is a double\noffence against the rule, that things are properly proved by the proper\nproof of them; for a supernatural fact _is_ the proper proof of a\nsupernatural doctrine; while a supernatural doctrine, on the other hand,\nis certainly _not_ the proper proof of a supernatural fact\"(1)\n\nThis statement is obviously true, but it is equally undeniable that,\ntheir origin being uncertain, miracles have no distinctive evidential\nforce. How far, then, we may inquire in order thoroughly to understand\nthe position, can doctrines prove the reality of miracles or determine\nthe agency by which they are performed? In the case of moral truths\nwithin the limits of reason, it is evident that doctrines which are\nin accordance with our ideas of what is good and right do not require\nmiraculous evidence at all. They can secure acceptance by their own\nmerits alone. At the same time it is universally admitted that the\ntruth or goodness of a doctrine is in itself no proof that it emanates\ndirectly from God, and consequently the most obvious wisdom and beauty\nin the doctrine could not attest the divine origin of a miracle. Such\ntruths, however, have no proper connection with revelation at all.\n\"_These_ truths,\" to quote the words of Bishop Atterbury, \"were of\nthemselves sufficiently obvious and plain, and needed not a Divine\nTestimony to make them plainer. But the Truths which are necessary in\nthis Manner to be attested, are those which are of Positive Institution;\nthose, which if God had not pleased to reveal them, Human Reason could\nnot\n\n{23}\n\nhave discovered; and those, which, even now they are revealed, Human\nReason cannot fully account for, and perfectly comprehend.\"(1) How is\nit possible then that Reason or \"the moral nature in man\" can approve as\ngood, or appreciate the fitness of, doctrines which in their very nature\nare beyond the criterion of reason?(2) What reply, for instance, can\nreason give to any appeal to it regarding the doctrine of the Trinity\nor of the Incarnation? If doctrines the truth and goodness of which\nare apparent do not afford any evidence of Divine Revelation, how can\ndoctrines which Reason can neither discover nor comprehend attest the\nDivine origin of miracles? Dr. Mozley clearly recognizes that they\ncannot do so. \"The proof of a revelation,\" he says, and we may add, \"the\nproof of a miracle--itself a species of revelation--which is contained\nin the substance of a revelation has this inherent check or limit in it:\nviz. that it cannot reach to what is undiscoverable by reason. Internal\nevidence is itself an appeal to reason, because at every step the test\nis our own appreciation of such and such an idea or doctrine, our own\nperception of its fitness; but human reason cannot in the nature of\nthe case prove that which, by the very hypothesis, lies beyond human\nreason.\"(3) It naturally follows that no doctrine which lies beyond\nreason, and therefore requires the attestation of miracles, can possibly\nafford that indication of the source and reality of miracles which is\nnecessary to endow them with evidential value, and the supernatural\ndoctrine must, therefore, be rejected in the absence of miraculous\nevidence of a decisive character.\n\n{24}\n\nCanon Mozley labours earnestly, but unsuccessfully, to restore to\nMiracles as evidence some part of that potentiality of which these\nunfortunate limitations have deprived them. Whilst on the one hand he\nsays: \"We must admit, indeed, an inherent modification in the function\nof a miracle as an instrument of proof,\"(1) he argues that this is only\na limitation, and no disproof of it, and he contends that: \"The\nevidence of miracles is not negatived because it has conditions.\"(2)\nHis reasoning, however, is purely apologetic, and attempts by the unreal\nanalogy of supposed limitations of natural principles and evidence to\nexcuse the disqualifying limitation of the supernatural. He is quite\nconscious of the serious difficulty of the position: \"The question,\" he\nsays, \"may at first sight create a dilemma--If a miracle is nugatory on\nthe side of one doctrine, what cogency has it on the side of another? Is\nit legitimate to accept its evidence when we please, and reject it when\nwe please?\" The only reply he seems able to give to these very pertinent\nquestions is the remark which immediately follows them: \"But in truth a\nmiracle is never without an argumentative force, although that force may\nbe counterbalanced.\"(3) In other words a miracle is always an argument\nalthough it is often a bad one. It is scarcely necessary to go to the\nsupernatural for bad arguments.\n\nIt might naturally be expected that the miraculous evidence selected to\naccredit a Divine Revelation should possess certain unique and marked\ncharacteristics. It must, at least, be clearly distinctive of Divine\npower, and exclusively associated with Divine truth. It is inconceivable\nthat the Deity, deigning thus to attest\n\n{25}\n\nthe reality of a communication from himself of truths beyond the\ncriterion of reason, should not make the evidence simple and complete,\nbecause, the doctrines proper to such a revelation not being appreciable\nfrom internal evidence, it is obvious that the external testimony for\nthem--if it is to be of any use--must be unmistakable and decisive. The\nevidence which is actually produced, however, so far from satisfying\nthese legitimate anticipations, lacks every one of the qualifications\nwhich reason antecedently declares to be necessary. Miracles are not\ndistinctive of Divine power but are common to Satan, and they are\nadmitted to be performed in support of falsehood as well as in the\nservice of truth. They bear, indeed, so little upon them the impress\nof their origin and true character, that they arc dependent for their\nrecognition upon our judgment of the very doctrines to attest which they\nare said to have been designed.\n\nEven taking the representation of miracles, therefore, which divines\nthemselves give, they are utterly incompetent to perform their\ncontemplated functions. If they are superhuman they are not\nsuper-satanic, and there is no sense in which they can be considered\nmiraculously evidential of anything. To argue, as theologians do, that\nthe ambiguity of their testimony is deliberately intended as a trial\nof our faith is absurd, for Reason being unable to judge of the nature\neither of supernatural fact or supernatural doctrine, it would be mere\nfolly and injustice to subject to such a test beings avowedly incapable\nof sustaining it. Whilst it is absolutely necessary, then, that a Divine\nRevelation should be attested by miraculous evidence to justify our\nbelieving it the testimony so called seems in all respects\n\n{26}\n\nunworthy of the name, and presents anomalies much more suggestive of\nhuman invention than Divine originality. We are, in fact, prepared even\nby the Scriptural account of miracles to expect that further examination\nwill supply an explanation of such phenomena which will wholly remove\nthem from the region of the supernatural.\n\n{27}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. MIRACLES IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE\n\nWithout at present touching the question as to their reality, it may be\nwell to ascertain what miracles are considered to be, and how far,\nand in what sense it is asserted that they are supernatural We have,\nhitherto, almost entirely confined our attention to the arguments of\nEnglish divines, and we must for the present continue chiefly to deal\nwith them, for it may broadly be said, that they alone, at the present\nday, maintain the reality and supernatural character of such phenomena.\nNo thoughtful mind can fail to see that, considering the function\nof miracles, this is the only logical and consistent course.(1)\nThe insuperable difficulties in the way of admitting the reality of\nmiracles, however, have driven the great majority of continental, as\nwell as very many English, theologians who still pretend to a certain\northodoxy, either to explain the miracles of the Gospel naturally, or\nto suppress them altogether. Since Schleiermacher denounced the idea\nof Divine interruptions of the order of nature, and explained away the\nsupernatural character\n\n{28}\n\nof miracles, by defining them as merely relative: miracles to us, but in\nreality mere anticipations of human knowledge and power, his example\nhas been more or less followed throughout Germany, and almost every\nexpedient has been adopted, by would-be orthodox writers, to reduce or\naltogether eliminate the miraculous elements. The attempts which have\nbeen made to do this, and yet to maintain the semblance of unshaken\nbelief in the main points of ecclesiastical Christianity, have\nlamentably failed, from the hopeless nature of the task and the\nfundamental error of the conception. The endeavour of Paulus and\nhis school to get rid of the supernatural by a bold naturalistic\ninterpretation of the language of the Gospel narratives, whilst the\ncredibility of the record was represented as intact, was too glaring\nan outrage upon common sense to be successful, but it was scarcely more\nillogical than subsequent efforts to suppress the miraculous, yet retain\nthe creed. The great majority of modern German critics, however, reject\nthe miraculous altogether, and consider the question as no longer worthy\nof discussion, and most of those who have not distinctly expressed this\nview either resort to every linguistic device to evade the difficulty,\nor betray, by their hesitation, the feebleness of their belief.(1) In\ndealing with the\n\n{29}\n\nquestion of miracles, therefore, it is not to Germany we must turn, but\nto England, where their reality is still maintained.\n\nArchbishop Trench rejects with disdain the attempts of Schleiermacher\nand others to get rid of the miraculous elements of miracles, by making\nthem relative, which he rightly considers to be merely \"a decently\nveiled denial of the miracle altogether;\"(1) and he will not accept\nany reconciliation which sacrifices the miracle, \"which,\" he logically\naffirms, \"is, in fact, no miracle, if it lay in nature already, if it\nwas only the evoking of forces latent therein, not a new thing, not the\nbringing in of the novel powers of a higher world; if the mysterious\nprocesses and powers by which those works were brought about had been\nonly undiscovered hitherto, and not undiscoverable, by the efforts of\nhuman inquiry.\"(2) When Dr. Trench tries to define what he considers the\nreal character of miracles, however, he becomes, as might be expected,\n\n{30}\n\nvoluminous and obscure. He says: \"An extraordinary Divine casualty, and\nnot that ordinary which we acknowledge everywhere, and in everything,\nbelongs, then, to the essence of the miracle; powers of God other than\nthose which have always been working; such, indeed, as most seldom or\nnever have been working before. The unresting activity of God, which at\nother times hides and conceals itself behind the veil of what we term\nnatural laws, does in the miracle unveil itself; it steps out from its\nconcealment, and the hand which works is laid bare. Beside and beyond\nthe ordinary operation of nature, higher powers (higher, not as coming\nfrom a higher source, but as bearing upon higher ends) intrude and make\nthemselves felt even at the very springs and sources of her power.\"(1)\n\"Not, as we shall see the greatest theologians have always earnestly\ncontended, _contra_ naturam, but _praeter_ naturam, and _supra_\nnaturam.\"(2) Further on he adds: \"_Beyond_ nature, _beyond_ and _above_\nthe nature which we know, they are, but not _contrary_ to it.\"(3) Dr.\nNewman, in a similar strain, though with greater directness, says: \"The\nmiracles of Scripture are undeniably beyond nature;\" and he explains\nthem as \"wrought by persons consciously exercising, under Divine\nguidance, a power committed to them for definite ends, professing to be\nimmediate messengers from heaven, and to be evidencing their mission by\ntheir miracles.\"(4)\n\nMiracles are here described as \"beside,\" and \"beyond,\" and \"above\"\nnature, but a moment's consideration must\n\n{31}\n\nshow that, in so far as these terms have any meaning at all, they are\nsimply evasions, not solutions, of a difficulty. Dr. Trench is quite\nsensible of the danger in which the definition of miracles places\nthem, and how fatal to his argument is would be to admit that they are\ncontrary to the order of nature. \"The miracle,\" he protests, \"is\nnot thus _unnatural_; nor could it be such, since the unnatural,\nthe contrary to order, is of itself the ungodly, and can in no way,\ntherefore, be affirmed of a Divine work, such as that with which we\nhave to do.\"(1) The archbishop in this; however, is clearly arguing from\nnature to miracles, and not from miracles to nature. He does not, of\ncourse, know what miracles really are, but as he recognizes that the\norder of nature must be maintained, he is forced to assert that miracles\nare not contrary to nature. He repudiates the idea of their being\nnatural phenomena; and yet attempts to deny that they are unnatural.\nThey must either be the one or the other. The archbishop, besides;\nforgets that he ascribes miracles to Satan as well as to God. Indeed,\nthat his distinction is purely imaginary, and inconsistent with the\nalleged facts of Scriptural miracles, is apparent from Dr. Trench's own\nillustrations; The whole argument is a mere quibble of words to evade\na palpable dilemma. Dr. Newman does not fall into this error, and more\nboldly faces the difficulty. He admits that the Scripture miracles\n\"innovate upon the impressions which are made upon us by the order and\nthe laws of the natural world;\"(2) and that \"walking on the sea, or the\nresurrection of the dead, is a plain reversal of its laws.\"(3)\n\n{32}\n\nTake, for instance, the multiplication of loaves and fishes. Five\nthousand people are fed upon five barley loaves and two small fishes:\n\"and they took up of the fragments which remained twelve baskets\nfull.\"(1) Dr. Trench is forced to renounce all help in explaining this\nmiracle from natural analogies, and he admits: \"We must simply behold\nin the multiplying of the bread\" (and fishes?)\" an act of Divine\nomnipotence on His part who was the Word of God,--not, indeed, now as\nat the first, of absolute creation out of nothing, since there was a\nsubstratum to work on in the original loaves and fishes, but an act of\ncreative accretion.\"(2) It will scarcely be argued by any one that\nsuch an \"act of Divine omnipotence\" and \"creative accretion\" as this\nmultiplication of five baked loaves and two small fishes is not contrary\nto the order of nature.(3) For Dr. Trench has himself pointed out that\nthere must be interposition of man's art here, and that \"a grain of\nwheat could never by itself, and according to the laws of natural\ndevelopment, issue in a loaf of bread.(4)\n\nUndaunted by, or rather unconscious of, such contradictions, the\narchbishop proceeds with his argument, and with new definitions of the\nmiraculous. So far from being disorder of nature, he continues with\naudacious precision: \"the true miracle is a higher and a purer\n\n{33}\n\nnature coming down out of the world of untroubled harmonies into this\nworld of ours, which so many discords have jarred and disturbed, and\nbringing this back again, though it be but for one mysterious prophetic\nmoment, into harmony with that higher.\"(1) In that \"higher and purer\nnature\" can a grain of wheat issue in a loaf of bread? We have only to\napply this theory to the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes\nto perceive how completely it is the creation of Dr. Trench's poetical\nfancy.\n\nThese passages fairly illustrate the purely imaginary and arbitrary\nnature of the definitions which those who maintain the reality and\nsupernatural character of miracles give of them. That explanation is\ngenerally adopted which seems most convenient at the moment, and none\never passes, or, indeed, ever can pass, beyond the limits of assumption.\nThe favourite hypothesis is that which ascribes miracles to the action\nof unknown law. Archbishop Trench naturally adopts it: \"We should see\nin the miracle,\" he says, \"not the infraction of a law, but the\nneutralizing of a lower law, the suspension of it for a time by a\nhigher;\" and he asks with indignation, whence we dare conclude that,\nbecause we know of no powers sufficient to produce miracles, none exist.\n\"They exceed the laws of _our_ nature; but it does not therefore follow\nthat they exceed the laws of _all_ nature.\"(2) It is not easy\n\n{34}\n\nto follow the distinction here between \"_our_ nature\" and \"_all\nnature_,\" since the order of nature, by which miracles are judged, is,\nso far as knowledge goes, universal, and we have no grounds for assuming\nthat there is any other.\n\nThe same hypothesis is elaborated by Dr. Mozley. Assuming the facts of\nmiracles, he proceeds to discuss the question of their \"referribleness\nto unknown law,\" in which expression he includes both \"_unknown law_, or\nunknown connexion with _known_ law.\"(1)\n\nTaking first the supposition of (unknown) connection with known law, Dr.\nMozley argues that, as a law of nature, in the scientific sense, cannot\npossibly produce single or isolated facts, it follows that no isolated\nor exceptional event can come under a law of nature _by direct\nobservation_, but, if it comes under it at all, it can only do so by\nsome _explanation_, which takes it out of its isolation and joins it to\na class of facts, whose recurrence indeed constitutes the law. Now Dr.\nMozley admits that no explanation can be given by which miracles can\nhave an unknown connexion with known law. Taking the largest class of\nmiracles, bodily cures, the correspondence between a simple command\nor prophetic notification and the cure is the chief characteristic of\nmiracles, and distinguishes them from mere marvels.\n\n{35}\n\nNo violation of any law of nature takes place in either the cure or the\nprophetic announcement taken separately, but the two, taken together,\nare the proof of superhuman agency. Dr. Mozley concludes that no\nphysical hypothesis can be framed accounting for the superhuman\nknowledge and power involved in this class of miracles, supposing the\nmiracles to stand as they are recorded in Scripture.(1)\n\nDr. Mozley then shifts the inquiry to the other and different question,\nwhether miracles may not be instances of laws which are as yet wholly\nunknown.(2) This is generally called a question of \"higher law,\" --that\nis to say, a law which comprehends under itself two or more lower or\nless wide laws. And the principle would be applicable to miracles by\nsupposing the existence of an unknown law, hereafter to be discovered,\nunder which miracles would come, and then considering whether this new\nlaw of miracles, and the old law of common facts, might not both be\nreducible to a still more general law which comprehended them both. Now\na law of nature, in the scientific sense, cannot exist without a class\nof facts which comes under it, and in reality constitutes the law; but\nDr. Mozley of course recognizes that the discovery of such a law of\nmiracles would necessarily involve the discovery of fresh miracles, for\nto talk of a law of miracles without miracles would be an absurdity.(3)\nThe supposition of the discovery of such a law of miracles, however,\nwould be tantamount to the supposition of a future new order of\nnature, from which it immediately follows that the whole supposition is\nirrelevant and futile as regards the present question.(4)\n\n{36}\n\nFor no new order of things could make the present order different, and\na miracle, could we suppose it becoming the ordinary fact of another\ndifferent order of nature, would not be less a violation of the laws of\nnature in the present one.(1) Dr. Mozley also rejects this explanation.\n\nWe pause here to remark that, throughout the whole inquiry into the\nquestion of miracles, we meet with nothing from theologians but mere\nassumptions, against which the invariability of the known order of\nnature steadily opposes itself. The facts of the narrative of the\nmiracle are first assumed, and so are the theories by which it is\nexplained. Now, with regard to every theory which seeks to explain\nmiracles by assumption, we may quote words applied by one of the ablest\ndefenders of miracles to some conclusion of straw, which he placed in\nthe mouth of an imaginary antagonist in order that he might refute it:\n\"But the question is,\" said the late Dean of St. Paul's, \"not whether\nsuch a conclusion has been asserted, as many other absurdities have\nbeen asserted, by the advocates of a theory, but whether it has been\nestablished on such scientific grounds as to be entitled to the assent\nof all duly cultivated minds, whatever their own consciences may say\nto the contrary.\"(2) Divines are very strict in demanding absolute\ndemonstrations from men of science and others, but we do not find\nthem at all ready to furnish conclusions of similar accuracy regarding\ndogmatic theology.\n\nImmediately after his indignant demand for scientific accuracy of\ndemonstration, Dr. Mansel proceeds to argue as follows: In the will of\nman we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause, in the highest\nsense of the\n\n{37}\n\nterm, acting among the physical causes of the material world, and\nproducing results which could not have been brought about by any mere\nsequence of physical causes. If a man of his own will throw a stone into\nthe air, its motion, as soon as it has left his hand, is determined by\na combination of purely material laws; but by what _law_ came it to be\nthrown at all? The law of gravitation, no doubt, remains constant and\nunbroken, whether the stone is lying on the ground, or moving through\nthe air, but all the laws of matter could not have brought about the\nparticular result without the interposition of the free will of the man\nwho throws the stone. Substitute the will of God for the will of man,\nand the argument becomes applicable to the whole extent of Creation and\nto all the phenomena which it embraces.(1)\n\nIt is evident that Dr. Mansel's argument merely tends to prove that\nevery effect must have a cause, a proposition too obvious to require any\nargument at all. If a man had not thrown the stone, the stone would have\nremained lying on the ground. No one doubts this. We have here, however,\nthis \"solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the physical\ncauses of the material world,\" producing results which are wholly\ndetermined by material laws,(2) and incapable of producing any opposed\nto them. If, therefore, we substitute, as Dr. Mansel desires, \"the will\nof God\" for \"the will of man,\" we arrive at no results which are not in\nharmony\n\n{38}\n\nwith the order of nature. We have no ground whatever for assuming any\nefficient cause acting in any other way than in accordance with the\nlaws of nature. It is, how-fever, one of the gross fallacies of this\nargument, as applied to miracles, to pass from the efficient cause\nproducing results which are strictly in accordance with natural laws,\nand determined by them, to an assumed efficient cause producing\neffects which are opposed to natural law. The restoration to life of a\ndecomposed human body and the miraculous multiplication of loaves and\nfishes are opposed to natural laws, and no assumed efficient cause\nconceivable to which they may be referred can harmonize them.\n\nDr. Mozley continues his argument in a similar way. He inquires: \"Is\nthe suspension of physical and material laws by a Spiritual Being\ninconceivable? We reply that, however inconceivable this kind of\nsuspension of physical law is, it is a fact. Physical laws are suspended\nany time an animate being moves any part of its body; the laws of matter\nare suspended by the laws of life.\"(l) He goes on to maintain that,\nalthough it is true that his spirit is united with the matter in which\nit moves in a way in which the Great Spirit who acts on matter in the\nmiracle is not, yet the action of God's Spirit in the miracle of walking\non the water is no more inconceivable than the action of his own spirit\nin holding up his own hand. \"Antecedently, one step on the ground and\nan ascent to heaven are alike incredible. But this appearance of\nincredibility is answered in one case literally _ambulando_. How can I\nplace any reliance upon it in the other?\"(2) From this illustration,\n\n{39}\n\nDr. Mozley, with a haste very unlike his previous careful procedure,\njumps at the following conclusions: \"The constitution of nature, then,\ndisproved the incredibility of the Divine suspension of physical law;\nbut more than this, it creates a presumption for it.\"(l) The laws\nof life of which we have experience, he argues, are themselves in an\nascending scale. First come the laws which regulate unorganized matter;\nnext the laws of vegetation; then the laws of animal life, with its\nvoluntary motion; and above these again, the laws of moral being. A\nsupposed intelligent being whose experience was limited to one or more\nclasses in this ascending scale of laws would be totally incapable of\nconceiving the action of the higher classes. The progressive succession\nof laws is perfectly conceivable backward, but an absolute mystery\nforward. \"Analogy,\" therefore, when in this ascending series we arrive\nat man, leads us to expect that there is a higher sphere of law as much\nabove _him_ as he is above the lower natures in the scale, and \"supplies\na presumption in favour of such a belief.\"(2) And so we arrive at the\nquestion whether there is or is not a God, a Personal Head in nature,\nwhose free will penetrates the universal frame invisibly to us, and is\nan omnipresent agent. If there be, Dr. Mozley concludes, then, every\nmiracle in Scripture is as natural an event in the universe as any\nchemical experiment in the physical world.(3)\n\nThis is precisely the argument of Dr. Mansel, regarding the \"Efficient\nCause,\" somewhat elaborated, but, however ingeniously devised, it is\nequally based upon assumption and defective in analogy. The \"classes of\n\n{40}\n\nlaw\" to which the Bampton Lecturer refers work harmoniously side by\nside, regulating the matter to which they apply. Unorganized matter,\nvegetation, and animal life, may each have special conditions modifying\nphenomena, but they are all equally subject to the same general laws.\nMan is as much under the influence of gravitation as a stone is. The\nspecial operation of physical laws is less a modification of law than\nthat law acting under different conditions. The law of gravitation\nsuffers no alteration, whether it cause the fall of an apple or shape\nthe orbit of a planet. The reproduction of the plant and of the animal\nis regulated by the same fundamental principle acting through\ndifferent organisms. The harmonious action of physical laws, and their\nadaptability to an infinite variety of forms, constitute the perfection\nof that code which produces the order of nature.(1) The mere superiority\nof man over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not lift\nhim above physical laws, and the analogy of every grade in nature\nforbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt\nfrom their control.\n\nIf in animated beings, as is affirmed, we had the solitary instance of\nan \"efficient cause\" acting among the forces of nature, and possessing\nthe power of initiation, this \"efficient cause\" produces no disturbance\nof physical law. Its existence is as much a recognized part of the\ninfinite variety of form within the order of nature as the existence of\na crystal or a plant; and although the character of the force exercised\nby it may not be clearly understood, its effects are regulated by the\nsame laws as\n\n{41}\n\ngovern all other forces in nature. If \"the laws of matter are suspended\nby the laws of life\" each time an animated being moves any part of its\nbody, one physical law is counteracted in precisely the same manner, and\nto an equivalent degree, each time another physical law is called into\naction. The Law of gravitation, for instance, is equally neutralized by\nthe law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air. In\neach case, a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of\nthe force employed. The arm that is raised by the animated being falls\nagain, in obedience to law, as soon as the force which raised it is\nexhausted, quite as certainly as the weight descends when the magnetic\ncurrent fails. This, however, is not the suspension of law in the sense\nof a miracle, but, on the contrary, is simply the natural operation upon\neach other of co-existent laws. It is a recognized part of the order of\nnature,(1) and instead of\n\n{42}\n\nrendering credible any supernatural suspension of laws, the analogy of\nanimated beings distinctly excludes it. The introduction of life in no\nway changes the relation between cause and effect, which constitutes\nthe order of nature, and is the essence of its law. Life favours no\npresumption for the suspension of law, but, on the contrary, whilst\nacting in nature, universally exhibits the prevalence and invariability\nof law. The \"laws of life\" may be subtle, but they are an integral\nportion of the great order of nature, working harmoniously with the\nlaws of matter, and not one whit more independent of them than any one\nnatural law is of another.\n\nThe supposed \"Efficient Cause,\" is wholly circumscribed by law. It is\nbrought into existence by the operation of immutable physical laws, and\nfrom the cradle to the grave it is subject to those laws. So inseparably\nis it connected with matter, and consequently with the laws which\nregulate matter, that it cannot even become conscious of its own\nexistence without the intervention of matter. The whole process of life\nis dependent on obedience to natural laws, and so powerless is this\nefficient cause to resist their jurisdiction, that, in spite of its\nhighest efforts, it pines or ceases to exist in consequence of the mere\nnatural operation of law upon the matter with which it is united, and\nwithout\n\n{43}\n\nwhich it is impotent. It cannot receive an impression from without that\nis not conveyed in accordance with law, and perceived by an exquisitely\nordered organism, in every part of which law reigns supreme; nor can it\ncommunicate from within except through channels equally ordered by law.\nA slight injury may derange the delicate mechanical contrivances of eye,\near, and vocal chords, and may further destroy the reason and paralyze\nthe body, reducing the animated being, by the derangement of those\nchannels to which physical law limits its action, to a mere smouldering\nspark of life, without consciousness and without expression. The \"laws\nof life\" act amongst the laws of matter, but are not independent of\nthem, and the action of both classes of law is regulated by precisely\nthe same principles.\n\nDr. Mozley's affirmation, that _antecedently_ one step on the ground\nand an ascent to heaven are alike incredible, does not help him. In\nthat sense it follows that there is nothing that is not antecedently\nincredible, nothing credible until it has happened. This argument,\nhowever, while it limits us to actual experience, prohibits presumptions\nwith regard to that which is beyond experience. To argue that, because\na step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are antecedently alike\nincredible, yet as we subsequently make that step, therefore the ascent\nto heaven, which we cannot make, from incredible becomes credible, is\na contradiction in terms. If the ascent be antecedently incredible,\nit cannot at the same time be antecedently credible. That which is\nincredible cannot become credible because something else quite different\nbecomes credible. It is apparent that such an argument is vicious.\nExperience comes\n\n{44}\n\nwith its sober wisdom to check such reasoning. We believe in our power\nto walk because we habitually exercise it: we disbelieve in bodily\nascensions because all experience excludes them. The step is part of the\nrecognised order of nature, and has none of the elements in it of the\nmiraculous. But if we leap into the air on the brink of a precipice,\nbelief in an ascent to heaven is shattered to pieces at the bottom to\nwhich the law of gravitation infallibly drags us.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing in the constitution of nature, we may say,\nreversing Dr. Mozley's assertion, which does not prove the incredibility\nof a Divine suspension of physical laws, and does not create a\npresumption against it. There is no instance producible, or even\nlogically conceivable, of any power whose effects are opposed to the\nultimate ruling of the laws of nature. The occurrence of anything\nopposed to those laws is incredible. Dr. Mozley has himself shown that\nmiracles cannot be explained either by unknown connection with known\nlaw, or by reference to unknown law; and he renounces the explanation of\n\"higher law.\" His distinction between the laws of nature and the \"laws\nof the universe,\"(1) by which he nevertheless endeavours to make a\nmiracle credible, is one which is purely imaginary, and cannot affect us\nin our present position within the order of nature. We know of no laws\nof the universe differing from the laws of nature. So far as human\nobservation can range, these laws alone prevail. For all practical\npurposes, therefore, such a distinction is futile, and belief is\nnecessarily limited to the actual operation of natural laws. The\noccasional intervention of an unknown \"efficient cause,\" producing the\neffects\n\n{45}\n\ncalled \"miracles\"--effects which are not referrible to any known law--is\ntotally opposed to experience, and such a hypothesis to explain alleged\noccurrences of a miraculous character cannot find a legitimate place\nwithin the order of nature.\n\n2.\n\nThe proposition with which Dr. Mozley commences these Bampton Lectures,\nand for which he contends to their close, is this: \"That miracles, or\nvisible suspensions of the order of nature for a providential purpose,\nare not in contradiction to reason.\"(1) He shows that, the purpose of\nmiracles is to attest a supernatural revelation, which, without them,\nwe could not be justified in believing. \"Christianity,\" he distinctly\nstates, \"cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human\nreason--a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation\nwithout the evidence of miracles.\"(2) Out of this very admission he\nattempts to construct an argument in support of miracles: \"Hence it\nfollows,\" he continues, \"that upon the supposition of the Divine design\nof a revelation, a miracle is not an anomaly or irregularity, but part\nof the system of the universe; because, though an irregularity and an\nanomaly in relation to either part, it has a complete adaptation to\nthe whole. There being two worlds, a visible and invisible, and a\ncommunication between the two being wanted, a miracle is the instrument\nof that communication.\"(3)\n\nHere, again, the argument is based upon mere assumption.\n\n{46}\n\nThe supposition of the Divine design of a revelation is the result of\na foregone conclusion in its favour, and is not suggested by antecedent\nprobability. It is, in fact, derived solely from the contents of the\nrevelation itself. Divines assume that a communication of this nature\nis in accordance with reason, and was necessary for the salvation of the\nhuman race, simply because they believe that it took place. No attempt\nis seriously made independently to prove the reality of the supposed\n\"Divine design of a revelation.\" A revelation having, it is supposed,\nbeen made, that revelation is consequently supposed to have been\ncontemplated, and to have necessitated and justified suspensions of the\norder of nature to effect it. The proposition for which the evidence of\nmiracles is demanded is viciously employed as evidence for miracles.\n\nThe circumstances upon which the assumption of the necessity and\nreasonableness of a revelation is based, however, are incredible, and\ncontrary to reason. We are asked to believe that God made man in his\nown image, pure and sinless, and intended him to continue so, but that\nscarcely had this, his noblest work, left the hands of the Creator, than\nman was tempted into sin by Satan, an all-powerful and persistent enemy\nof God, whose existence and antagonism to a Being in whose eyes sin is\nabomination are not accounted for and are incredible.(1) Adam's fall\nbrought a curse upon the earth, and incurred the penalty of death for\nhimself and for the whole of his posterity. The human race, although\ncreated perfect and without sin,\n\n{47}\n\nthus disappointed the expectations of the Creator, and became daily more\nwicked, the Evil Spirit having succeeded in frustrating the designs of\nthe Almighty, so that God repented that he had made man, and at length\ndestroyed by a deluge all the inhabitants of the earth, with the\nexception of eight persons who feared him. This sweeping purification,\nhowever, was as futile as the original design, and the race of men soon\nbecame more wicked than ever. The final and only adequate remedy devised\nby God for the salvation of his creatures, become so desperately and\nhopelessly evil, was the incarnation of himself in the person of \"the\nSon,\" the second person in a mysterious Trinity of which the Godhead is\nsaid to be composed, (who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of\nthe Virgin Mary,) and his death upon the cross as a vicarious expiation\nof the sins of the world, without which supposed satisfaction of the\njustice of God his mercy could not possibly have been extended to the\nfrail and sinful work of his own hands. The crucifixion of the incarnate\nGod was the crowning guilt of a nation whom God himself had selected\nas his own peculiar people, and whom he had condescended to guide by\nconstant direct revelations of his will, but who, from the first, had\ndisplayed the most persistent and remarkable proclivity to sin against\nhim, and, in spite of the wonderful miracles wrought on their behalf,\nto forsake his service for the worship of other gods. We are asked to\nbelieve, therefore, in the frustration of the Divine design of creation,\nand in the fall of man into a state of wickedness hateful to God,\nrequiring and justifying the Divine design of a revelation, and such a\nrevelation as this, as a preliminary to the further proposition that,\non the supposition of such a design, miracles would not be contrary to\nreason.\n\n{48}\n\nAntecedently, nothing could be more absolutely incredible or contrary to\nreason than these statements, or the supposition of such a design. Dr.\nMozley himself admits that, as human announcements, the doctrines of\nChristianity would be the \"wildest delusions,\" which we could not be\njustified in believing, and that such a scheme could not be maintained\nwithout miraculous evidence. The supposition of the Divine design of the\nrevelation is solely derived from the doctrines supposed to have been\nrevealed, and, indeed, that design forms part of them. Until they\nare proved to be Divine truths, these statements must obviously be\nconsidered human announcements, and consequently they are antecedently\nincredible, and the \"wildest delusions.\" As Dr. Mozley does not pretend\nthat there is anything antecedently credible upon which he can base an\nassertion that there was actually\n\n{49}\n\nany \"Divine design of a revelation,\" or that any \"communication between\nthe two worlds\" was requisite, it is therefore clear that his argument\nconsists merely of assumptions admitted to be antecedently incredible.\nIt advances a supposition of that which is contrary to reason to justify\nsupposed visible suspensions of the order of nature, which are also\ncontrary to reason. Incredible assumptions cannot give probability\nto incredible evidence- Tertullian's audacious paradox: \"Credo quia\nimpossible,\" of which such reasoning is illustrative, is but the cry of\nenthusiastic credulity.\n\nThe whole theory of this abortive design of creation, with such impotent\nefforts to amend it, is emphatically contradicted by the glorious\nperfection and invariability of the order of nature. It is difficult to\nsay whether the details of the scheme, or the circumstances which are\nsupposed to have led to its adoption, are more shocking to reason or to\nmoral sense. The imperfection ascribed to the Divine work is scarcely\nmore derogatory to the power and wisdom of the Creator, than the\nsupposed satisfaction of his justice in the death of himself incarnate,\nthe innocent for the guilty, is degrading to the idea of his moral\nperfection. The supposed necessity for repeated interference to correct\nthe imperfection of the original creation, the nature of the means\nemployed, and the triumphant opposition of Satan, are anthropomorphic\nconceptions totally incompatible with the idea of an Infinitely Wise and\nAlmighty Being. The constitution of nature, so far from favouring any\nhypothesis of original perfection and subsequent deterioration, bears\neverywhere the record of systematic upward progression. Not only is\nthe assumption, that any revelation of the nature of ecclesiastical\nChristianity was necessary, excluded upon\n\n{50}\n\nphilosophical grounds, but it is contradicted by the whole operation of\nnatural laws, which contain in themselves inexorable penalties against\nnatural retrogression, or even unprogressiveness, and furnish the only\nrequisite stimulus to improvement.(1) The survival only of the fittest\nis the\n\n     1 We venture to add a passage from Mr. Herbert Spencer's\n     \"Social Statics,\" which we have met with for the first time\n     since this work was published, in illustration of this\n     assertion. Mr. Spencer affirms \"the evanescence of evil\" and\n     the perfectibility of man, upon the ground that: \"All evil\n     results from the non-adaptation of constitution to\n     conditions.\" After an elaborate demonstration of this, he\n     resumes as follows: \"If there be any conclusiveness in the\n     foregoing arguments, such a faith is well founded. As\n     commonly supported by evidence drawn from history, it cannot\n     be considered indisputable. The inference that as\n     adyancement has been hitherto the rule, it will be the rule\n     henceforth, may be called a plausible speculation. But when\n     it is shown that this adyancement is due to the working of a\n     universal law; and that in virtue of that law it must\n     continue until the state we call perfection is reached, then\n     the advent of such a state is removed out of the region of\n     probability into that of certainty. If any one demurs to\n     this let him point out the error. Here are the several steps\n     of the argument. All imperfection is unfitness to the\n     conditions of existence.\n\n     This unfitness must consist either in having a faculty or\n     faculties in excess; or in having a faculty or faculties\n     deficient; or in both.\n\n     A faculty in excess is one which the conditions of existence\n     do not afford full exercise to; and a faculty that is\n     deficient is one from which the conditions of existence\n     demand more than it can perform.\n\n     But it is an essential principle of life that a faculty to\n     which circumstances do not allow full exercise diminishes;\n     and that a faculty on which circumstances make excessive\n     demands increases.\n\n     And so long as this excess and this deficiency continue,\n     there must continue decrease on the one hand, and growth on\n     the other.\n\n     Finally all excess and all deficiency must disappear, that\n     is, all unfitness must disappear; that is, all imperfection\n     must disappear.\n\n     Thus the ultimate development of the ideal man is logically\n     certain-- as certain as any conclusion in which we place the\n     most implicit faith; for instance, that all men will die.\n     For why do we infer that all men will die P Simply because,\n     in an immense number of past experiences, death has\n     uniformly occurred. Similarly then as the experiences of all\n     people in all times--experiences that are embodied in maxims,\n     proverbs, and moral precepts, and that are illustrated in\n     biographies and histories, go to prove that organs,\n     faculties, powers, capacities, or whatever else we call them\n     grow by use and diminish from disuse, it is inferred that\n     they will continue to do so.    And if this inference is\n     unquestionable,\n\n     then is the one above deduced from it--that humanity must in\n     the end become completely adapted to its conditions--\n     unquestionable also.\n\n     Progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity.\n     Instead of civilization being artificial, it is a part of\n     nature; all of a piece with the development of the embryo or\n     the unfolding of a flower. The modifications mankind have\n     undergone, and are still undergoing, result from a law\n     underlying the whole organic creation; and provided the\n     human race continues, and the constitution of things remains\n     the same, those modifications must end in completeness. As\n     surely as the tree becomes bulky when it stands alone, and\n     slender if one of a group; as surely as the same creature\n     assumes the different forms of cart-horse and racehorse,\n     according as its habits demand strength or speed; as surely\n     as a blacksmith's arm grows large, and the skin of a\n     labourer's hand thick; as surely as the eye tends to become\n     long-sighted in the sailor, and shortsighted in the student;\n     as surely as the blind attain a more delicate sense of\n     touch; as surely as a clerk acquires rapidity in writing and\n     calculation; as surely as the musician learns to detect an\n     error of a semitone amidst what seems to others a very babel\n     of sounds; as surely as a passion grows by indulgence and\n     diminishes when restrained; as surely as a disregarded\n     conscience becomes inert, and one that is obeyed active; as\n     surely as there is any efficacy in educational culture, or\n     any meaning in such terms as habit, custom, practice; so\n     surely must the human faculties be moulded into complete\n     fitness for the social state; so surely must the things we\n     call evil and immorality disappear; so surely must man\n     become perfect.\"   Social Statics, stereotyped ed. 1868, p.\n     78 f.\n\n{51}\n\nstern decree of nature. The invariable action of law of itself\neliminates the unfit Progress is necessary to existence; extinction\nis the doom of retrogression. The highest effect contemplated by the\nsupposed Revelation is to bring man into perfect harmony with law,\nand this is ensured by law itself acting upon intelligence. Only\nin obedience to law is there life and safety. Knowledge of law is\nimperatively demanded by nature. Ignorance of it is a capital offence.\nIf we ignore the law of gravitation we are dashed to pieces at the foot\nof a precipice, or are crushed by a falling rock; if we neglect sanatory\nlaw, we are destroyed by a pestilence; if we disregard chemical laws,\nwe are poisoned by a vapour. There is not, in reality, a gradation\nof breach of law that is not followed by an equivalent gradation of\npunishment. Civilization is nothing but the knowledge and observance\nof natural laws. The savage must learn them or be extinguished; the\ncultivated must observe them or die. The balance of moral and physical\ndevelopment cannot be deranged with impunity. In the spiritual as well\nas the physical sense only the fittest eventually can survive in the\nstruggle for existence. There is, in fact, an absolute upward impulse to\nthe whole human race supplied by the invariable operation of the laws of\nnature acting upon the common instinct of self-preservation. As, on the\none hand, the highest human conception of infinite wisdom and power\nis derived from the universality and invariability of law, so that\nuniversality and invariability, on the other hand, exclude the idea of\ninterruption or occasional suspension of law for any purpose whatever,\nand more especially for the correction of supposed original errors\nof design which cannot have existed, or for the attainment of objects\nalready provided for in the order of nature.\n\n{52}\n\nUpon the first groundless assumption of a Divine design of such a\nrevelation follows the hypothetical inference that, for the purpose of\nmaking the communication from the unseen world, a miracle or visible\nsuspension of the order or nature is no irregularity, but part of the\nsystem of the universe. This, however, is a mere assertion, and no\nargument An avowed assumption which is contrary to reason is followed by\nanother which is contrary to experience. It is simply absurd to speak of\na visible suspension of the order of nature being part of the system of\nthe universe. Such a statement has no meaning whatever within the range\nof human conception. Moreover, it must be remembered that miracles--or\n\"visible suspensions of the order of nature\"--are ascribed indifferently\nto Divine and to Satanic agency. If miracles are not an anomaly or\nirregularity on the supposition of the Divine design of a revelation,\nupon what supposition do Satanic miracles cease to be irregularities? Is\nthe order of nature, which it is asserted is under the personal control\nof God, at the same time at the mercy of the Devil?\n\nArchbishop Trench has, as usual, a singular way of overcoming the\ndifficulty. He says:--\"So long as we abide in the region of nature,\nmiraculous and improbable, miraculous and incredible may be admitted as\nconvertible terms. But once lift up the whole discussion into a higher\nregion, once acknowledge something higher than nature, a kingdom of God,\nand men the intended denizens of it, and the whole argument loses its\nstrength and the force of its conclusions.... He who already counts\nit likely that God will interfere for the higher welfare of men, who\nbelieves that there is a\n\n{53}\n\nnobler world-order than that in which we live and move, and that it\nwould be the blessing of blessings for that nobler to intrude into and\nto make itself felt in the region of this lower, who has found that here\nin this world we are bound by heavy laws of nature, of sin, of death,\nwhich no powers that we now possess can break, yet which must be broken\nif we are truly to live,--he will not find it hard to believe the great\nmiracle, the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, &c... And as he\nbelieves that greatest miracle, so will he believe all other miracles,\n&c.\"(1) In other words, if we already believe the premises we shall not\nfind it difficult to adopt the conclusions--if we already believe the\ngreatest miracle we shall not hesitate to believe the less--if we\nalready believe the dogmas we shall not find it hard to believe\nthe evidence by which they are supposed to be authenticated. As we\nnecessarily do abide in the\n\n{54}\n\nregion of nature, in which Dr. Trench admits that miraculous and\nincredible are convertible terms, it would seem rather difficult to\nlift the discussion into the higher region here described without having\nalready abandoned it altogether.\n\n{55}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. REASON IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE\n\nThe argument of those who assert the possibility and reality of miracles\ngenerally takes the shape of an attack, more or less direct, upon our\nknowledge of the order of nature. To establish an exception they\ncontest the rule. Dr. Mozley, however, is not content with the ordinary\nobjections advanced by apologists but, boldly entering into the mazes\nof a delicate philosophical problem, he adopts sceptical arguments and\nseeks to turn the flank of the enemy upon his own ground. He conducts\nhis attack with unusual force and ability. \"Whatever difficulty there\nis in believing in miracles in general,\" he says, \"arises from the\ncircumstance that they are in contradiction to or unlike the order of\nnature. To estimate the force of this difficulty, then, we must first\nunderstand what kind of belief it is which we have in the order of\nnature; for the weight of the objection to the miraculous must depend\non the nature of the belief to which the miraculous is opposed.\"(1)\nDr. Mozley defines the meaning of the phrase, \"order of nature\" as\nthe _connection_ of that part of the order of nature of which we are\nignorant with that part of it which we know, the former being expected\nto be such and such, _because_ the latter is. But how do we justify this\nexpectation of\n\n{56}\n\n_likeness?_ We cannot do so, and all our arguments are mere statements\nof the belief itself, he affirms, and not reasons to account for it.\nIt may be said, e.g., that when a fact of nature has gone on repeating\nitself a certain time, such repetition shows that there is a permanent\ncause at work, and that a permanent cause produces permanently recurring\neffects. But what is there to show the existence of a permanent cause?\nNothing. The effects which have taken place show a cause at work to the\nextent of these effects, but not further. That this cause is of a more\npermanent nature we have no evidence. Why then do we expect the further\ncontinuance of these effects.(2) We can only say: because we believe\nthe future will be like the past. After a physical phenomenon has even\noccurred every day for years we have nothing but the past repetition to\njustify our certain expectation of its future repetition.(3) Do we think\nit giving a reason for our confidence in the future to say that,\nthough no man has had experience of what is future, every man has had\nexperience of what was future? It is true that what is future becomes at\nevery step of our advance what was future, but that which is now\nstill future is not the least altered by that circumstance; it is\nas invisible, as unknown, and as unexplored as if it were the very\nbeginning and the very starting-point of nature. At this starting-point\nof nature what would a man know of its future course? Nothing. At this\nmoment he knows no more.(4) What ground of reason, then, can we assign\nfor our expectation that any part of the course of nature will the next\nmoment be like what it has been up to this moment, i.e., for our belief\n\n{57}\n\nin the uniformity of nature? None. It is without a reason. It rests upon\nno rational ground, and can be traced to no rational principle.(1) The\nbelief in the order of nature being thus an \"unintelligent impulse\" of\nwhich we cannot give any rational account, Dr. Mozley concludes, the\nground is gone upon which it could be maintained that miracles, as\nopposed to the order of nature, were opposed to reason. A miracle in\nbeing opposed to our experience is not only not opposed to necessary\nreasoning, but to any reasoning.(2) We need not further follow the\nBampton Lecturer, as with clearness and ability he applies this\nreasoning to the argument of \"Experience,\" until he pauses triumphantly\nto exclaim: \"Thus step by step has philosophy loosened the connection\nof the order of nature with the ground of reason, befriending, in exact\nproportion as it has done this, the principle of miracles.\"(3)\n\nWe need not here enter upon any abstract argument regarding the\npermanence or otherwise of cause: it will be sufficient to deal with\nthese objections in a simpler and more direct way. Dr. Mozley, of\ncourse, acknowledges that the principle of the argument from experience\nis that \"which makes human life practicable; which utilizes all our\nknowledge; which makes the past anything more than an irrelevant picture\nto us; for of what use is the experience of the past to us unless we\nbelieve the future will be like it?'(4) Our knowledge in all things is\nrelative, and there are sharp and narrow limits to human thought. It is\ntherefore evident that, in the absence of absolute knowledge, our belief\nmust be accorded to that of which we have\n\n{58}\n\nmore full cognizance rather than to that which is contradicted by all\nthat we do know. It may be \"irrational\" to feel entire confidence that\nthe sun will \"rise\" tomorrow, or that the moon will continue to wax and\nwane as in the past, but we shall without doubt retain this belief, and\nreject any assertion, however positive, that the earth will stand still\nto-morrow, or that it did so some thousands of years ago. Evidence must\ntake its relative place in the finite scale of knowledge and thought,\nand if we do not absolutely know anything whatever, so long as one thing\nis more fully established than another, we must hold to that which rests\nupon the more certain basis. Our belief in the invariability of the\norder of nature, therefore, being based upon more certain grounds than\nany other human opinion, we must of necessity refuse credence to\na statement supported by infinitely less complete testimony, and\ncontradicted by universal experience, that phenomena subversive of that\norder occurred many years ago, or we must cease to believe anything at\nall. If belief based upon unvarying experience be irrational, how much\nmore irrational must belief be which is opposed to that experience.\nAccording to Dr. Mozley, it is quite irrational to believe that a stone\ndropped from the hand, for instance, will fall to the ground. It is true\nthat all the stones we ourselves have ever dropped, or seen dropped,\nhave so fallen, and equally true that all stones so dropped as far back\nas historic records, and those still more authentic and ancient records\nof earth's crust itself go, have done the same, but that does not\njustify our belief, upon any grounds of reason, that the next stone we\ndrop will do so. If we be told, however, that upon one occasion a stone\nso dropped, instead of falling to the ground, rose\n\n{59}\n\nup into the air and continued there, we have only two courses open to\nus: either to disbelieve the fact, and attribute the statement to error\nof observation, or to reduce the past to a mere irrelevant picture,\nand the mind to a blank page equally devoid of all belief and of all\nintelligent reasoning.\n\nDr. Mozley's argument, however, is fatal to his own cause. It is\nadmitted that miracles, \"or visible suspensions of the order\nof nature,\"(1) cannot have any evidential force unless they be\nsupernatural, and out of the natural sequence of ordinary phenomena.\nNow, unless there be an actual order of nature, how can there be any\nexception to it? If our belief in it be not based upon any ground of\nreason,--as Dr. Mozley maintains, in order to assert that miracles or\nvisible suspensions of that order are not contrary to reason,--how can\nit be asserted that miracles are supernatural? If we have no rational\nground for believing that the future will be like the past, what\nrational ground can we have for thinking that anything which happens is\nexceptional, and out of the common course of nature? Because it has not\nhappened before? That is no reason whatever; because the fact that a\nthing has happened ten millions of times is no rational justification of\nour expectation that it will happen again. If the reverse of that which\nhad happened previously took place on the ten million and first time we\nshould have no rational ground for surprise, and no reason for affirming\nthat it did not occur in the most natural manner. Because we cannot\nexplain its cause? We cannot explain the cause of anything. Our belief\nthat there is any permanent cause is a mere unintelligent impulse. We\ncan only say that there is a cause\n\n{60}\n\nsufficient to produce an isolated effect, but we do not know the nature\nof that cause, and it is a mere irrational instinct to suppose that any\ncause produces continuous effects, or is more than momentary. A miracle,\nconsequently, becomes a mere isolated effect from an unknown cause, in\nthe midst of other merely isolated phenomena from unknown causes, and it\nis as irrational to wonder\n\nat the occurrence of what is new, as to expect the recurrence of what\nis old. In fact, an order of nature is at once necessary, and fatal, to\nmiracles. If there be no order of nature, miracles cannot be considered\nsupernatural occurrences, and have no evidential value; if there be an\norder of nature, the evidence for its immutability must consequently\nexceed the evidence for these isolated deviations from it. If we are\nunable rationally to form expectations of the future from unvarying\nexperience in the past, it is still more irrational to call that\nsupernatural which is merely different from our past experience. Take,\nfor instance, the case of supposed exemption from the action of the law\nof gravitation, which Archbishop Trench calls \"a lost prerogative of our\nrace:\"(1) we cannot rationally affirm that next week we may not be able\nto walk on the sea, or ascend bodily into the air. To deny this because\nwe have not hitherto been able to do so is unreasonable; for, as Dr.\nMozley maintains, it is a mere irrational impulse which expects that\nwhich has hitherto happened, when we have made such attempts, to happen\nagain next week. If we cannot rationally deny the possibility, however,\nthat we may be able at some future time to walk on the sea or ascend\ninto the air, the statement that these phenomena have already occurred\nloses all its force, and such occurrences\n\n{61}\n\ncease to be in any way supernatural. If, on the other hand, it would\nbe irrational to affirm that we may next week become exempt from the\noperation of the law of gravitation, it can only be so by the\nadmission that unvarying experience forbids the entertainment of such a\nhypothesis, and in that case it equally forbids belief in the statement\nthat such acts ever actually took place. If we deny the future\npossibility on any ground of reason, we admit that we have grounds\nof reason for expecting the future to be like the past, and therefore\ncontradict Dr. Mozley's conclusion; and if we cannot deny it upon any\nground of reason, we extinguish the claim of such occurrences in the\npast to any supernatural character. Any argument which could destroy\nfaith in the order of nature would be equally destructive to miracles.\nIf we have no right to believe in a rule, there can be no right to\nspeak of exceptions. The result in any case is this, that whether\nthe principle of the order of nature be established or refuted, the\nsupernatural pretensions of miracles are disallowed.\n\nMore than this, however, must inevitably be deduced from Dr. Mozley's\nreasoning. In denying, as he does, the doctrine of a permanent cause,\nDr. Mozley must equally renounce, as without foundation in reason,\nthe assumption of a permanent agent working miracles. Not only do the\nsupposed miracles, in the complete isolation of all effects, cease to\nbe supernatural or even exceptional, but as it cannot be affirmed that\nthere is any cause of a nature more permanent than its existing or known\neffects, it is obvious that miracles cannot be traced to an eternal\nBeing of permanent omnipotence. If Dr. Mozley, therefore, be understood\nto adopt this reasoning as his own, he has involved himself, in the\n\n{62}\n\nnecessary abandonment both of miracles as supernatural occurrences, and\nof a permanent and unlimited cause of miracles. If, on the other hand,\nhe has merely snatched the sword of an adversary to turn it against him,\nhe has unfortunately impaled himself upon the borrowed weapon.\n\n2.\n\nThroughout the whole of his argument against the rationality of\nbelief in the order of nature, the rigorous precision which Dr. Mozley\nunrelentingly demands from his antagonists is remarkable. They are not\npermitted to deviate by a hair's breadth from the line of strict logic,\nand the most absolute exactness of demonstration is required. Anything\nlike an assumption or argument from analogy is excluded; induction is\nallowed to add no reason to bare and isolated facts; and the belief that\nthe sun will rise to-morrow morning is, with pitiless severity, written\ndown as mere unintelligent impulse. Belief in the return of day, based\nupon the unvarying experience of all past time, is declared to be\nwithout any ground of reason. We find anything but fault with strictness\nof argument; but it is fair that equal precision should be observed by\nthose who assert miracles, and that assumption and inaccuracy should be\nexcluded. Hitherto, as we have frequently pointed out, we have met\nwith very little or nothing but assumption in support of miracles; but,\nencouraged by the inflexible spirit of Dr. Mozley's attack upon the\nargument from experience, we may look for similar precision from\nhimself.\n\n{63}\n\nProceeding, however, from his argument against the rationality of belief\nin the order of nature to his more direct argument for miracles, we are\nastonished to find a total abandonment of the rigorous exactness imposed\nupon his antagonists, and a complete relapse into assumptions. Dr.\nMozley does not conceal the fact. \"The peculiarity of the argument\nof miracles,\" he frankly admits, \"is, that it begins and ends with an\nassumption; I mean relatively to that argument.\"(1) Such an argument\nis no argument at all; it is a mere _petitio principii_, incapable of\nproving anything. The nature of the assumptions obviously does not\nin the slightest degree affect this conclusion. It is true that the\nstatement of the particular assumptions may constitute an appeal to\nbelief otherwise derived, and evolve feelings which may render the calm\nexercise of judgment more difficult, but the fact remains absolute,\nthat an argument which \"begins and ends with an assumption\" is totally\nimpotent. It remains an assumption, and is not an argument at all.\n\n{64}\n\nNotwithstanding this unfortunate and disqualifying \"peculiarity\" we may\nexamine the argument. It is as follows: \"We assume the existence of a\nPersonal Deity prior to the proof of miracles in the religious sense;\nbut with this assumption the question of miracles is at an end; because\nsuch a Being has necessarily the power to suspend those laws of nature\nwhich He has Himself enacted.\"(1) The \"question of miracles,\" which Dr.\nMozley here asserts to be at an end on the assumption of a \"Personal\nDeity,\" is of course merely that of the _possibility_ of miracles; but\nit is obvious that, even with the precise definition of Deity which\nis assumed, instead of the real \"question\" being at an end, it only\ncommences. The power to suspend the laws of nature being assumed, the\nwill to suspend them has to be demonstrated, and the actual occurrence\nof any such suspension, which, it has already been shown, is contrary\nto reason. The subject is, moreover, complicated by the occurrence of\nSatanic as well as Divine suspensions of the order of nature, and by the\nnecessity of assuming a Personal Devil as well as a Personal Deity,\nand his power to usurp that control over the laws of nature, which is\nassumed as the prerogative of the Deity, and to suspend them in direct\nopposition to God. The express ascription of miracles to the special\nintervention of a Personal God is also, as we have seen, excluded by the\nScriptural admission that there are other supernatural beings capable of\nperforming them. Even Dr. Newman has recognized this, and, in a passage\nalready quoted, he says: \"For the cogency of the argument from Miracles\ndepends on the assumption, that interruptions in the course of nature\nmust ultimately proceed from God; which is not true, if they may be\n\n{65}\n\neffected by other beings without His sanction.\"(1) The first assumption,\nin fact, leads to nothing but assumptions connected with the unseen,\nunknown and supernatural, which are beyond the limits of reason.\n\nDr. Mozley is well aware that his assumption of a \"Personal\" Deity is\nnot susceptible of proof;(2) indeed, this is admitted in the statement\nthat the definition is an \"assumption.\" He quotes the obvious reply\nwhich may be made regarding this assumption:--\"Everybody must collect\nfrom the harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God, but\nin acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar\ndoctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature\na mind--a universal mind--but still a mind which only operates and\nexpresses itself by law. Nature only does and only can inform us of mind\n_in_ nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. Nature,\ntherefore, can speak to the existence of a God in this sense, and can\nspeak to the omnipotence of God in a sense coinciding with the actual\nfacts of nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the\nexistence of an Omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a universal Mind out\nof nature, nature says nothing, and of an Omnipotence which does not\npossess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And,\ntherefore, that conception of a Supreme Being which represents him as a\nSpirit\n\n{66}\n\nindependent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-place\nexternal to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for\nwhich we must go elsewhere. That conception is obtained from revelation\nwhich is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case,\nthis doctrine of Theism rests itself upon miracles, and, therefore,\nmiracles cannot rest upon this doctrine of Theism.\"(1) With his usual\nfairness, Dr. Mozley, while questioning the correctness of the premiss\nof this argument, admits that, if established, the consequence stated\nwould follow, \"and more, for miracles being thrown back upon the same\nground on which Theism is, the whole evidence of revelation becomes a\nvicious circle, and the fabric is left suspended in space, revelation\nresting on miracles and miracles resting on revelation.\"(2) He not only\nrecognizes, however, that the conception of a Person al\" Deity cannot\nbe proved, but he distinctly confesses that it was obtained from\nrevelation,(3) and from nowhere else, and these necessary admissions\nobviously establish the correctness of the premiss, and involve the\nconsequence pointed out, that the evidence of revelation is a mere\nvicious circle. Dr. Mozley attempts to argue that, although the idea was\nfirst obtained through this channel, \"the truth once possessed is seen\nto rest upon grounds of natural reason.\"(4) Why, then, does he call\nit an assumption? The argument by which he seeks to show that the\nconception is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason is: \"We\nnaturally attribute to the design of a Personal Being a contrivance\nwhich is directed to the existence of a Personal Being.... From\npersonality\n\n{67}\n\nat one end I infer personality at the other.\" Dr. Mozley's own sense of\nthe weakness of his argument, however, and his natural honesty of\nmind oblige him continually to confess the absence of evidence. A few\nparagraphs further on he admits:--\"Not, however, that the existence of\na God is so clearly seen by reason as to dispense with faith;\"(1) but he\nendeavours to convince us that faith is reason, only reason acting under\npeculiar circumstances: when reason draws conclusions which are not\nbacked by experience, reason is then called faith.(2) The issue of the\nargument, he contends, is so amazing, that if we do not tremble for its\nsafety it must be on account of a practical principle, which makes us\nconfide and trust in reasons, and that principle is faith. We are not\naware that conviction can be arrived at regarding any matter otherwise\nthan by confidence in the correctness of the reasons, and what Dr.\nMozley really means by faith, here, is confidence and trust in a\nconclusion for which there are no reasons.\n\nIt is almost incredible that the same person who had just been denying\ngrounds of reason to conclusions from unvarying experience, and\nexcluding from them the results of inductive reasoning--who had\ndenounced as unintelligent impulse and irrational instinct the faith\nthat the sun, which has risen without fail every morning since time\nbegan, will rise again to-morrow, could thus argue. In fact, from\nthe very commencement of the direct plea for miracles, calm logical\nreasoning is abandoned, and the argument becomes entirely _ad hominem_.\nMere feeling is substituted for thought, and in the inability to be\nprecise and logical, the lecturer appeals\n\n{68}\n\nto the generally prevailing inaccuracy of thought.(1) \"Faith, then,\" he\nconcludes, \"is _unverified_ reason; reason which has not yet received\nthe verification of the final test, but is still expectant.\" In science\nthis, at the best, would be called mere \"hypothesis,\" but accuracy can\nscarcely be expected where the argument continues: \"Indeed, does not\nour heart bear witness to the fact that to believe in a God\"--i. e., a\nPersonal God --\"is an exercise of faith?\" &c.(2)\n\nIt does not help Dr. Mozley that Butler, Paley, and all other divines\nhave equally been obliged to commence with the same assumption; and,\nindeed, as we have already remarked, Dr. Mozley honestly admits the\ndifficulty of the case, and while naturally making the most of his\nown views, he does not disguise the insecurity of the position. He\ndeprecates that school which maintains that any average man, taken out\nof a crowd, who has sufficient common sense to manage his own affairs,\nis a fit judge, and such a judge as was originally contemplated, of the\nChristian evidences;(3) and he says: \"It is not, indeed, consistent\nwith truth, nor would it conduce to the real defence of Christianity,\nto underrate the difficulties of the Christian evidence; or to disguise\nthis characteristic of it, that the very facts which constitute\nthe evidence of revelation have to be accepted by an act of faith\nthemselves, before they can operate as a proof of that further\ntruth.\"(4) Such evidence is manifestly worthless. After all his\nassumptions, Dr. Mozley is reduced to the necessity of pleading: \"A\nprobable fact is a probable evidence. I may, therefore, use a miracle as\nevidence of a revelation, though\n\n{69}\n\nI have only probable evidence for the miracle.\"(1) The probability of\nthe miracle, however, is precisely what is denied, as opposed to reason\nand experience, and incompatible with the order of nature. A cause is,\nindeed, weak when so able an advocate is reduced to such reasoning.\n\nThe deduction which is drawn from the assumption of a \"Personal\" Deity\nis, as we have seen, merely the possibility of miracles. \"Paley's\ncriticism,\" said the late Dean of St. Paul's, \"is, after all, the\ntrue one--'once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not\nincredible.'\"(2) The assumption, therefore, although of vital importance\nin the event of its rejection, does not very materially advance\nthe cause of miracles if established. We have already seen that the\nassumption is avowedly incapable of proof, but it may be well to examine\nit a little more closely in connection with the inferences supposed\nto be derivable from it. We must, however, in doing so carefully avoid\nbeing led into a metaphysical argument, which would be foreign to the\npurpose of this inquiry.\n\nIn his Bampton Lectures on \"The Limit of Religious Thought,\" delivered\nin 1858, Dr. Mansel, the very able editor and disciple of Sir William\nHamilton, discussed this subject with great minuteness, and although\nwe cannot pretend here to follow him through the whole of his\nsingular argument--a theological application of Sir William Hamilton's\nphilosophy--we must sufficiently represent it. Dr. Mansel argues: We are\nabsolutely incapable of conceiving or proving the existence of God as he\nis; and so far is human reason from being able to\n\n{70}\n\nconstruct a theology independent of revelation that it cannot even\nread the alphabet out of which that theology must be formed.(1) We are\ncompelled, by the constitution of our minds, to believe in the existence\nof an Absolute and Infinite Being; but the instant we attempt to\nanalyse, we are involved in inextricable confusion.(2) Our moral\nconsciousness demands that we should conceive him as a Personality, but\npersonality, as we conceive it, is essentially a limitation; to speak\nof an Absolute and Infinite Person is simply to use language to which no\nmode of human thought can possibly attach itself.(3) This amounts\nsimply to an admission that our knowledge of God does not satisfy the\nconditions of speculative philosophy, and is incapable of reduction to\nan ultimate and absolute truth.(4) It is, therefore, reasonable that\nwe should expect to find that the revealed manifestation of the Divine\nnature and attributes should likewise carry the marks of subordination\nto some higher truth, of which it indicates the existence, but does\nnot make known the substance; and that our apprehension of the revealed\nDeity should involve mysteries inscrutable, and\n\n{71}\n\ndoubts insoluble by our present faculties, while at the same time\nit inculcates the true spirit in which doubt should be dealt with by\nwarning us that our knowledge of God, though revealed by himself, is\nrevealed in relation to human faculties, and subject to the limitations\nand imperfections inseparable from the constitution of the human\nmind.(1) We need not, of course, point out that the reality of\nrevelation is here assumed. Elsewhere, Dr. Mansel maintains that\nphilosophy, by its own incongruities, has no claim to be accepted as a\ncompetent witness; and, on the other hand, human personality cannot be\nassumed as an exact copy of the Divine, but only as that which is most\nnearly analogous to it among finite things.(2) As we are, therefore,\nincapable on the one hand of a clear conception of the Divine Being, and\nhave only analogy to guide us in conceiving his attributes, we have no\ncriterion of religious truth or falsehood, enabling us to judge of the\nways of God, represented by revelation,(3) and have no right to judge of\nhis justice, or mercy, or goodness, by the standard of human morality.\n\nIt is impossible to conceive an argument more vicious, or more obviously\nwarped to favour already accepted\n\n{72}\n\nconclusions of revelation:--As finite beings we are not only incapable\nof proving the existence of God, but even of conceiving him as he is;\ntherefore we may conceive him as he is not. To attribute personality to\nhim is a limitation totally incompatible with the idea of an Absolute\nand Infinite Being, in which \"we are compelled by the constitution of\nour minds to believe;\" and to speak of him as a personality is \"to use\nlanguage to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach\nitself;\" but, nevertheless, to satisfy supposed demands of our moral\nconsciousness, we are to conceive him as a personality. Although we\nmust define the Supreme Being as a personality to satisfy our\nmoral consciousness, we must not, we are told, make the same moral\nconsciousness the criterion of the attributes of that personality. We\nmust not suppose him to be endowed, for instance, with the perfection\nof morality according to our ideas of it; but, on the contrary, we must\nhold that his moral perfections are at best only analogous, and often\ncontradictory, to our standard of morality.1 As soon as we conceive a\nPersonal Deity to satisfy our moral consciousness, we have to abandon\nthe personality which satisfies that consciousness, in order to accept\nthe characteristics of a supposed Revelation, to reconcile certain\nstatements of which we must admit that we have no criterion of truth or\nfalsehood enabling us to judge of the ways of God.\n\nNow, in reference to the assumption of a Personal Deity as a preliminary\nto the proof of miracles, it must be clearly remembered that the\ncontents of the revelation which miracles are to authenticate cannot\n\n{73}\n\nhave any weight. Antecedently, then, it is admitted that personality\nis a limitation which is absolutely excluded by the ideas of the Deity,\nwhich, it is asserted, the constitution of our minds compete us to\nform. It cannot, therefore, be rationally assumed. To admit that such a\nconception is false, and then to base conclusions upon it, as though\nit were true, is absurd. It is child's play to satisfy our feeling and\nimagination by the conscious sacrifice of our reason. Moreover, Dr.\nMansel admits that the conception of a Personal Deity is really derived\nfrom the revelation, which has to be rendered credible by miracles;\ntherefore the consequence already pointed out ensues, that the\nassumption cannot be used to prove miracles. \"It must be allowed that it\nis not through reasoning that men obtain the first intimation of their\nrelation to the Deity; and that, had they been left to the guidance\nof their intellectual faculties alone, it is possible that no such\nintimation might have taken place; or at best, that it would have been\nbut as one guess, out of many equally plausible and equally natural.\"(1)\nThe vicious circle of the argument is here again apparent, and the\nsingular reasoning by which the late Dean of St. Paul's seeks to drive\nus into an acceptance of Revelation is really the strongest argument\nagainst it. The impossibility of conceiving God as he is,(2) which is\ninsisted upon, instead of being a\n\n{74}\n\nreason for assuming his personality, or for accepting Jewish conceptions\nof him, totally excludes such an assumption.\n\nThis \"great religious assumption\"(1) is not suggested by any antecedent\nconsiderations, but is required to account for miracles, and is derived\nfrom the very Revelation which miracles are to attest. \"In nature and\nfrom nature,\" to quote Words of Professor Baden Powell, \"by science\nand by reason, we neither have nor can possibly have any evidence of a\n_Deity working_ miracles;--for that we must go out of nature and beyond\nscience. If we could have any such evidence _from nature_, it could only\nprove extraordinary _natural_ effects, which would not be _miracles_ in\nthe old theological sense, as isolated, unrelated, and uncaused; whereas\nno _physical_ fact can be conceived as unique, or without analogy and\nrelation to others, and to the whole system of natural causes.\"(2)\nBeing, therefore, limited to Reason for any feeble conception of a\nDivine Being of which we may be capable, and Reason being totally\nopposed to the idea of an order of nature so imperfect as to require or\npermit repeated interference, and rejecting the supposition of arbitrary\n\n{75}\n\nsuspensions of Law, such a conception of a Deity as is proposed\nby theologians must be pronounced irrational and derogatory. It is\nimpossible for us to conceive a Supreme Being acting otherwise than\nwe actually see in nature, and if we recognize in the universe the\noperation of infinite wisdom and power, it is in the immutable order and\nregularity of all phenomena, and in the eternal prevalence of Law, that\nwe see their highest manifestation. This is no conception based merely\nupon observation of law and order in the material world, as Dr. Mansel\ninsinuates,(1) but it is likewise the result of the highest exercise of\nmind. Dr. Mansel \"does not hesitate to affirm with Sir William Hamilton\n\"that the class of phenomena which requires that kind of cause we\ndenominate a Deity is exclusively given in the phenomena of mind;\nthat the phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, do not warrant any\ninference to the existence of a God.\"(2) After declaring a Supreme\nBeing, from every point of view, inconceivable by our finite minds, it\nis singular to find him thrusting upon us, in consequence, a conception\nof that Being which almost makes us exclaim with Bacon: \"It were better\nto have no opinion of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy\nof him; for the one is unbelief, the other is contumely.\"(3) Dr. Mansel\nasks: \"Is matter or mind the truer image of God?\"(4) But both matter\nand mind unite in repudiating so unworthy a conception of a God, and in\nrejecting the idea of suspensions of Law. In the words of Spinoza: \"From\nmiracles\n\n{76}\n\nwe can neither infer the nature, the existence, nor the providence of\nGod, but, on the contrary, these may be much better comprehended\nfrom the fixed and immutable order of nature;\"(1) indeed, as he adds,\nmiracles, as contrary to the order of nature, would rather lead us to\ndoubt the existence of God.(2)\n\nSix centuries before our era, a noble thinker, Xenophanes of Colophon,\nwhose pure mind soared far above the base anthropomorphic mythologies\nof Homer and Hesiod, and anticipated some of the highest results of the\nPlatonic philosophy, finely said:--\n\n\"There is one God supreme over all gods, diviner than mortals, Whose\nform is not like unto man's, and as unlike his nature;\n\nBut vain mortals imagine that gods like themselves are begotten, With\nhuman sensations, and voice, and corporeal members;'\n\nSo if oxen or lions had hands and could work iu man's fashion, And trace\nout with chisel or brush their conception of Godhead, Then would horses\ndepict gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, Each kind the Divine with\nits own form and nature endowing.\"(4)\n\nHe illustrates this profound observation by pointing out that the\nEthiopians represent their deities as black with flat noses, while the\nThracians make them blue-eyed with ruddy complexions, and, similarly,\nthe Medes and the Persians and Egyptians portray their gods like\n\n{77}\n\nthemselves.(1) The Jewish idea of God was equally anthropomorphic; but\ntheir highest conception was certainly that which the least resembled\nthemselves, and which described the Almighty as \"without variableness or\nshadow of turning,\" and as giving a law to the universe which shall not\nbe broken.(2)\n\n3.\n\nNone of the arguments with which we have yet met have succeeded in\nmaking miracles in the least degree antecedently credible. On the\ncontrary they have been based upon mere assumptions incapable of proof\nand devoid of probability. On the other hand there are the strongest\nreasons for affirming that such phenomena are antecedently incredible.\nDr. Mozley's attack which we discussed in the first part of this\nchapter, and which of course was chiefly based upon Hume's celebrated\nargument,\n\n{78}\n\nnever seriously grappled the doctrine at all. The principle which\nopposes itself to belief in miracles is very simple. Whatever is\ncontradictory to universal and invariable experience is antecedently\nincredible, and as that sequence of phenomena which is called the order\nof nature is established by and in accordance with universal experience,\nmiracles or alleged violations of that order, by whatever name they may\nbe called, or whatever definition may be given of their characteristics\nor object, are antecedently incredible. The preponderance of evidence\nfor the invariability of the order of nature, in fact, is so enormous\nthat it is impossible to credit the reality of such variations from\nit, and reason and experience concur in attributing the ascription of\na miraculous character to any actual occurrences which may have been\nwitnessed to imperfect observation, mistaken inference or some other of\nthe numerous sources of error. Any allegation of the interference of\na new and supernatural agent, upon such an occasion, to account for\nresults, in contradiction of the known sequence of cause and effect, is\nexcluded by the very same principle, for invariable experience being as\nopposed to the assertion that such interference ever takes place as\nit is to the occurrence of miraculous phenomena, the allegation is\nnecessarily disbelieved.\n\nApologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but\neffective arguments of Hume than to answer them, and where it is\npossible they dismiss them with a sneer, and hasten on to less dangerous\nground. For instance, a recent Hulsean Lecturer, arguing the antecedent\ncredibility of the miraculous, makes the following remarks: \"Now, as\nregards the inadequacy of testimony to establish a miracle, modern\nscepticism has not advanced\n\n{79}\n\none single step beyond the blank assertion. And it is astonishing that\nthis assertion should still be considered cogent, when its logical\nconsistency has been shattered to pieces by a host of writers as well\nsceptical as Christian (Mill's _Logic_, ii., 157--160). For, as the\ngreatest of our living logicians has remarked, the supposed recondite\nand dangerous formula of Hume--that it is more probable that testimony\nshould be mistaken than that miracles should be true--reduces itself\nto the very harmless proposition that anything is incredible which is\ncontrary to a complete induction. It is in fact a _flagrant petitio\nprincipii_, used to support a wholly unphilosophical assertion.\"(1)\nIt is much more astonishing that so able a man as Dr. Farrar could so\nmisunderstand Hume's argument and so misinterpret and mis-state Mr.\nMill's remarks upon it. So far from shattering to pieces the logical\nconsistency of Hume's reasoning, Mr. Mill substantially confirms it, and\npertinently remarks that \"it speaks ill for the state of philosophical\nspeculation on such subjects\" that so simple and evident a doctrine\nshould have been accounted a dangerous heresy. It is, in fact, the\nstatement of a truth which should have been universally recognized, and\nwould have been so, but for its unwelcome and destructive bearing upon\npopular theology.\n\nMr. Mill states the evident principle, that--\"If an alleged fact be in\ncontradiction, not to any number of approximate generalizations, but to\na completed generalization grounded on a rigorous induction, it is\nsaid to be impossible, and is to be disbelieved totally.\" Mr. Mill\ncontinues.: \"This last principle, simple and evident as it\n\n{80}\n\nappears, is the doctrine which, on the occasion of an attempt to apply\nit to the question of the credibility of miracles, excited so violent a\ncontroversy. Hume's celebrated doctrine, that nothing is credible which\nis contradictory to experience or at variance with laws of nature,\nis merely this very plain and harmless proposition, that whatever\nis contradictory to a complete induction is incredible.\"(1) He then\nproceeds to meet possible objections: \"But does not (it may be asked)\nthe very statement of the proposition imply a contradiction? An alleged\nfact according to this theory is not to be believed if it contradict\na complete induction. But it is essential to the completeness of an\ninduction that it should not contradict any known fact. Is it not, then,\na _petitio principii_ to say, that the fact ought to be disbelieved\nbecause the induction to it is complete? How can we have a right to\ndeclare the induction complete, while facts, supported by credible\nevidence, present themselves in opposition to it? I answer, we have that\nright whenever the scientific canons of induction give it to us; that\nis, whenever the induction can be complete. We have it, for example, in\na case of causation in which there has been an _experimentum cruris_.\"\nIt will be remarked that Dr. Farrar adopts Mr. Mill's phraseology in one\nof the above questions to affirm the reverse of his opinion. Mr. Mill\ndecides that the proposition is not a _petitio principii_; Dr. Farrar\nsays, as in continuation of his reference to Mr. Mill, that it is a\nflagrant _petitio principii_. Mr. Mill proceeds to prove his statement,\nand he naturally argues that, if observations or experiments have been\nrepeated so often, and by so many persons, as to exclude all supposition\nof\n\n{81}\n\nerror in the observer, a law of nature is established; and so long\nas this law is received as such, the assertion that on any particular\noccasion the cause A took place and yet the effect B did not follow,\n_without any counteracting cause_, must be disbelieved. In fact, as\nhe winds up this part of the argument by saying: \"We cannot admit\na proposition as a law of nature, and yet believe a fact in real\ncontradiction to it. We must disbelieve the alleged fact, or believe\nthat we were mistaken in admitting the supposed law.\"(1) Mr. Mill\npoints out, however, that, in order that any alleged fact should be\ncontradictory to a law of causation, the allegation must be not simply\nthat the cause existed without being followed by the effect, but that\nthis happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause. \"Now,\nin the case of an alleged miracle, the assertion is the exact opposite\nof this. It is, that the effect was defeated, not in the absence, but in\nconsequence of a counteracting cause, namely, a direct interposition\nof an act of the will of some being who has power over nature; and in\nparticular of a Being, whose will being assumed to have endowed all the\ncauses with the powers by which they produce their effects, may well\nbe supposed able to counteract them.\"(2) A miracle, then, is no\ncontradiction to the law of cause and effect; it is merely a new effect\nsupposed to be introduced by the introduction of a new cause; \"of the\nadequacy of that cause _if present,_(3) there can be no doubt; and the\nonly antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle is\nthe improbability that any such cause existed.\" Mr. Mill then continues,\nresuming his criticism on Hume's argument:\n\n{82}\n\n\"All, therefore, which Hume has made out, and this he must be considered\nto have made out, is that (at least in the imperfect state of our\nknowledge of natural agencies, which leaves it always possible that some\nof the physical antecedents may have been hidden from us,) no evidence\ncan prove a miracle to any one who did not previously believe the\nexistence of a being or beings with supernatural power; or who believes\nhimself to have full proof that the character of the Being whom he\nrecognizes is inconsistent with his having seen fit to interfere on the\noccasion in question.\" Mr. Mill proceeds to enlarge on this conclusion.\n\"If we do not already believe in supernatural agencies, no miracle can\nprove to us their existence. The miracle itself, considered merely as an\nextraordinary fact, may be satisfactorily certified by our senses or\nby testimony; but nothing can ever prove that it is a miracle: there is\nstill another possible hypothesis, that of its being the result of some\nunknown natural cause: and this possibility cannot be so completely shut\nout as to leave no alternative but that of admitting the existence and\nintervention of a being superior to nature. Those, however, who\nalready believe in such a being have two hypotheses to choose from,\na supernatural, and an unknown natural agency; and they have to judge\nwhich of the two is the most probable in the particular case. In\nforming this judgment, an important element of the question will be the\nconformity of the result to the laws of the supposed agent; that is, to\nthe character of the Deity as they conceive it. But, with the knowledge\nwhich we now possess of the general uniformity of the course of nature,\nreligion, following in the wake of science, has been compelled to\nacknowledge the government of the universe as\n\n{83}\n\nbeing on the whole carried on by general laws, and not by special\ninterpositions. To whoever holds this belief, there is a general\npresumption against any supposition of divine agency not operating\nthrough general laws, or, in other words, there is an antecedent\nimprobability in every miracle, which, in order to outweigh it, requires\nan extraordinary strength of antecedent probability derived from the\nspecial circumstances of the case.\"(1) Mr. Mill rightly considers that\nit is not more difficult to estimate this than in the case of other\nprobabilities. \"We are seldom, therefore, without the means (when the\ncircumstances of the case are at all known to us) of judging how far it\nis likely that such a cause should have existed at that time and place\nwithout manifesting its presence by some other marks, and (in the case\nof an unknown cause) without having hitherto manifested its existence\nin any other instance. According as this circumstance, or the falsity\nof the testimony, appears more improbable, that is, conflicts with an\napproximate generalization of a higher order, we believe the testimony,\nor disbelieve it; with a stronger or weaker degree of conviction,\naccording to the preponderance: at least until we have sifted the\nmatter further.\"(2) This is precisely Hume's argument weakened by the\nintroduction of reservations which have no cogency.\n\n\"We have wished to avoid interrupting Mr. Mill's train of reasoning\nby any remarks of our own, and have, therefore, deferred till now the\nfollowing observations regarding his criticism on Hume's argument.\n\nIn reducing Hume's celebrated doctrine to the very plain proposition\nthat whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is incredible,\nMr. Mill in no way\n\n{84}\n\ndiminishes its potency against miracles; and he does not call that\nproposition \"harmless\" in reference to its bearing on miracles, as Dr.\nFarrar evidently supposes, but merely in opposition to the character of\na recondite and \"dangerous heresy\" assigned by dismayed theologians to\nso obvious and simple a principle. The proposition, however, whilst it\nreduces Hume's doctrine in the abstract to more technical terms, does\nnot altogether represent his argument. Without asserting that experience\nis an absolutely infallible guide, Hume maintains that--\" A wise man\nproportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are\nfounded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last\ndegree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of\nthe future existence of that event. In other cases he proceeds with more\ncaution, he weighs the opposite experiments: he considers which side is\nsupported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines\nwith doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgment,\nthe evidence exceeds not what we properly call _probability_.\nAll probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and\nobservations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and\nto produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority. \"(l)\nAfter elaborating this proposition, Hume continues: \"A miracle is\na violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable\nexperience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle,\nfrom the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from\nexperience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable that\nall men must die; that lead\n\n{85}\n\ncannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood,\nand is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found\nagreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of\nthese laws, or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is\nesteemed a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature.\nIt is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on\na sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any\nother, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle\nthat a dead man should come to life; because that has never been\nobserved in any age or country. There must, therefore, be an uniform\nexperience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not\nmerit that appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof,\nthere is here a direct and full _proof_, from the nature of the fact,\nagainst the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed,\nor the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof which is\nsuperior. The plain consequence is, (and it is a general maxim worthy of\nour attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,\nunless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more\nmiraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish: and even in\nthat case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior\nonly gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which\nremains after deducting the inferior.' When any one tells me that he saw\na dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether\nit be more probable that this person should either deceive or be\ndeceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened.\nI weigh the one miracle against the\n\n{86}\n\nother; and according to the superiority which 1 discover, I pronounce my\ndecision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of\nhis testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates,\nthen, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or\nopinion.\"(1)\n\nThe ground upon which Mr. Mill admits that a miracle may not be\ncontradictory to complete induction is that it is not an assertion that\na certain cause was not followed by a certain effect, but an allegation\nof the interference of an adequate counteracting cause. This does not,\nhowever, by his own showing, remove a miracle from the action of\nHume's principle, but simply modifies the nature of the antecedent\nimprobability. Mr. Mill qualifies his admission regarding the effect\nof the alleged counteracting cause, by the all-important words \"if\npresent;\" for, in order to be valid, the reality of the alleged\ncounteracting cause must be established, which is impossible, therefore\nthe allegations fall to the ground. No one knows better than Mr. Mill\nthat the assertion of a Personal Deity working miracles, upon which a\nmiracle is allowed for a moment to come into court, cannot be proved,\nand, therefore, that it cannot stand in opposition to complete induction\nwhich Hume takes as his standard.\n\nIn admitting that Hume has made out, that no evidence can prove a\nmiracle to any one who does not previously believe in a being of\nsupernatural power willing to work miracles, Mr. Mill concedes\neverything to Hume, for his only limitation is based upon a supposition\nof mere personal belief in something which is not capable of proof, and\nwhich belief, therefore, is not\n\n{87}\n\nmore valid than any other purely imaginary hypothesis. The belief may\nseem substantial to the individual entertaining it, but, not being\ncapable of proof, it cannot have weight with others, or in any way\naffect the Value of evidence in the abstract. That mere individual\nbelief, apart from proof, should thus be advanced in limitation of a\nlogical principle, seems to us most unwarranted, and at the most it can\nonly be received as a statement of what practically takes place amongst\nillogical reason ers.\n\nThe assumption of a Personal Deity working miracles is, in fact,\nexcluded by Hume's argument, and, although Mr. Mill apparently overlooks\nthe fact, Hume has not only anticipated but refuted the reasoning which\nis based upon it. In the succeeding chapter on a Particular Providence\nand a Future State, he directly disposes of such an assumption, but he\ndoes so with equal effect also in the Essay which we are discussing.\nTaking an imaginary miracle as an illustration, he argues: \"Though the\nbeing to whom the miracle is ascribed be in this case Almighty, it\ndoes not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is\nimpossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a Being,\notherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions in\nthe usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation,\nand obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the\ntestimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by\nmiracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable.\nAs the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning\nreligious miracles than in that concerning any other matter of fact,\nthis must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and\n\n{88}\n\nmake us form a general resolution never to lend any attention to it,\nwith whatever specious pretence it may be covered.\"(1) A person who\nbelieves anything contradictory to a complete induction merely on\nthe strength of an assumption which is incapable of proof is simply\ncredulous, but such an assumption cannot affect the real evidence for\nthat thing.\n\nThe argument of Paley against Hume is an illustration of the reasoning\nsuggested by Mr. Mill. Paley alleges the interposition of a Personal\nDeity in explanation of miracles, but he protests that he does not\nassume the attributes of the Deity or the existence of a future state in\norder to _prove_ their reality. \"That reality,\" he admits, \"always\nmust be proved by evidence. We assert only that in miracles adduced in\nsupport of revelation there is not such antecedent improbability as no\ntestimony can surmount.\" His argument culminates in the short statement:\n\"In a word, once believe that there is a God\" (i.e., a Personal God\nworking miracles), \"and miracles are not incredible.\"(2) We have already\nquoted Hume's refutation of this reasoning, and we may at once proceed\nto the final argument by which Paley endeavours to overthrow Hume's\ndoctrine, and upon which he mainly rests his case.\n\n\"But the short consideration,\" he says, \"which, independently of every\nother, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's\nconclusion, is the following: When a theorem is proposed to a\nmathematician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a\nsimple case, and if it produces a false result, he is sure that there\n\n{89}\n\nmust be some mistake in the demonstration. Now, to proceed in this way\nwith what may be called Mr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity\nand good sense I had long known, should seriously and circumstantially\nrelate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in\nwhich it was impossible that they should be deceived; if the governor\nof the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men\ninto his presence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess\nthe imposture or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should\nrefuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood\nor imposture in the case; if this threat was communicated to them\nseparately, yet with no different effect; if it was at last executed; if\nI myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burned,\nor strangled, rather than give up the truth of their account,--still, if\nMr. Hume's rule be my guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake\nto say that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not\nbelieve them, or who would defend such incredulity.\"(1)\n\nIt is obvious that this reasoning, besides being purely hypothetical, is\nutterly without cogency against Hume's doctrine. In the first place,\nit is clear that no assertion of any twelve men would be sufficient to\noverthrow a law of nature, which is the result of a complete induction,\nand in order to establish the reality of a miracle or the occurrence\non one occasion of an unprecedented effect, from any cause, not in\naccordance with natural law, no smaller amount of evidence would suffice\nthan would serve to refute the complete induction. The allegation of\nsuch an intervening cause as a Personal\n\n{90}\n\nDeity working miracles is excluded as opposed to a complete induction.\nSo long as we maintain the law, we are necessarily compelled to reject\nany evidence which contradicts it. We cannot at the same time believe\nthe contradictory evidence, and yet assert the truth of the law.\nThe specific allegation, moreover, is completely prohibited by\nthe Scriptural admission that miracles are also performed by other\nsupernatural beings in opposition to the Deity. The evidence of the\ntwelve men, however, simply amounts to a statement that they saw, or\nfancied that they saw, a certain occurrence in contradiction to the law,\nbut that which they actually saw was only an external phenomenon, the\nreal nature of which is a mere inference, and an inference which, from\nthe necessarily isolated position of the miraculous phenomenon, is\nneither supported by other instances capable of forming a complete\ncounter induction, nor by analogies within the order of nature.1 The\nbare inference from an occurrence supposed to have been witnessed by\ntwelve men is all that is opposed to the law of nature, which is based\nupon a complete induction, and it is, therefore, incredible.\n\nIf we proceed to examine Paley's \"simple case\" a little more closely,\nhowever, we find that not only is it utterly inadmissible as a\nhypothesis, but that as an illustration of the case of Gospel miracles\nit is completely devoid of relevancy and argumentative force. The only\npoint which gives a momentary value to the supposed instance is the\ncondition attached to the account of the miracle related by the twelve\nmen, that not only was it wrought before their eyes, but that it was one\n\"in which it was impossible that they should be deceived.\" Now\n\n{91}\n\nthis qualification of infallibility on the part of the twelve witnesses\nis as incredible as the miracle which they are supposed to attest. The\nexistence of twelve men incapable of error or mistake is as opposed to\nexperience as the hypothesis of a miracle in which it is impossible for\nthe twelve men to be deceived is contradictory to reason. The exclusion\nof all error in the observation of the actual occurrence and its\nantecedents and consequences, whose united sum constitutes the miracle,\nis an assumption which deprives the argument of all potency. It cannot\nbe entertained. On the other hand, the moment the possibility of error\nis admitted, the reasoning breaks down, for the probability of error on\nthe part of the observers, either as regards the external phenomena,\nor the inferences drawn from them, being so infinitely greater than the\nprobability of mistake in the complete induction, we must unquestionably\nhold by the law and reject the testimony of the twelve men.\n\nIt need scarcely be said that the assertion of liability to error on\nthe part of the observers by no means involves any insinuation of wilful\n\"falsehood or imposture in the case.\" It is quite intelligible that\ntwelve men might witness an occurrence which might seem to them and\nothers miraculous,--but which was susceptible of a perfectly natural\nexplanation,--and truthfully relate what they believed to have seen, and\nthat they might, therefore, refuse \"with one voice to acknowledge that\nthere existed any falsehood or imposture in the case,\" even although the\nalternative might be death on a gibbet. This, however, would in no way\naffect the character of the actual occurrence. It would not convert a\nnatural, though by them inexplicable, phenomenon into a miracle. Their\nconstancy in adhering to the account they had\n\n{92}\n\ngiven would merely bear upon the truth of their own statements, and the\nfact of seeing them \"one after another consenting to be racked, burned,\nor strangled, rather than give up the truth of their account,\" would not\nin the least justify our believing in a miracle. Even martyrdom cannot\ntransform imaginations into facts. The truth of a narrative is\nno guarantee for the correctness of an inference. It seems almost\nincredible that arguments like these should for so many years have been\ntolerated in the text-book of a University.\n\nAs regards the applicability of Paleys illustration to the Gospel\nmiracles, the failure of his analogy is complete. We shall presently see\nthe condition of the people amongst whom these miracles are supposed to\nhave occurred, and that, so far from the nature of the phenomena, and\nthe character of the witnesses, supporting the inference that it was\nimpossible that the observers could have been deceived, there is every\nreason for concluding with certainty that their ignorance of natural\nlaws, their proneness to superstition, their love of the marvellous, and\ntheir extreme religious excitement, rendered them peculiarly liable to\nincorrectness in the observation of the phenomena, and to error in\nthe inferences drawn from them. We shall likewise see that we have no\nserious and circumstantial accounts of those miracles from eye-witnesses\nof whose probity and good sense we have any knowledge, but that, on\nthe contrary, the narratives of them which we possess were composed by\nunknown persons, who were not eyewitnesses at all, but wrote very long\nafter the events related, and in that mythic period \"in which reality\nmelted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the\nprovince of history.\" The proposition: \"That\n\n{93}\n\nthere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof these accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct,\" is made by Paley the argument of the first\nnine chapters of his work, as the converse of the proposition, that\nsimilar attestation of other miracles cannot be produced, is of the\nfollowing two. This shows the importance which he attaches to the point;\nbut, notwithstanding, even if he could substantiate this statement, the\ncause of miracles would not be one whit advanced.\n\nWe have freely quoted these arguments in order to illustrate the real\nposition of miracles; and no one who has seriously considered the matter\ncan doubt the necessity for very extraordinary evidence, even to\nrender the report of such phenomena worthy of a moment's attention. The\nargument for miracles, however, has hitherto proceeded upon the merest\nassumption, and, as we shall further see, the utmost that they can\ndo who support miracles, under the fatal disadvantage of being\ncontradictory to uniform experience, is to refer to the alleged\ncontemporaneous nature of the evidence for their occurrence, and to the\ncharacter of the supposed witnesses. Mr. Mill has ably shown the serious\nmisapprehension of so many writers against Hume's \"Essay on Miracles,\"\nwhich has led them to what he calls \"the extraordinary conclusion,\nthat nothing supported by credible testimony ought ever to be\ndisbelieved.\"(1) In regard to historical facts, not contradictory to all\n\n{94}\n\nexperience, simple and impartial testimony may be sufficient to warrant\nbelief, but even such qualities as these can go but a very small way\ntowards establishing the reality of an occurrence which is opposed to\ncomplete induction.(1) It is admitted that the evidence requisite to\nestablish the reality of a supernatural Divine Revelation of doctrines\nbeyond human reason, and comprising in its very essence such stupendous\nmiracles as the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, must be\nmiraculous. The evidence for the miraculous evidence, which is scarcely\nless astounding than the contents of the Revelation itself, must,\nlogically, be miraculous also, for it is not a whit more easy to prove\nthe reality of an evidential miracle than of a dogmatic miracle. It\nis evident that the resurrection of Lazarus, for instance, is as\ncontradictory to complete induction as the resurrection of Jesus. Both\nthe Supernatural Religion, therefore, and its supernatural evidence\nlabour under the fatal disability of being antecedently incredible.\n\n{95}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THE AGE OF MIRACLES\n\nLet us now, however, proceed to examine the evidence for the reality of\nmiracles, and to inquire whether they are supported by such an amount of\ntestimony as can in any degree outweigh the reasons which, antecedently,\nseem to render them incredible. It is undeniable that belief in the\nmiraculous has gradually been dispelled, and that, as a general rule,\nthe only miracles which are now maintained are limited to brief and\ndistant periods of time. Faith in their reality, once so comprehensive,\ndoes not, except amongst a certain class, extend beyond the miracles of\nthe New Testament and a few of those of the Old,(1) and the countless\nmyriads of ecclesiastical\n\n{96}\n\nand other miracles, for centuries devoutly and implicitly believed, are\nnow commonly repudiated, and have sunk into discredit and contempt. The\nquestion is inevitably suggested how so much can be abandoned and the\nremnant still be upheld.\n\nAs an essential part of our inquiry into the value of the evidence for\nmiracles, we must endeavour to ascertain whether those who are said to\nhave witnessed the supposed miraculous occurrences were either\ncompetent to appreciate them aright, or likely to report them without\nexaggeration. For this purpose, we must consider what was known of the\norder of nature in the age in which miracles are said to have taken\nplace, and what was the intellectual character of the people amongst\nwhom they are reported to have been performed. Nothing is more\nrare, even amongst intelligent and cultivated men, than accuracy of\nobservation and correctness of report, even in matters of sufficient\nimportance to attract vivid attention, and in which there is no special\ninterest unconsciously to bias the observer. It will scarcely be denied,\nhowever, that in persons of fervid imagination, and with a strong\nnatural love of the marvellous, whose minds are not only unrestrained\nby specific knowledge, but predisposed by superstition towards\nfalse conclusions, the probability of inaccuracy and exaggeration is\nenormously\n\n{97}\n\nincreased. If we add to this such a disturbing element as religious\nexcitement, inaccuracy, exaggeration, and extravagance are certain to\noccur. The effect of even one of these influences, religious feeling,\nin warping the judgment, is admitted by one of the most uncompromising\nsupporters of miracles. \"It is doubtless the tendency of religious\nminds,\" says Dr. Newman, \"to imagine mysteries and wonders where there\nare none; and much more, where causes of awe really exist, will they\nunintentionally mis-state, exaggerate, and embellish, when they set\nthemselves to relate what they have witnessed or have heard;\" and he\nadds: \"and further, the imagination, as is well known, is a fruitful\ncause of apparent miracles.\"(1) We need not offer any evidence that the\nmiracles which we have to examine were witnessed and reported by persons\nexposed to the effects of the strongest possible religious feeling and\nexcitement, and our attention may, therefore, be more freely directed to\nthe inquiry how far this influence was modified by other circumstances.\nDid the Jews at the time of Jesus possess such calmness of judgment and\nsobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in accounts\nof marvellous occurrences, unwitnessed except by them, and limited to\ntheir time, which contradict all knowledge and all experience? Were\ntheir minds sufficiently enlightened and free from superstition to\nwarrant our attaching weight to their report of events of such an\nastounding nature? and were they themselves sufficiently impressed with\nthe exceptional character of\n\n\n\n{98}\n\nany apparent supernatural and miraculous interference with the order of\nnature?\n\nLet an English historian and divine, who will be acknowledged as no\nprejudiced witness, bear testimony upon some of these points. \"Nor is\nit less important,\" says the late Dean Milman, \"throughout the early\nhistory of Christianity, to seize the spirit of the times. Events which\nappear to us so extraordinary, that we can scarcely conceive that\nthey should either fail in exciting a powerful sensation, or ever be\nobliterated from the popular remembrance, in their own day might pass\noff as of little more than ordinary occurrence. During the whole life of\nChrist, and the early propagation of the religion, it must be borne\nin mind that they took place in an age, and among a people, which\nsuperstition had made so familiar with what were supposed to be\npreternatural events, that wonders awakened no emotion, or were speedily\nsuperseded by some new demand on the ever-ready belief. The Jews of\nthat period not only believed that the Supreme Being had the power\nof controlling the course of nature, but that the same influence was\npossessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits, both good and evil.\nWhere the pious Christian of the present day would behold the direct\nagency of the Almighty, the Jews would invariably have interposed an\nangel as the author or ministerial agent in the wonderful transaction.\nWhere the Christian moralist would condemn the fierce passion, the\nungovernable lust, or the inhuman temper, the Jew discerned the workings\nof diabolical possession. Scarcely a malady was endured, or crime\ncommitted, but it was traced to the operation of one of these myriad\ndaemons, who watched every opportunity\n\n{99}\n\nof exercising their malice in the sufferings and the sins of men.\"(1)\n\nAnother English divine, of certainly not less orthodoxy, but of\nmuch greater knowledge of Hebrew literature, bears similar testimony\nregarding the Jewish nation at the same period. \"Not to be more\ntedious, therefore, in this matter,\" (regarding the Bath Kol, a Jewish\nsuperstition,)\" let two things only be observed: I. That the nation,\nunder the second Temple, was given to magical arts beyond measure;\nand, II. That it was given to an easiness of believing all manner of\ndelusions beyond measure.\"(2) And in another place: \"It is a disputable\ncase, whether the Jewish nation were more mad with superstition in\nmatters of religion, or with superstition in curious arts:--I. There was\nnot a people upon earth that studied or attributed more to dreams than\nthey. II. There was hardly any people in the whole world that more used,\nor were more fond of, amulets, charms, mutterings, exorcisms, and all\nkinds of enchantments. We might here produce innumerable instances.\"(3)\nWe shall presently see that these statements are far from being\nexaggerated.\n\nNo reader of the Old Testament can fail to have been struck by the\nsingularly credulous fickleness of the Jewish mind. Although claiming\nthe title of the specially selected people of Jehovah, the Israelites\nexhibited a constant and inveterate tendency to forsake his service for\nthe worship of other gods. The mighty \"signs and wonders\" which God is\nrepresented as incessantly working\n\n{100}\n\non their behalf, and in their sight, had apparently no effect upon\nthem. The miraculous even then had, as it would seem, already lost all\nnovelty, and ceased, according to the records, to excite more than mere\npassing astonishment. The leaders and prophets of Israel had a perpetual\nstruggle to restrain the people from \"following after\" heathen deities,\nand whilst the burden of the Prophets is one grand denunciation of the\nidolatry into which the nation was incessantly falling, the verdict of\nthe historical books upon the several kings and rulers of Israel proves\nhow common it was, and how rare even the nominal service of Jehovah.\nAt the best the mind of the Jewish nation only after long and slow\nprogression, attained the idea of a perfect monotheism, but added to the\nbelief in Jehovah the recognition of a host of other gods, over whom\nit merely gave him supremacy.(1) This is apparent even in the first\ncommandment: \"Thou shalt have no other gods before me;\" and the\nnecessity for such a law received its illustration from a people who are\nrepresented as actually worshipping the golden calf, made for them by\nthe complaisant Aaron, during the very time that the great Decalogue\nwas being written on the Mount by his colleague Moses.(2) It is not,\ntherefore, to be wondered at that, at a later period, and throughout\npatristic days, the gods of the Greeks and other heathen nations were so\nfar gently treated, that, although repudiated as Deities,\n\n{101}\n\nthey were recognized as Demons. In the Septuagint version of the Old\nTestament, where \"idols\" are spoken of in the Hebrew, the word is\nsometimes translated \"demons;\" as, for instance, Psalm xcvi. 5 is\nrendered: \"For all the gods of the nations are demons.\"(l) The national\nsuperstition betrays itself in this and many other passages of this\nversion, which so well represented the views of the first ages of the\nChurch that the Fathers regarded it as miraculous. Irenaeus relates how\nPtolemy, the son of Lagus, brought seventy of the elders of the Jews\ntogether to Alexandria in order to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into\nGreek, but fearing that they might agree amongst themselves to conceal\nthe real meaning of the Hebrew, he separated them, and commanded each\nto make a translation. When the seventy translations of the Bible were\ncompleted and compared, it was found that, by the inspiration of God,\nthe very same words and the very same names from beginning to end had\nbeen used by them all.(2) The same superstition is quite as clearly\nexpressed in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, for instance, speaking\nof things sacrificed to idols, says: \"But (I say) that the things which\nthe Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I\nwould not that ye should be partakers with\n\n{102}\n\ndemons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons; ye\ncannot partake of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons.\"(l)\n\nThe apocryphal Book of Tobit affords some illustration of the opinions\nof the more enlightened Jews during the last century before the\ncommencement of the Christian era.(2) The angel Raphael prescribes,\nas an infallible means of driving a demon out of man or woman so\neffectually that it should never more come back, fumigation with the\nheart and liver of a fish.(3) By this exorcism the demon Asmodeus, who\nfrom love of Sara, the daughter of Raguel, has strangled seven husbands\nwho attempted to marry her,(4) is overcome, and flies into \"the\nuttermost parts of Egypt,\" where the angel binds him.(5) The belief in\ndemons, and in the necessity of exorcism, is so complete that the author\nsees no incongruity in describing the angel Raphael, who has been sent,\nin answer to prayer, specially to help him, as instructing Tobias to\nadopt such means of subjecting demons. Raphael is described in this book\nas the angel of healing,(6) the office generally assigned to him by the\nFathers. He is also represented as saying of himself that he is one of\nthe seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints to God.(7)\n\n{103}\n\nThere are many curious particulars regarding angels and demons in\nthe Book of Enoch.(1) This work, which is quoted by the author of\nthe Epistle of Jude,(2) and by some of the Fathers, as inspired\nScripture,(3) was supposed by Tertullian to have survived the universal\ndeluge, or to have been afterwards transmitted by means of Noah, the\ngreat-grandson of the author Enoch.(4) It may be assigned to about a\ncentury before Christ, but additions were made to the text, and\nmore especially to its angelology, extending probably to after the\ncommencement of our era.(5) It undoubtedly represents views popularly\nprevailing about the epoch in which we are interested. The author not\nonly relates the fall of the angels through love for the daughters of\nmen, but gives the names of twenty-one of them and of their leaders; of\nwhom Jequn was he who seduced the holy angels, and Ashbeel it was who\ngave them evil counsel and corrupted them.(6) A third, Gadreel,(7) was\nhe who seduced Eve. He also taught to the children of men the use and\nmanufacture of all murderous weapons, of coats of mail, shields,\n\n{104}\n\nswords, and of all the implements of death. Another evil angel, named\nPenemue, taught them many mysteries of wisdom. He instructed men in\nthe art of writing with paper [--Greek--] and ink, by means of which, the\nauthor remarks, many fall into sin even to the present day. Kaodeja,\nanother evil angel, taught the human race all the wicked practices of\nspirits and demons,(1) and also magic and exorcism.(2) The offspring of\nthe fallen angels and of the daughters of men were giants, whose height\nwas 3000 ells;(3) of these are the demons working evil upon earth.(4)\nAzazel taught men various arts: the making of bracelets and ornaments;\nthe use of cosmetics, the way to beautify the eyebrows; precious stones,\nand all dye-stuffs and metals; whilst other wicked angels instructed\nthem in all kinds of pernicious knowledge.(5) The elements and all the\nphenomena of nature are controlled and produced by the agency of angels.\nUriel is the angel of thunder and earthquakes; Raphael, of the spirits\nof men; Raguel is the angel who executes vengeance on the world and the\nstars; Michael is set over the best of mankind, i.e., over the people\nof Israel;(6) Saraqael, over the souls of the children of men, who are\nmisled by the spirits of sin; and Gabriel is over serpents and over\nParadise, and over the Cherubim.(7) Enoch is shown the mystery of\nall the operations of nature, and the action of the elements, and he\ndescribes the spirits which guide them, and control the thunder and\nlightning and the winds; the spirit of the seas, who curbs them with his\nmight, or tosses them forth and scatters them through the mountains of\nthe earth; the\n\n{105}\n\nspirit of hoar frost, and the spirit of hail, and the spirit of snow.\nThere are, in fact, special spirits set over every phenomenon of\nnature--frost, thaw, mist, rain, light, and so on.(1) The heavens and\nthe earth are filled with spirits. Raphael is the angel set over all the\ndiseases and wounds of mankind, Gabriel over all powers, and Fanuel over\nthe penitence and the hope of those who inherit eternal life.(2)\nThe decree for the destruction of the human race goes forth from the\npresence of the Lord, because men know all the mysteries of the angels,\nall the evil works of Satan, and all the secret might and power of those\nwho practise the art of magic, and the power of conjuring, and such\narts.(3) The stars are represented as animated beings.(4) Enoch sees\nseven stars bound together in space like great mountains, and flaming\nas with fire; and he inquires of the angel who leads him, on account of\nwhat sin they are so bound? Uriel informs him that they are stars which\nhave transgressed the commands of the Highest God, and they are thus\nbound until ten thousand worlds, the number of the days of their\ntransgression, shall be accomplished.(5) The belief that sun, moon, and\nstars were living entities possessed of souls was generally held by the\nJews at the beginning of our era, along with Greek philosophers, and we\nshall presently see it expressed by the Fathers. Philo Judaeus considers\nthe stars spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection,(6) and that to\nthem is granted lordship over other heavenly bodies, not absolute, but\nas viceroys under the Supreme\n\n{106}\n\nBeing.(1) We find a similar view regarding the nature of the stars\nexpressed in the Apocalypse,(2) and it constantly appears in the\nTalmud and Targums.(3) An angel of the sun and moon is described in the\nAscensio Isaiae.(4)\n\nWe are able to obtain a full and minute conception of the belief\nregarding angels and demons and their influence over cosmical phenomena,\nas well as of other superstitions current amongst the Jews at the time\nof Jesus,(5) from the Talmud, Targums, and other Rabbinical sources. We\ncannot, however, do more, here, than merely glance at these voluminous\nmaterials. The angels are perfectly pure spirits, without sin, and not\nvisible to mortal eyes. When they come down to earth on any mission,\nthey are clad in light and veiled in air. If, however, they remain\nlonger than seven days on earth, they become so clogged with the earthly\nmatter in which they have been immersed that they cannot again ascend to\nthe upper heavens.(6) Their multitude is innumerable,(7) and new angels\nare every day created, who in succession praise\n\n{107}\n\nGod and make way for others.(1) The expression, \"host of heaven,\" is\na common one in the Old Testament, and the idea was developed into a\nheavenly army. The first Gospel represents Jesus as speaking of \"more\nthan twelve legions of angels.\"(2) Every angel has one particular\nduty to perform, and no more; thus of the three angels who appeared\nto Abraham, one was sent to announce that Sarah should have a son, the\nsecond to rescue Lot, and the third to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.(3)\nThe angels serve God in the administration of the universe, and to\nspecial angels are assigned the different parts of nature. \"There is not\na thing in the world, not even a little herb, over which there is not\nan angel set, and everything happens according to the command of these\nappointed angels.\"(4) It will be remembered that the agency of angels\nis frequently introduced in the Old Testament, and still more so in the\nSeptuagint version, by alterations of the text. One notable case of such\nagency may be referred to, where the pestilence which is sent to punish\nDavid for numbering the people is said to be caused by an angel, whom\nDavid even sees. The Lord is represented as repenting of the evil, when\nthe angel was stretching forth his hand against Jerusalem, and bidding\nhim stay his hand after the angel had destroyed seventy thousand men\nby the pestilence.(5) This theory of disease has prevailed until\ncomparatively recent times. The names of many of the superintending\nangels are given, as, for instance: Jehuel\n\n{108}\n\nis set over fire, Michael over water, Jechiel over wild beasts, and\nAnpiel over birds. Over cattle Hariel is appointed, and Samniel over\ncreated things moving in the waters, and over the face of the earth;\nMessannahel over reptiles, Deliel over fish. Ruchiel is set over the\nwinds, Gabriel over thunder and also over fire, and over the ripening of\nfruit, Xuriel over hail, Makturiel over rocks, Alpiel over fruit-bearing\ntrees, Saroel over those which do not bear fruit, and Sandalfon over the\nhuman race; and under each of these there are subordinate angels.(1) It\nwas believed that there were two angels of Death, one for those who died\nout of the land of Israel, who was an evil angel, called Samael (and at\nother times Satan, Asmodeus, &c), and the other, who presided over the\ndead of the land of Israel, the holy angel Gabriel; and under these\nthere was a host of evil spirits and angels.(2) The Jews were unanimous\nin asserting that angels superintend the various operations of nature,\nalthough there is some difference in the names assigned to these\nangels.(3) The Sohar on Numbers states that \"Michael, Gabriel, Nuriel,\nRaphael are set over the four elements, water, fire, air, earth.\"(4) We\nshall presently sec how general this belief regarding angels was amongst\nthe Fathers, but it is also expressed in the New Testament. In the\nApocalypse there appears an angel\n\n{109}\n\nwho has power over fire,(1) and in another place four angels have\npower to hurt the earth and the sea.(2) The angels were likewise the\ninstructors of men, and communicated knowledge to the Patriarchs. The\nangel Gabriel taught Joseph the seventy languages of the earth.(3) It\nappears, however, that there was one language--the Syriac--which the\nangels do not understand, and for this reason men were not permitted\nto pray for things needful, in that tongue.(4) Angels are appointed as\nprinces over the seventy nations of the world; but the Jews consider\nthe angels set over Gentile nations merely demons.(6) The Septuagint\ntranslation of Deuteronomy xxxii. 8 introduces the statement into the\nOld Testament. Instead of the Most High, when he divided to the nations\ntheir inheritance, setting the bounds of the people \"according to the\nnumber of the children of Israel,\" the passage becomes, \"according to\nthe number of the angels of God\" [--Greek--]. The number of the nations was\nfixed at seventy, the number of the souls who went down into Egypt.(6)\nThe Jerusalem Targum on Genesis xi. 7, 8, reads as follows: \"God spake\nto the seventy angels which stand before him: Come, let us go down and\nconfound their language that they may not understand each other. And\nthe Word of the Lord appeared there (at Babel), with the seventy angels,\naccording to the seventy nations, and\n\n{110}\n\neach had the language of the people which was allotted to him, and the\nrecord of the writing in his hand, and scattered the nations from thence\nover the whole earth, in seventy languages, so that the one did not\nunderstand what the other said.\"(l) Michael was the angel of the people\nof Israel,(2) and he is always set in the highest place amongst the\nangels, and often called the High Priest of Heaven.(3) It was believed\nthat the angels of the nations fought in heaven when their allotted\npeoples made war on earth. We see an allusion to this in the Book of\nDaniel,(4) and in the Apocalypse there is \"war in heaven; Michael and\nhis angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his\nangels.\"(5) The Jews of the time of Jesus not only held that there\nwere angels set over the nations, but also that each individual had\na guardian angel.(6) This belief appears in several places in the New\nTestament. For instance, Jesus is represented as saying of the children:\n\"For I say unto you that their angels do always behold the face of my\nFather which is in heaven.\"(7) Again, in the Acts of the Apostles, when\nPeter is delivered from prison by an angel, and comes to the house of\nhis friend, they will not believe the maid who had opened the gate\nand seen him, but say: \"It is his angel\" [--Greek--].8 The passage in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews will likewise be remembered, where it is said\nof the angels: \"Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for\nministry on\n\n{111}\n\naccount of them who shall be heirs of salvation.\"(1) There was at the\nsame time a singular belief that when any person went into the private\ncloset, the guardian angel remained at the door till he came out again,\nand in the Talmud a prayer is given for strength and help under the\ncircumstances, and that the guardian angel may wait while the person is\nthere. The reason why the angel does not enter is that such places are\nhaunted by demons.(2)\n\nThe belief in demons at the time of Jesus was equally emphatic and\ncomprehensive, and we need scarcely mention that the New Testament is\nfull of references to them.(3) They are in the air, on earth, in the\nbodies of men and animals, and even at the bottom of the sea.(4) They\nare the offspring of the fallen angels who loved the daughters of\nmen.(5) They have wings like the angels, and can fly from one end of\nheaven to another; they obtain a knowledge of the future, like the\nangels, by listening behind the veil of the Temple of God in Heaven.(6)\nTheir number is infinite. The earth is so full of them that if man had\npower to see he could not exist, on account of them; there are more\ndemons than men, and they are about as close as the earth thrown up out\nof a newly-made grave.(7) It is stated that each man has\n\n10,000 demons at his right hand, and 1,000 on his left, and the passage\ncontinues: \"The crush on the Sabbath in the Synagogue arises from them,\nalso the dresses of the Rabbins become so soon old and torn through\ntheir rubbing; in like manner they cause the tottering of the feet. He\nwho wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes and strew\nthem about his bed, and in the morning he will perceive their footprints\nupon them like a cock's tread. If any one wish to see them, he must take\nthe afterbirth of a black cat, which has been littered by a first-born\nblack cat, whose mother was also a first-birth, burn and reduce it\nto powder, and put some of it in his eyes, and he will see them.\"(l)\nSometimes demons assume the form of a goat. Evil spirits fly chiefly\nduring the darkness, for they are children of night.(2) For this reason\nthe Talmud states that men are forbidden to greet any one by night, lest\nit might be a devil,(3) or to go out alone even by day, but much more by\nnight, into solitary places.(4) It was likewise forbidden for any man to\nsleep alone in a house, because any one so doing would be seized by\nthe she-devil Lilith, and die.(5) Further, no man should drink water by\nnight on account of the demon Schafriri, the angel of blindness.(6)\n\n{113}\n\nAn evil spirit descended on any one going into a cemetery by night.(1)\nA necromancer is defined as one who fasts and lodges at night amongst\ntombs in order that the evil spirit may come upon him.(2) Demons,\nhowever, take more especial delight in foul and offensive places, and an\nevil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world.(3) Demons haunt\ndeserted places, ruins, graves, and certain kinds of trees.(4) We find\nindications of these superstitions throughout the Gospels. The possessed\nare represented as dwelling among the tombs, and being driven by the\nunclean spirits into the wilderness, and the demons can find no rest in\nclean places.(5) Demons also frequented springs and fountains.(6) The\nepisode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons and\ntrouble the water of the pool of Bethesda, so that he who first stepped\nin was cured of whatever disease he had, may be mentioned here in\npassing, although the passage is not found in some of the older MSS.\nof the fourth Gospel,(7) and it is argued by some that it is a later\ninterpolation. There were demons who hurt those who did not wash their\nhands before meat. \"Shibta is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands\nin the night; and if any touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit\nsits upon that food, and there is danger from it.\"(8)\n\n{114}\n\nThe demon Asmodeus is frequently called the king of the devils,(1) and\nit was believed that he tempted people to apostatize; he it was who\nenticed Noah into his drunkenness, and led Solomon into sin.(2) He\nis represented as alternately ascending to study in the School of\nthe heavenly Jerusalem, and descending to study in the school of\nthe earth.(3) The injury of the human race in every possible way was\nbelieved to be the chief delight of evil spirits. The Talmud and other\nRabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession,\nbut we need not enter into details upon this point, as the New Testament\nitself presents sufficient evidence regarding it. Not only one evil\nspirit could enter into a body, but many took possession of the same\nindividual. There are many instances mentioned in the Gospels, such as\nMary Magdalene, \"out of whom went seven demons\" [--Greek--],4 and the man\nwhose name was Legion, because \"many demons\" [--Greek--] were entered into\nhim.(5) Demons likewise entered into the bodies of animals, and in the\nnarrative to which we have just referred, the demons, on being expelled\nfrom the man, request that they may be allowed to enter into the herd of\nswine, which being permitted, \"the demons went out of\n\n{115}\n\nthe man into the swine, and the herd ran violently down the cliff into\nthe lake, and were drowned,\"(1) the evil spirits, as usual, taking\npleasure only in the destruction and injury of man and beast. Besides\n\"possession,\" all the diseases of men and animals were ascribed to the\naction of the devil and of demons.(2) In the Gospels, for instance, the\nwoman with a spirit of infirmity, who was bowed together and could not\nlift herself up, is described as \"bound by Satan,\" although the case was\nnot one of demoniacal possession.(3)\n\nAs might be expected from the universality of the belief in demons\nand their influence over the human race, the Jews at the time of Jesus\noccupied themselves much with the means of conjuring them. \"There was\nhardly any people in the whole world,\" we have already heard from a\ngreat Hebrew scholar, \"that more used, or were more fond of, amulets,\ncharms, mutterings, exorcisms, and all kinds of enchantments.\"(4)\nSchoettgen bears similar testimony: \"Caeterum judoeos magicis artibus\nadmodum deditos esse, notissimum est.\"(5) All competent scholars are\nagreed upon this point, and the Talmud and Rabbinical writings are full\nof it. The exceeding prevalence of such arts alone proves the existence\nof the grossest ignorance and superstition.\n\n{116}\n\nThere are elaborate rules in the Talmud with regard to dreams, both\nas to how they are to be obtained and how interpreted.(1) Fasts were\nenjoined in order to secure good dreams, and these fasts were not only\nobserved by the ignorant, but also by the principal Rabbins, and\nthey were permitted even on the Sabbath, which was unlawful in\nother cases.(2) Indeed, the interpretation of dreams became a public\nprofession.(3) It would be impossible within our limits to convey an\nadequate idea of the general superstition prevalent amongst the\nJews regarding things and actions lucky and unlucky, or the minute\nparticulars in regard to every common act prescribed for safety\nagainst demons and evil influences of all kinds. Nothing was considered\nindifferent or too trifling, and the danger from the most trivial\nmovements or omissions to which men were supposed to be exposed from\nthe malignity of evil spirits was believed to be great.(4) Amulets,\nconsisting of roots, or pieces of paper with charms written upon them,\nwere hung round the neck of the sick, and considered efficacious for\ntheir cure. Charms, mutterings, and spells were commonly said over\nwounds, against unlucky meetings, to make people sleep, to heal\ndiseases, and to avert enchantments.(5) The Talmud gives forms of\nenchantments against mad dogs, for instance, against the demon of\nblindness, and the like, as well as formulae for averting the evil eye,\nand\n\n{117}\n\nmutterings over diseases.(1) So common was the practice of sorcery and\nmagic that the Talmud enjoins \"that the senior who is chosen into\nthe Council ought to be skilled in the arts of astrologers, jugglers,\ndiviners, sorcerers, &c, that he may be able to judge of those who are\nguilty of the same.\"(2) Numerous cases are recorded of persons destroyed\nby means of sorcery.(3) The Jewish women were particularly addicted to\nsorcery, and indeed the Talmud declares that they had generally fallen\ninto it.(4) The New Testament bears abundant testimony to the prevalence\nof magic and exorcism at the time at which its books were written. In\nthe Gospels, Jesus is represented as arguing with the Pharisees, who\naccuse him of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.\n\"If I by Beelzebub cast out the demons [--Greek--] by whom do your sons\ncast them out? Therefore let them be your judges.\"(5)\n\nThe thoroughness and universality of the Jewish popular belief in\ndemons and evil spirits and in the power of magic is exhibited in the\nascription to Solomon, the monarch in whom the greatness and glory\nof the nation attained its culminating point, of the character of a\npowerful magician. The most effectual forms of invocation and exorcism,\nand the most potent spells of magic, were said to have been composed\nby him, and thus the grossest superstition of the nation acquired the\nsanction of their wisest king. Rabbinical writings are\n\n{118}\n\nnever weary of enlarging upon the magical power and knowledge of\nSolomon. He was represented as not only king of the whole earth, but\nalso as reigning over devils and evil spirits, and having the power\nof expelling them from the bodies of men and animals, and also of\ndelivering people to them.(1) It was indeed believed that the two demons\nAsa and Asael taught Solomon all wisdom and all arts.(2) The Talmud\nrelates many instances of his power over evil spirits, and amongst\nothers how he made them assist in building the Temple. Solomon desired\nto have the help of the worm Schamir in preparing the stones for the\nsacred building, and he conjured up a devil and a she-devil to inform\nhim where Schamir was to be found. They referred him to Asmodeus, whom\nthe King craftily captured, and by whom he was informed that Schamir is\nunder the jurisdiction of the Prince of the Seas, and Asmodeus further\ntold him how he might be secured. By his means the Temple was built,\nbut, from the moment it was destroyed, Schamir for ever disappeared.(3)\nIt was likewise believed that one of the Chambers of the second Temple\nwas built by a magician called Parvah, by means of magic.(4) The Talmud\nnarrates many stories of miracles performed by various Rabbins.(6)\n\nThe Jewish historian, Josephus, informs us that, amongst\n\n{119}\n\nother gifts, God bestowed upon King Solomon knowledge of the way to\nexpel demons, an art which is useful and salutary for mankind. He\ncomposed incantations by which diseases are cured, and he left behind\nhim forms of exorcism by which demons may be so effectually expelled\nthat they never return, a method of cure, Josephus adds, which is of\ngreat efficacy to his own day. He himself had seen a countryman of his\nown, named Eliezer, release people possessed of devils in the presence\nof the Emperor Vespasian and his sons, and of his army. He put a ring\ncontaining one of the roots prescribed by Solomon to the nose of the\ndemoniac, and drew the demon out by his nostrils, and, in the name of\nSolomon, and reciting one of his incantations, he adjured it to return\nno more. In order to demonstrate to the spectators that he had the power\nto cast out devils, Eliezer was accustomed to set a vessel full of water\na little way off, and he commanded the demon as he left the body of the\nman to overturn it, by which means, says Josephus, the skill and wisdom\nof Solomon were made very manifest.(1) Jewish Rabbins generally were\nknown as powerful exorcisers, practising the art according to the\nformulae of their great monarch. Justin Martyr reproaches his Jewish\nopponent, Tryphon, with the fact that his countrymen use the same art as\nthe Gentiles, and exorcise with fumigations and charms [--Greek--], and he\nshows the common belief in demoniacal influence \"when he asserts that,\nwhile Jewish exorcists cannot overcome demons by such means, or even\nby exorcising them in the name of their Kings, Prophets, or Patriarchs,\nthough he admits that they might do so if they adjured them in the name\nof the God of Abraham, Isaac, and\n\n{120}\n\nJacob, yet Christians at once subdued demons by exorcising them in the\nname of the Son of God.(1) The Jew and the Christian were quite agreed\nthat demons were to be exorcised, and merely differed as to the formula\nof exorcism. Josephus gives an account of a root potent against evil\nspirits. It is called Baaras, and is flame-coloured, and in the evening\nsends out flashes like lightning. It is certain death to touch it,\nexcept under peculiar conditions. One mode of securing it is to dig down\ntill the smaller part of the root is exposed, and then to attach the\nroot to a dog's tail. When the dog tries to follow its master from the\nplace, and pulls violently, the root is plucked up, and may then be\nsafely handled, but the dog instantly dies, as the man would have done\nhad he plucked it up himself. When the root is brought to sick people,\nit at once expels demons.(2) According to Josephus, demons are the\nspirits of the wicked dead; they enter into the bodies of the living,\nwho die, unless succour be speedily obtained.(3) This theory, however,\nwas not general, demons being commonly considered the offspring of the\nfallen angels and of the daughters of men.\n\nThe Jewish historian gives a serious account of the preternatural\nportents which warned the Jews of the approaching fall of Jerusalem, and\nhe laments the infatuation of the people, who disregarded these Divine\ndenunciations. A star in the shape of a sword, and also a comet, stood\nover the doomed city for the space of a whole year. Then, at the feast\nof unleavened bread, before the rebellion of the Jews which preceded the\nwar, at the ninth hour of the night a\n\n{121}\n\ngreat light shone round the altar and the Temple, so that for half\nan hour it seemed as though it were brilliant daylight. At the same\nfestival other supernatural warnings were given. A heifer, as she was\nled by the high-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the\nTemple; moreover, the eastern gate of the inner court of the Temple,\nwhich was of brass, and so ponderous that twenty men had much difficulty\nin closing it, and which was fastened by heavy bolts descending deep\ninto the solid stone floor, was seen to open of its own accord, about\nthe sixth hour of the night. The ignorant considered some of these\nevents good omens, but the priests interpreted them as portents of evil.\nAnother prodigious phenomenon occurred, which Josephus supposes would be\nconsidered incredible were it not reported by those who saw it, and\nwere the subsequent events not of sufficient importance to merit such\nportents: before sunset, chariots and troops of soldieis in armour\nwere seen among the clouds, moving about, and surrounding cities. And\nfurther, at the feast of Pentecost, as the priests were entering the\ninner court of the Temple to perform their sacred duties, they felt an\nearthquake, and heard a great noise, and then the sound as of a great\nmultitude saying: \"Let us remove hence.\"(l) There is not a shadow of\ndoubt in the mind of Josephus as to the reality of any of these wonders.\n\nIf we turn to patristic literature, we find, everywhere, the same\nsuperstitions and the same theories of angelic agency and demoniacal\ninterference in cosmical phenomena. According to Justin Martyr, after\nGod had made the world and duly regulated the elements and the rotation\nof the seasons, he committed man and all\n\n{122}\n\nthings under heaven to the care of angels. Some of these angels,\nhowever, proved unworthy of this charge, and, led away by love of the\ndaughters of men, begat children, who are the demons who have corrupted\nthe human race, partly by magical writings [--Greek--] and partly by fears\nand punishments, and who have introduced wars, murders, and other evils\namongst them, which are ignorantly ascribed by poets to God himself.(1)\nHe considers that demoniacs are possessed and tortured by the souls of\nthe wicked dead,(2) and he represents evil spirits as watching to seize\nthe soul at death.(3) The food of the angels is manna.(4) The angels,\nsays Clement of Alexandria, serve God in the administration of earthly\naffairs.(5) The host of angels and of gods [--Greek--] is placed under\nsubjection to the Logos.(6) Presiding angels are distributed over\nnations and cities, and perhaps are also deputed to individuals,(7) and\nit is by their agency, either visible or invisible, that God gives all\ngood things.(8) He accuses the Greeks of plagiarizing their miracles\nfrom the Bible, and he argues that if certain powers do move the winds\nand distribute showers, they are agents subject to God.(9) Clement\naffirms that the Son gave philosophy to the Greeks by means of the\ninferior angels,(10) and argues that it is absurd to attribute it to the\ndevil.(11) Theophilus of Antioch, on the other hand, says that the Greek\npoets were inspired by demons.(12) Athenagoras states, as one of the\nprincipal\n\n{123}\n\npoints of belief among Christians, that a multitude of angels and\nministers are distributed and appointed by the Logos to occupy\nthemselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the universe and the\nthings in it, and the regulating of the whole.(1) For it is the duty of\nthe angels to exercise providence over all that God has created; so that\nGod may have the universal care of the whole, but the several parts be\nministered to by the angels appointed over them. There is freedom of\nwill amongst the angels as among human beings, and some of the angels\nabused their trust, and fell through love of the daughters of men, of\nwhom were begotten those who are called Giants.(2) These angels who have\nfallen from heaven busy themselves about the air and the earth; and the\nsouls of the Giants,(3) which are the demons that roam about the world,\nwork evil according to their respective natures.(4) There are powers\nwhich exercise dominion over matter, and by means of it, and more\nespecially one, who is opposed to God. This Prince of matter exerts\nauthority and control in opposition to the good designed by God.(5)\nDemons are greedy for sacrificial odours and the blood of the victims,\nwhich they lick; and they influence the multitude to idolatry by\ninspiring thoughts and visions which seem to come from idols and\nstatues.(6) According to Tatian, God made everything which is good, but\nthe wickedness of demons perverts\n\n{124}\n\nthe productions of nature for bad purposes, and the evil in these is due\nto demons and not to God.(1) None of the demons have bodies; they are\nspiritual, like fire or air, and can only be seen by those in whom the\nSpirit of God dwells. They attack men by means of lower forms of matter,\nand come to them whenever they are diseased, and sometimes they cause\ndisorders of the body, but when they are struck by the power of the word\nof God, they flee in terror, and the sick person is healed.(2) Various\nkinds of roots, and the relations of bones and sinews, are the material\nelements through which demons work.(3) Some of those who are called gods\nby the Greeks, but are in reality demons, possess the bodies of certain\nmen, and then by publicly leaving them they destroy the disease they\nthemselves had created, and the sick are restored to health.(4) Demons,\nsays Cyprian of Carthage, lurk under consecrated statues, and inspire\nfalse oracles, and control the lots and omens.(5) They enter into\nhuman bodies and feign various maladies in order to induce men to offer\nsacrifices for their recovery that they may gorge themselves with the\nfumes, and then they heal them. They are really the authors of the\nmiracles attributed to heathen deities.(6)\n\nTertullian enters into minute details regarding angels and demons.\nDemons are the offspring of the fallen angels, and their work is the\ndestruction of the human race. They inflict diseases and other painful\ncalamities upon our bodies, and lead astray our souls. From their\n\n{125}\n\nwonderful subtleness and tenuity they find their way into both parts of\nour composition. Their spirituality enables them to do much harm to men,\nfor being invisible and impalpable they appear rather in their effects\nthan in their action. They blight the apples and the grain while in the\nflower, as by some mysterious poison in the breeze, and kill them in the\nbud, or nip them before they are ripe, as though in some inexpressible\nway the tainted air poured forth its pestilential breath. In the same\nway demons and angels breathe into the soul and excite its corruptions,\nand especially mislead men by inducing them to sacrifice to false\ndeities in order that they may thus obtain their peculiar food of fumes\nof flesh and blood. Every spirit, whether angel or demon, has wings;\ntherefore they are everywhere in a moment. The whole world is but one\nplace to them, and all that takes place anywhere they can know and\nreport with equal facility. Their swiftness is believed to be divine\nbecause their substance is unknown, and thus they seek to be considered\nthe authors of effects which they merely report, as, indeed, they\nsometimes are of the evil, but never of the good. They gather\nintimations of the future from hearing the Prophets read aloud, and set\nthemselves up as rivals of the true God by stealing His divinations.\nFrom inhabiting the air, and from their proximity to the stars and\ncommerce with the clouds, they know the preparation of celestial\nphenomena, and promise beforehand the rains which they already feel\ncoming. They are very kind in reference to the cure of diseases,\nTertullian ironically says, for they first make people ill, and then,\nby way of performing a miracle, they prescribe remedies either novel or\ncontrary to common experience, and then, removing the cause, they are\n\n{126}\n\nbelieved to have healed the sick.(1) If any one possessed by a demon be\nbrought before a tribunal, Tertullian affirms that the evil spirit, when\nordered by a Christian, will at once confess that he is a demon.(2) The\nfallen angels were the discoverers of astrology and magic.(3) Unclean\nspirits hover over waters in imitation of the brooding (gestatio) of the\nHoly Spirit in the beginning, as, for instance, over dark fountains and\nsolitary streams, and cisterns in baths and dwelling-houses, and similar\nplaces, which are said to carry one off (rapere), that is to say, by the\nforce of the evil spirit.(4) The fallen angels disclosed to the world\nunknown material substances, and various arts, such as metallurgy, the\nproperties of herbs, incantations, and interpretation of the stars;\nand to women specially they revealed all the secrets of personal\nadornment.(5) There is scarcely any man who is not attended by a\ndemon; and it is well known that untimely and violent deaths, which are\nattributed to accidents, are really caused by demons.(6) Those who go\nto theatres may become specially accessible to demons. There is the\ninstance, the Lord is witness (domino teste), of the woman who went to a\ntheatre and came back possessed by a demon; and, on being cast out, the\nevil spirit replied that he had a right to act as he did, having found\nher within his limits. There was another case, also well known, of a\nwoman who, at night, after having been to a theatre, had a vision of a\n\n{127}\n\nwinding sheet (linteum), and heard the name of the tragedian whom she\nhad seen mentioned with reprobation and, five days after, the woman\nwas dead.(1) Origen attributes augury and divination through animals\nto demons. In his opinion certain demons, offspring of the Titans or\nGiants, who haunt the grosser parts of bodies and the unclean places of\nthe earth, and who, from not having earthly bodies, have some power of\ndivining the future, occupy themselves with this. They secretly enter\nthe bodies of the more brutal and savage animals, and force them to make\nflights or indications of divination to lead men away from God. They\nhave a special leaning to birds and serpents, and even to foxes and\nwolves, because the demons act better through these in consequence of\nan apparent analogy in wickedness between them.(2) It is for this reason\nthat Moses, who had either been taught by God what was similar in\nthe nature of animals and their kindred demons, or had discovered it\nhimself, prohibited as unclean the particular birds and animals most\nused for divination. Therefore each kind of demon seems to have an\naffinity with a certain kind of animal. They are so wicked that demons\neven assume the bodies of weasels to foretell the future.(3) They feed\non the blood and odour of the victims sacrificed in idol temples.(4)\nThe spirits of the wicked dead wander about sepulchres and sometimes\nfor ages haunt particular houses, and other places.(5) The prayers of\nChristians drive demons out of men, and from places where they have\n\n{128}\n\ntaken up their abode, and even sometimes from the bodies of animals,\nwhich are frequently injured by them.(1) In reply to a statement of\nCelsus that we cannot eat bread or fruit, or drink wine or even water\nwithout eating and drinking with demons, and that the very air we\nbreathe is received from demons, and that, consequently, we cannot\ninhale without receiving air from the demons who are set over the\nair,(2) Origen maintains, on the contrary, that the angels of God, and\nnot demons, have the superintendence of such natural phenomena, and\nhave been appointed to communicate all these blessings. Not demons, but\nangels, have been set over the fruits of the earth, and over the birth\nof animals, and over all things necessary for our race.(3) Scripture\nforbids the eating of things strangled because the blood is still in\nthem, and blood, and more especially the fumes of it, is said to be\nthe food of demons. If we ate strangled animals, we might have demons\nfeeding with us,(4) but in Origen's opinion a man only eats and drinks\nwith demons when he eats the flesh of idol sacrifices, and drinks the\nwine poured out in honour of demons.(6) Jerome states the common belief\nthat the air is filled with demons.(6) Chrysostom says that angels are\neverywhere in the atmosphere.(7)\n\nNot content, however, with peopling earth and air with angels and\ndemons, the Fathers also shared the opinion common to Jews(8) and\nheathen philosophers, that the heavenly bodies were animated beings.\nAfter fully discussing the question, with much reference to Scripture,\n\n{20}\n\nOrigen determines that sun, moon, and stars are living and rational\nbeings, illuminated with the light of knowledge by the wisdom which is\nthe reflection [--Greek--] of eternal light. They have free will, and as it\nwould appear from a passage in Job (xxv. 5) they are not only liable to\nsin, but actually not pure from the uncleanness of it. Origen is careful\nto explain that this has not reference merely to their physical part,\nbut to the spiritual; and he proceeds to discuss whether their souls\ncame into existence at the same time with their bodies or existed\npreviously, and whether, at the end of the world, they will be released\nfrom their bodies or will cease from giving light to the world. He\nargues that they are rational beings because their motions could not\ntake place without a soul. \"As the stars move with so much order and\nmethod,\" he says, \"that under no circumstances whatever does their\ncourse seem to be disturbed, is it not the extreme of absurdity to\nsuppose that so much order, so much observance of discipline and method\ncould be demanded from or fulfilled by irrational beings?\"(1) They\npossess life and reason, he decides, and he proves from Scripture that\ntheir souls were given to them not at the creation of their bodily\nsubstance, but like those of men implanted strictly from without, after\nthey were made.(2) They are \"subject to vanity\" with the rest of the\ncreatures, and \"wait for the manifestation of the sons of God.\"(3)\nOrigen is persuaded\n\n{130}\n\nthat sun, moon, and stars pray to the Supreme Being through His only\nbegotten Son.(1) To return to angels, however, Origen states that the\nangels are not only of various orders of rank, but have apportioned to\nthem specific offices and duties. To Raphael, for instance, is assigned\nthe task of curing and healing; to Gabriel the management of wars; to\nMichael the duty of receiving the prayers and the supplications of men.\nAngels are set over the different churches, and have charge even of the\nleast of their members. These offices were assigned to the angels by\nGod agreeably to the qualities displayed by each.(2) Elsewhere, Origen\nexplains that it is necessary for this world that there should be\nangels set over beasts and over terrestrial operations, and also angels\npresiding over the birth of animals, and over the propagation and growth\nof shrubs, and, again, angels over holy works, who eternally teach\nmen the perception of the hidden ways of God, and knowledge of divine\nthings; and he warns us not to bring upon ourselves those angels who are\nset over beasts, by leading an animal life, nor those which preside over\nterrestrial works, by taking delight in fleshly and mundane things,\nbut rather to study how we may approximate to the companionship of the\nArchangel Michael, to whose duty of presenting the prayers of the saints\nto God he here adds the office of presiding over medicine.(3) It is\nthrough the ministry of angels that the water-springs in fountains and\nrunning streams refresh the earth, and that the air we breathe is\n\n{131}\n\nkept pure.(1) In the \"Pastor\" of Hermas, a work quoted by the Fathers\nas inspired Scripture, which was publicly read in the churches, which\nalmost secured a permanent place in the New Testament canon, and which\nappears after the canonical books in the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest\nextant MS. of the New Testament, mention is made of an angel who has\nrule over beasts, and whose name is Hegrin.(2) Jerome also quotes an\napocryphal work in which an angel of similar name is said to be set over\nreptiles, and in which fishes, trees, and beasts are assigned to the\ncare of particular angels.(3)\n\nClement of Alexandria mentions without dissent the prevailing belief\nthat hail-storms, tempests, and similar phenomena do not occur merely\nfrom material disturbance, but also are caused by the anger of demons\nand evil angels.(4) Origen states that while angels superintend all the\nphenomena of nature, and control what is appointed for our good, famine,\nthe blighting of vines and fruit trees, and the destruction of beasts\nand of men, are, on the other hand, the personal works(5) of demons,\nthey, as public executioners, receiving at certain times authority to\ncarry into effect divine decrees.(6) \"We have already quoted similar\nviews expressed by Tertullian,(7) and the universality and permanence\nof such opinions may be illustrated by the fact that, after the lapse\nof many centuries, we find St. Thomas Aquinas as solemnly affirming that\ndisease and tempests are the direct work of the devil;(8) indeed, this\nbelief prevailed\n\n{132}\n\nthroughout the middle ages until very recent times. The Apostle Peter,\nin the Recognitions of Clement, informs Clement that when God made the\nworld He appointed chiefs over the various creatures, even over the\ntrees and the mountains and springs and rivers, and over everything in\nthe universe. An angel was set over the angels, a spirit over spirits, a\nstar over the stars, a demon over the demons, and so on.(1) He provided\ndifferent offices for all His creatures, whether good or bad,(2) but\ncertain angels having left the course of their proper order, led men\ninto sin and taught them that demons could, by magical invocations,\nbe made to obey man.(3) Ham was the discoverer of the art of magic.(4)\nAstrologers suppose that evils happen in consequence of the motions\nof the heavenly bodies, and represent certain climacteric periods as\ndangerous, not knowing that it is not the course of the stars, but the\naction of demons that regulates these things.(5) God has committed the\nsuperintendence of the seventy-two nations into which He has divided the\nearth to as many angels.(6) Demons insinuate themselves into the bodies\nof men, and force them to fulfil their desires;(7) they sometimes appear\nvisibly to men, and by threats or promises endeavour to lead them into\nerror; they can transform themselves into whatever forms they please.(8)\nThe distinction between what is spoken by the true God through the\nprophets or by visions, and that which is delivered by demons, is this:\nthat what proceeds from the former is always true, whereas that which is\nforetold by demons is not always true.(9) Lactantius says that when the\n\n{133}\n\nnumber of men began to increase, fearing that the Devil should corrupt\nor destroy them, God sent angels to protect and instruct the human race,\nbut the angels themselves fell beneath his wiles, and from being angels\nthey became the satellites and ministers of Satan. The offspring of\nthese fallen angels are unclean spirits, authors of all the evils which\nare done, and the Devil is their chief. They are acquainted with the\nfuture, but nob completely. The art of the magi is altogether supported\nby these demons, and at their invocation they deceive men with lying\ntricks, making men think they see things which do not exist. These\ncontaminated spirits wander over all the earth, and console themselves\nby the destruction of men. They fill every place with frauds and\ndeceits, for they adhere to individuals, and occupy whole houses, and\nassume the name of genii, as demons are called in the Latin language,\nand make men worship them. On account of their tenuity and impalpability\nthey insinuate themselves into the bodies of men, and through their\n_viscera_ injure their health, excite diseases, terrify their souls with\ndreams, agitate their minds with phrensies, so that they may by these\nevils drive men to seek their aid.(1) Being adjured in the name of God,\nhowever, they leave the bodies of the possessed, uttering the greatest\nhowling, and crying out that they are beaten, or are on fire.(2) These\ndemons are the inventors of astrology, divination, oracles, necromancy,\nand the art of magic.(3) The universe is governed by God through the\nmedium of angels. The demons have a fore-knowledge of the purposes of\nGod, from having been His\n\n{134}\n\nministers, and interposing in what is being done, they ascribe the\ncredit to themselves.(1) The sign of the cross is a terror to demons,\nand at the sight of it they flee from the bodies of men. When sacrifices\nare being offered to the gods, if one be present who bears on his\nforehead the sign of the cross, the sacred rites are not propitious\n(_sacra nullo modo litant_), and the oracle gives no reply.(2) Eusebius,\nlike all the Fathers, represents the gods of the Greeks and other\nheathen nations as merely wicked demons. Demons, he says, whether they\ncirculate in the dark and heavy atmosphere which encircles our sphere,\nor inhabit the cavernous dwellings which exist within it, find charms\nonly in tombs and in the sepulchres of the dead, and in impure and\nunclean places. They delight in the blood of animals, and in the putrid\nexhalations which rise from their bodies, as well as in earthly vapours.\nTheir leaders, whether as inhabitants of the upper regions of the\natmosphere, or plunged in the abyss of hell, having discovered that\nthe human race had deified and offered sacrifices to men who were dead,\npromoted the delusion in order to savour the blood which flowed.and the\nfumes of the burning flesh. They deceived men by the motions conveyed\nto idols and statues, by the oracles they delivered, and by healing\ndiseases, with which, by the power inherent in their nature, they had\nbefore invisibly smitten bodies, and which they removed by ceasing to\ntorture them. These demons first introduced magic amongst men.(3) We may\nhere refer to the account of a miracle which Eusebius seriously quotes,\nas exemplifying another occasional\n\n{135}\n\nfunction of the angels. The heretical Bishop Natalius having in vain\nbeen admonished by God in dreams, was at last lashed through the whole\nof a night by holy angels, till he was brought to repentance, and, clad\nin sackcloth and covered with ashes, he at length threw himself at the\nfeet of Zephyrinus, then Bishop of Rome, pointing to the marks of the\nscourges which he had received from the angels, and implored to be again\nreceived into communion with the Church.(1) Augustine says that demons\ninhabit the atmosphere as in a prison, and deceive men, persuading them\nby their wonderful and false signs, or doings, or predictions, that\nthey are gods.(2) He considers the origin of their name in the sacred\nScriptures worthy of notice: they are called [--Greek--] in Greek on\naccount of their knowledge.(3) By their experience of certain signs\nwhich are hidden from us, they can read much more of the future, and\nsometimes even announce beforehand what they intend to do. Speaking of\nhis own time, and with strong expressions of assurance, Augustine says\nthat not only Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men with\nbodies which could not only be seen but felt, but what is more, it is a\ngeneral report, and many have personal experience of it, or have learned\nit from those who have knowledge of the fact, and of whose truth there\nis no doubt, that satyrs and fauns, generally called \"Incubi,\" have\nfrequently perpetrated their peculiar wickedness;(4) and also that\ncertain demons called by the Gauls _Dusii_ every day attempt and effect\nthe same uncleanness, as\n\n{136}\n\nwitnesses equally numerous and trustworthy assert, so that it would be\nimpertinence to deny it.(1)\n\nLactantius, again, ridicules the idea that there can be antipodes, and\nhe can scarcely credit that there can be any one so silly as to believe\nthat there are men whose feet are higher than their heads, or that grain\nand trees grow downwards, and rain, snow, and hail fall upwards to the\nearth. After jesting at those who hold such ridiculous views, he points\nout that their blunders arise from supposing that the heaven is round,\nand the world, consequently, round like a ball, and enclosed within it.\nBut if that were the case, it must present the same appearance to all\nparts of heaven, with mountains, plains, and seas, and consequently\nthere would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and animals.\nLactantius does not know what to say to those who, having fallen into\nsuch an error, persevere in their folly (_stultitia_), and defend one\nvain thing by another, but sometimes he supposes that they philosophize\nin jest, or knowingly defend falsehoods to display their ingenuity.\nSpace alone prevents his proving that it is impossible for heaven to be\nbelow the earth.(2) St. Augustine, with equal boldness, declares that\nthe stories told about the antipodes, that is to say, that there are men\nwhose feet are against our footsteps, and upon whom the sun rises\nwhen it sets to us, are not to be believed. Such an assertion is not\nsupported by any historical evidence,\n\n{137}\n\nbut rests upon mere conjecture based on the rotundity of the earth. But\nthose who maintain such a theory do not consider that even if the earth\nbe round, it does not follow that the opposite side is not covered with\nwater. Besides, if it be not, why should it be inhabited, seeing that on\nthe one hand it is in no way possible that the Scriptures can lie, and\non the other, it is too absurd (_nimisque absurdum est_) to affirm that\nany men can have traversed such an immensity of ocean to establish the\nhuman race there from that one first man Adam.(1)\n\nClement of Rome had no doubt of the truth of the story of the\nPhoenix,(2) that wonderful bird of Arabia and the adjoining countries,\nwhich lives 500 years; at the end of which time, its dissolution being\nat hand, it builds a nest of spices, in which it dies. From the decaying\nflesh, however, a worm is generated, which being strengthened by the\njuices of the bird, produces feathers and is transformed into a Phoenix.\nClement adds that it then flies away with the nest containing the bones\nof its defunct parent to the city of Heliopolis in Egypt, and in full\ndaylight, and in the sight of all men, it lays them on the altar of the\nsun. On examining their registers, the priests find that the bird\nhas returned precisely at the completion of the 500 years. This\nbird, Clement considers, is an emblem of the Resurrection.(1) So does\nTertullian, who repeats the story with equal confidence.(2) It is\nlikewise referred to in the Apostolic Constitutions.(3) Celsus quotes\nthe narrative in his work against Christianity as an instance of the\npiety of irrational creatures, and although Origen, in reply, while\nadmitting that the story is indeed recorded, puts in a cautious \"if it\nbe true,\" he proceeds to account for the phenomenon on the ground\nthat God may have made this isolated creature, in order that men might\nadmire, not the bird, but its creator.(4) Cyril of Jerusalem, likewise,\nquotes the story from Clement.(5) The author of the almost canonical\nEpistle of Barnabas, explaining the typical meaning of the code of Moses\nregarding clean and unclean animals which were or were not to be eaten,\nstates as a fact that the hare annually increases the number of its\n_foramina_, for it has as many as the years it lives.(6) He also\nmentions that the hyena changes its sex every year, being alternately\nmale and female.(7) Tertullian also points out as a recognized fact the\nannual change of sex of the hyena, and he adds: \"I do not mention the\nstag, since itself is the witness of its own age; feeding on the\nserpent it languishes into youth from the working of the poison.\"(8) The\ngeocentric\n\n{139}\n\ntheory of the Church, which elevated man into the supreme place in the\nuniverse, and considered creation in general to be solely for his use,\nnaturally led to the misinterpretation of all cosmical phenomena. Such\nspectacles as eclipses and comets were universally regarded as awful\nportents of impending evil, signs of God's anger, and forerunners of\nnational calamities.(1) We have already referred to the account given\nby Josephus of the portents which were supposed to announce the coming\ndestruction of the Holy City, amongst which were a star shaped like a\nsword, a comet, and other celestial phenomena. Volcanoes were considered\nopenings into hell, and not only does Ter-tullian hold them to be so,\nbut he asks who will not deem these punishments sometimes inflicted upon\nmountains as examples of the judgments which menace the wicked.(2)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE PERMANENT STREAM OF MIRACULOUS PRETENSION\n\nWe have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions and\nsuperstitions prevalent at the time of Jesus, and when the books of\nthe New Testament were written. These, as we have seen, continued with\nlittle or no modification throughout the first centuries of our era.\nIt must, however, be remembered that the few details we have given,\nomitting most of the grosser particulars, are the views deliberately\nexpressed by the most educated and intelligent part of the community,\nand that it would have required infinitely darker colours adequately to\nhave portrayed the dense ignorance and superstition of the mass of the\nJews. It is impossible to receive the report of supposed marvellous\noccurrences from an age and people like this without the gravest\nsuspicion. Even so thorough a defender of miracles as Dr. Newman admits\nthat: \"Witnesses must be not only honest, but competent also; that is,\nsuch as have ascertained the facts which they attest, or who report\nafter examination;\"l and although the necessities of his case oblige him\nto assert that \"the testimony of men of science and general knowledge\"\nmust not be required, he admits, under the head of \"deficiency of\nexamination,\" that--\"Enthusiasm, ignorance, and habitual credulity\n\n{141}\n\nare defects which no number of witnesses removes.\"(1) We have shown how\nrank were these \"defects\" at the commencement of the Christian era, and\namong the chief witnesses for Christianity. Miracles which spring from\nsuch a hot-bed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be\nobjects of surprise and, in losing their exceptional character, their\nclaims upon attention are proportionately weakened if not altogether\ndestroyed. Preternatural interference with the affairs of life and the\nphenomena of nature was the rule in those days, not the exception, and\nmiracles, in fact, had lost all novelty, and through familiarity had\nbecome degraded into mere commonplace. The Gospel miracles were not\noriginal in their character, but were substantially mere repetitions of\nsimilar wonders well known amongst the Jews, or commonly supposed to\nbe of daily occurrence even at that time. In fact, the idea of such\nmiracles, in such an age and performed amongst such a people, as the\nattestation of a supernatural Revelation, may with singular propriety\nbe ascribed to the mind of that period, but can scarcely be said to bear\nany traces of the divine. Indeed, anticipating for a moment a part of\nour subject regarding which we shall have more to say hereafter, we may\nremark that, so far from being original either in its evidence or form,\nalmost every religion which has been taught in the world has claimed the\nsame divine character as Christianity, and has surrounded the person and\norigin of its central figure with the same supernatural mystery. Even\nthe great heroes of history, long before our era, had their immaculate\nconception and miraculous birth. There can be no doubt that the writers\nof the New Testament shared the popular superstitions of the Jews.\n\n{142}\n\nWe have already given more than one instance of this, and now we have\nonly to refer for a moment to one class of these superstitions, the\nbelief in demoniacal possession and origin of disease, involving clearly\nboth the existence of demons and their power over the human race. It\nwould be an insult to the understanding of those who are considering\nthis question to pause here to prove that the historical books of the\nNew Testament speak in the clearest and most unmistakable terms of\nactual demoniacal possession. Now, what has become of this theory of\ndisease? The Archbishop of Dublin is probably the only one who asserts\nthe reality of demoniacal possession formerly and at the present day,(1)\nand in this we must say that he is consistent. Dean Milman, on the other\nhand, who spoke with the enlightenment of the 19th century, \"has no\nscruple in avowing _his_ opinion on the subject of demoniacs to be that\nof Joseph Mede, Lardner, Dr. Mead, Paley, and all the learned modern\nwriters. It was a kind of insanity.... and nothing was more probable\nthan that lunacy should take the turn and speak the language of the\nprevailing superstition of the times.\"(2) The Dean, as well as \"all the\nlearned modern writers\" to whom he refers, felt the difficulty, but in\nseeking to evade it they sacrifice the Gospels. They overlook the fact\nthat the writers of these narratives not only themselves adopt \"the\nprevailing superstition of the times,\" but represent Jesus as doing\nso with equal completeness. There is no possibility, for instance, of\nevading such statements as those in the miracle of the country of the\nGadarenes, where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognized\nthat,\n\n{143}\n\non being cast out of the man, they are represented as requesting to be\nallowed to go into the herd of swine, and being permitted by Jesus to do\nso, the entry of the demons into the swine is at once signalized by\nthe herd running violently down the cliff into the lake, and being\ndrowned.(1) Archbishop Trench adopts no such ineffectual evasion,\nbut rightly objects: \"Our Lord Himself uses language which is not\nreconcilable with any such explanation. He everywhere speaks of\ndemoniacs not as persons of disordered intellects, but as subjects and\nthralls of an alien spiritual might; He addresses the evil spirit as\ndistinct from the man: 'Hold thy peace and come out of him;'\" and he\nconcludes that \"our idea of Christ's absolute veracity, apart from the\nvalue of the truth which He communicated, forbids us to suppose that He\ncould have spoken as He did, being perfectly aware all the while that\nthere was no corresponding reality to justify the language which He\nused.\"(2) The Dean, on the other hand, finds \"a very strong reason,\"\nwhich he does not remember to have seen urged with sufficient force,\n\"which may have contributed to induce our Lord to adopt the current\nlanguage on the point. The disbelief in these spiritual influences was\none of the characteristics of the unpopular sect of the Sadducees. A\ndeparture from the common language, or the endeavour to correct this\ninveterate error, would have raised an immediate outcry against Him from\nHis watchful and malignant adversaries as an unbelieving Sadducec.\"(3)\nSuch ascription of politic\n\n{144}\n\ndeception for the sake of popularity might be intelligible in an\nordinary case, but when referred to the central personage of a Divine\nRevelation, who is said to be God incarnate, it is perfectly astounding.\nThe Archbishop, however, rightly deems that if Jesus knew that the\nJewish belief in demoniacal possession was baseless, and that Satan did\nnot exercise such power over the bodies or spirits of men, there would\nbe in such language \"that absence of agreement between thoughts and\nwords in which the essence of a lie consists.\"(1) It is difficult to\nsay whether the dilemma of the Dean or of the Archbishop is the\ngreater,--the one obliged to sacrifice the moral character of Jesus,\nin order to escape the admission for Christianity of untenable\nsuperstition, the other obliged to adopt the superstition in order\nto support the veracity of the language. At least the course of the\nArchbishop is consistent and worthy of respect. The attempt to eliminate\nthe superstitious diagnosis of the disease, and yet to preserve intact\nthe miraculous cure, is quite ineffectual.\n\nDr. Trench anticipates the natural question, why there are no demoniacs\nnow, if there were so many in those days,(2) and he is logically\ncompelled to maintain that there may still be persons possessed. \"It\nmay well be a question, moreover,\" he says, \"if an apostle or one with\napostolic discernment of spirits were to enter into a mad-house now,\nhow many of the sufferers there he might not recognize as possessed?\"(3)\nThere can scarcely be a question upon the point at all, for such a\nperson issuing direct\n\n{145}\n\nfrom that period, without subsequent scientific enlightenment, would\nmost certainly pronounce them all, \"possessed.\" It did not, however,\nrequire an apostle, nor even one with apostolic discernment of spirits,\nto recognize the possessed at that time. All those who are represented\nas being brought to Jesus to be healed are described by their friends as\nhaving a devil or being possessed, and there was no form of disease more\ngeneral or more commonly recognized by the Jews. For what reason has the\nrecognition of, and belief in, demoniacal possession passed away with\nthe ignorance and superstition which were then prevalent?\n\nIt is important to remember that the theory of demoniacal possession,\nand its supposed cure by means of exorcism and invocations, was most\ncommon among the Jews long before the commencement of the Christian era.\nAs casting out devils was the most common type of Christian miracles,\nso it was the commonest belief and practice of the Jewish nation.\nChristianity merely shared the national superstition, and changed\nnothing but the form of exorcism. Christianity did not through a\n\"clearer perception of spirits,\" therefore, originate the belief in\ndemoniacal possession, nor first recognize its victims; nor did such\nsuperior enlightenment accompany the superior morality of Christianity\nas to detect the ignorant fallacy. In the Old Testament we find the most\nserious evidence of the belief in demonology and witchcraft. The laws\nagainst them set the example of that unrelenting severity with which\nsorcery was treated for so many centuries. We read in Exodus xxii. 18:\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\" Levit. xix. 31: \"Regard not\nthem which have familiar spirits, neither\n\n{146}\n\nseek after wizards, to be defiled by them.\" Levit. xx. 6: \"And the soul\nthat turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards to\ngo a-whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and\ncut him off from among his people;\" and verse 27: \"A man also or a woman\nthat hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put\nto death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon\nthem.\" Deut. xviii. 10: \"There shall not be found among you any one\nthat maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or an\nenchanter, or a witch; 11. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar\nspirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer; 12. For all that do these things\nare an abomination unto the Lord,\" &c. The passages which assert the\nreality of demonology and witchcraft, however, are much too numerous to\npermit their citation here. But not only did Christianity thus inherit\nthe long-prevalent superstition, but it transmitted it intact to\nsucceeding ages; and there can be no doubt that this demonology, with\nits consequent and inevitable belief in witchcraft, sorcery, and magic,\ncontinued so long to prevail throughout Christendom, as much through\nthe authority of the sacred writings and the teaching of the Church as\nthrough the superstitious ignorance of Europe.\n\nIt would be impossible to select for illustration any type of the Gospel\nmiracles, whose fundamental principle,--belief in the reality, malignant\naction, and power of demons, and in the power of man to control\nthem,--has received fuller or more permanent living acceptance from\nposterity, down to very recent times, than the cure of disease ascribed\nto demoniacal influence. The writings of the Fathers are full of the\nbelief; the social\n\n{147}\n\nhistory of Europe teems with it. The more pious the people, the more\nfirm was their conviction of its reality. From times antecedent to\nChristianity, until medical science slowly came into existence and\ndisplaced miracle cures by the relics of saints, every form of disease\nwas ascribed to demons. Madness, idiotcy, epilepsy, and every shape of\nhysteria were the commonest forms of their malignity; and the blind, the\ndumb, and the deformed were regarded as unquestionable victims of their\nmalice. Every domestic calamity, from the convulsions of a child to the\ndeath of a cow, was unhesitatingly attributed to their agency. The more\nignorant the community, the greater the number of its possessed. Belief\nin the power of sorcery, witchcraft, and magic was inherent in the\nsuperstition, and the universal prevalence shows how catholic was the\nbelief in demoniacal influence. The practice of these arts is solemnly\ndenounced as sin in the New Testament and throughout Patristic\nliterature, and the church has in all ages fulminated against it. No\naccusation was more common than that of practising sorcery, and no class\nescaped from the fatal suspicion. Popes were charged with the crime,\nand bishops were found guilty of it. St. Cyprian was said to have been\na magician before he became a Christian and a Father of the Church.(1)\nAthanasius was accused of sorcery before the Synod of Tyre.(2) Not only\nthe illiterate but even the learned, in the estimation of their age,\nbelieved in it. No heresy was ever persecuted with more unrelenting\nhatred. Popes have issued bulls vehemently anathematising witches and\nsorcerers, councils have proscribed them, ecclesiastical\n\n{148}\n\ncourts have consigned tens of thousands of persons suspected of being\nsuch to the stake, monarchs have written treatises against them and\ninvented tortures for their conviction, and every nation in Europe and\nalmost every generation have passed the most stringent laws against\nthem. Upon no point has there ever been greater unanimity of belief.\nChurch and State have vied with each other for the suppression of the\nabominable crime. Every phenomenon of nature, every unwelcome occurrence\nof social life, as well as every natural disease, has been ascribed to\nmagic and demons. The historical records of Europe are filled with\nthe deliberate trial and conviction, upon what was deemed evidence, of\nthousands of sorcerers and witches. Hundreds have been found guilty\nof exercising demoniacal influence over the elements, from Sopater\nthe philosopher, executed under Constantino for preventing, by adverse\nwinds, the arrival of corn ships at Constantinople, to Dr. Fian and\nother witches horribly tortured and burnt for causing a stormy passage\non the return of James I. from Denmark.(1) Thousands of men and tens of\nthousands of women have been done to death by every conceivable torment\nfor causing sickness or calamity by sorcery, or for flying through the\nair to attend the witches' sabbath. When scepticism as to the reality of\nthe demoniacal powers of sorcery tardily began to arise, it was fiercely\nreprobated by the Church as infidelity. Even so late as the 17th\ncentury, a man like Sir Thomas Browne not only did not include the\nbelief amongst the vulgar errors which he endeavoured to expose, but on\nthe contrary wrote: \"For my part, I have ever believed, and do now know\nthat there are\n\n     1 Pitcairn's Criminal Trials of Scotland, i. pp. 213, 223.\n\n{140}\n\nwitches. They that doubt of them, do not only deny them, but spirits;\nand are obliquely, and upon consequence, a sort not of infidels, but\natheists.\"(1) In 1664 Sir Thomas Hale, in passing sentence of death\nagainst two women convicted of being witches, declared that the reality\nof witchcraft was undeniable, because \"first, the Scriptures had\naffirmed so much; and secondly, the wisdom of all nations had provided\nlaws against such persons, which is an argument of their confidence of\nsuch a crime.\"(2) Even the 18th century was stained with the blood of\npersons tortured and executed for sorcery.\n\nNotwithstanding all this persistent and unanimous confirmation, we ask\nagain: What has now become of the belief in demoniacal possession and\nsorcery? It has utterly disappeared. \"Joseph Mede, Lardner, Dr. Mead,\nPaley, and all the learned modern writers\" with Dean Milinan, as we\nhave seen, explain it away, and such a theory of disease and elemental\ndisturbance is universally recognized to have been a groundless\nsuperstition. The countless number of persons tormented and put to death\nfor the supposed crime of witchcraft and sorcery were mere innocent\nvictims to ignorance and credulity. Mr. Buckle has collected a mass of\nevidence to show that \"there is in every part of the world an intimate\nrelation between ignorance respecting the nature and proper treating of\na disease, and\n\n{150}\n\nthe belief that such disease is caused by supernatural power, and is\nto be cured by it.\"(1) At the commencement of our era every disease was\nascribed to the agency of demons simply because the nature of disease\nwas not understood, and the writers of the Gospels were not, in this\nrespect, one whit more enlightened than the Jews. The progress of\nscience, however, has not only dispelled the superstitious theory as\nregards disease in our time; its effects are retrospective. Science\nnot only declares the ascription of disease to demoniacal possession or\nmalignity to be an idle superstition now, but it equally repudiates the\nassumption of such a cause at any time. The diseases referred by the\nGospels, and by the Jews of that time, to the action of devils, exist\nnow, but they are known to proceed from purely physical causes. The same\nsuperstition and medical ignorance would enunciate the same diagnosis\nat the present day. The superstition and ignorance, however, have passed\naway, and with them the demoniacal theory. In that day the theory was\nas baseless as in this. This is the logical conclusion of every educated\nman.\n\nIt is obvious that, with the necessary abandonment of the theory of\n\"possession\" and demoniacal origin of disease, the largest class of\nmiracles recorded in the Gospels is at once exploded. The asserted cause\nof the diseases of this class, said to have been miraculously healed,\nmust be recognized to be a mere vulgar superstition, and the narratives\nof such miracles, ascribing as they do in perfect simplicity distinct\nobjectivity to the supposed \"possessing\" demons, and reporting their\nvery words and actions, at once assume the character of mere imaginative\nand fabulous writings based upon superstitious\n\n{151}\n\ntradition, and cannot be accepted as the sober and intelligent report\nof eye-witnesses. We shall presently see how far this.inference is\nsupported by the literary evidence regarding the date and composition of\nthe Gospels.\n\nThe deduction, however, does not end here. It is clear that, this large\nclass of Gospel miracles being due to the superstition of an ignorant\nand credulous age, the insufficiency of the evidence for any of the\nother supposed miraculous occurrences narrated in the same documents\nbecomes at once apparent. Nothing but the most irrefragable testimony\ncould possibly warrant belief in statements of supernatural events which\ncontradict all experience, and are opposed to all science. When these\nstatements, however, are not only rendered, _a priori_, suspicious\nby their proceeding from a period of the grossest superstition and\ncredulity, but it becomes evident that a considerable part of them is\ndue solely to that superstition and credulity, by which, moreover, the\nrest may likewise be most naturally explained, it is obvious that they\ncannot stand against the opposing conviction of invariable experience.\nThe force of the testimony is gone. We are far from using this language\nin an offensive sense concerning the Gospel narratives, which, by\nthe simple faith of the writers, present the most noble aspect of\nthe occurrences of which superstition is capable. Indeed, viewed as\ncompositions gradually rising out of pious tradition, and representing\nthe best spirit of their times, the Gospels, even in ascribing such\nmiracles to Jesus, are a touching illustration of the veneration excited\nby his elevated character. Devout enthusiasm surrounded his memory with\nthe tradition of the highest exhibitions of power within the range of\nJewish imagination,\n\n{152}\n\nand that these conceptions represent merely an idealized form of\nprevalent superstition was not only natural but inevitable. We shall\nhereafter fully examine the character of the Gospels, but it will be\nsufficient here to point out that none of these writings lays claim to\nany special inspiration, or in the slightest degree pretends to be more\nthan a human composition,(1) and subject to the errors of human history.\n\n2.\n\nWe have seen how incompetent those who lived at the time when the Gospel\nmiracles are supposed to have taken place were to furnish reliable\ntestimony regarding such phenomena; and the gross mistake committed in\nregard to the largest class of these miracles, connected with demoniacal\npossession, seems altogether to destroy the value of the evidence for\nthe rest, and to connect the whole, as might have been expected, with\nthe general superstition and ignorance of the period. It may be well to\ninquire further, whether there is any valid reason for excepting any\nof the miracles of Scripture from the fate of the rest, and whether,\nin fact, there was any special \"Age of Miracles\" at all, round which a\nprivileged line can be drawn on any reasonable ground.\n\nWe have already pointed out that the kind of evidence which is supposed\nto attest the Divine revelation of Christianity, so far from being\ninvented for the purpose, was so hackneyed, so to speak, as scarcely to\nattract the\n\n{153}\n\nnotice of the nation to which the revelation was, in the first instance,\naddressed. Not only did the Old Testament contain accounts of miracles\nof every one of the types related in the New, but most of them were\nbelieved to be commonly performed both before and after the commencement\nof the Christian era. That demons were successfully exorcised, and\ndiseases cured, by means of spells and incantations, was never\ndoubted by the Jewish nation. Satanic miracles, moreover, are not only\nrecognized throughout the Old and New Testaments, but formed a leading\nfeature of the Patristic creed. The early Christians were not more\nready than the heathen to ascribe every inexplicable occurrence to\nsupernatural agency, and the only difference between them was as to the\nnature of that agency. The Jews and their heathen neighbours were too\naccustomed to supposed preternatural occurrences to feel much surprise\nor incredulity at the account of Christian miracles; and it is\ncharacteristic of the universal superstition of the period that the\nFathers did not dream of denying the reality of Pagan miracles, but\nmerely attributed them to demons, whilst they asserted the Divine origin\nof their own. The reality of the powers of sorcery was never questioned.\nEvery marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference with human\naffairs seemed matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the\nage. However much miracles are exceptions to the order of nature, they\nhave always been the rule in the history of ignorance. In fact, the\nexcess of belief in them throughout many centuries of darkness is fatal\nto their claims to credence now. The Christian miracles are rendered\nalmost as suspicious from their place in a long sequence of similar\noccurrences, as they are by being exceptions\n\n{154}\n\nto the sequence of natural phenomena. It would indeed be extraordinary\nif whole cycles of miracles occurring before and since those of the\nGospels, and in connection with every religion, could be repudiated as\nfables, and those alone maintained as genuine.\n\nNo attempt is made to deny the fact that miracles are common to all\ntimes and to all religious creeds. Dr. Newman states amongst the\nconclusions of his essay on the miracles of early ecclesiastical\nhistory: \"That there was no Age of Miracles, after which miracles\nceased; that there have been at all times true miracles and false\nmiracles, true accounts and false accounts; that no authoritative guide\nis supplied to us for drawing the line between the two.\"(1) Dr. Mozley\nalso admits that morbid love of the marvellous in the human race \"has\nproduced a constant stream of miraculous pretension in the world, which\naccompanies man wherever he is found, and is a part of his mental\nand physical history.\"(2) Ignorance and its invariable attendant,\nsuperstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellous to produce\nand perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be any doubt that\nthe removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of miracles.(3)\nThe Bampton lecturer proceeds: 'Heathenism had its running stream of\nsupernatural pretensions in the shape of prophecy, exorcism, and the\nmiraculous cures of diseases, which the temples of Esculapius recorded\nwith pompous display.\"(4) So far from the Gospel miracles being\noriginal, and a presentation, for the first time, of phenomena until\nthen unknown\n\n{155}\n\nand unlikely to suggest themselves to the mind, \"Jewish supernaturalism\nwas indeed going on side by side with our Lord's miracles.\"(1) Dr.\nMozley, however, rebuts the inference which has been drawn from this:\n\"That His miracles could not, in the very nature of the case, be\nevidences of His distinctive teaching and mission, inasmuch as miracles\nwere common to Himself and His opponents,\" by the assertion that a very\nmarked distinction exists between the Gospel miracles and all others.(2)\nHe perfectly recognizes the consequence if such a distinction cannot\nbe clearly demonstrated. \"The criticism, therefore, which _evidential_\nmiracles, or miracles which serve as evidence of a revelation, must come\nup to, if they are to accomplish the object for which they are designed,\ninvolves at the outset this condition,--that the evidence of such\nmiracles must be distinguishable from the evidences of this permanent\nstream of miraculous pretension in the world; that such miracles must be\nseparated by an interval not only from the facts of the order of\nnature, but also from the common running miraculous, which is the simple\noffshoot of human nature. Can evidential miracles be inserted in this\npromiscuous mass, so as not to be confounded with it, but to assert\ntheir own truth and distinctive source? If they cannot there is an end\nto the proof of a revelation by miracles: if they can, it remains to\nsee whether the Christian miracles are thus distinguishable, and whether\ntheir nature, their object, and their evidence vindicate their claim to\nthis distinctive truth and Divine source.\"(3)\n\nNow, regarding this distinction between Gospel and\n\n{156}\n\nother miracles, it must be observed that the religious feeling which\ninfluenced the composition of the Scripture narratives of miracles\nnaturally led to the exclusion of all that was puerile or ignoble in the\ntraditions preserved regarding the Great Master. The elevated character\nof Jesus afforded no basis for what was petty, and the devotion with\nwhich he was regarded when the Gospels were written insured the noblest\ntreatment of his history within certain limits. We must, therefore,\nconsider the bare facts composing the miracles rather than the narrative\nof the manner in which they are said to have been produced, in order\nrightly to judge of the comparative features of different miracles. If\nwe take the case of a person raised from the dead, literary skill may\ninvest the account with more or less of dramatic interest and dignity,\nbut whether the main fact be surrounded with pathetic and picturesque\ndetails,.as in the account of the raising of Lazarus in the fourth\nGospel, or the person be simply restored to life without them, it is the\nfact of the resurrection which constitutes the miracle, and it is in the\nfacts alone that we must seek distinction, disregarding and distrusting\nthe accessories. In the one case the effect may be much more impressive,\nbut in the other the bare raising of the dead is not a whit less\nmiraculous. \"We have been accustomed to read the Gospel narratives of\nmiracles with so much special veneration, that it is now difficult to\nrecognize how much of the distinction of these miracles is due to\nthe composition, and to their place in the history of Jesus. No other\nmiracles, or account of miracles, ever had such collateral advantages.\nAs works attributed to our sublimest Teacher, described with simple\neloquence and, especially in the case of those in\n\n{157}\n\nthe fourth Gospel, with artistic perfection, and read generally with\nreverential wonder untempered by a thought of criticism, these miracles\nhave seemed to be surrounded by a mystic halo certainly not emanating\nfrom themselves. It must not be forgotten, therefore, that the\nmiracle lies in the bare act, and not in its dramatic arrangement. The\nrestoration of life to a dead man is the very same miracle whether it\nbe effected by the relics of a saint or by the word of an apostle. A\nmiracle is not antecedently more credible because of the outstretched\narm and word of command, than it is in the silence of the shrine. Being\nsupernatural, the real agency is not seen in either case, although the\nhuman mind is more satisfied by the presentation of an apparent cause in\nthe one case, which seems to be absent in the other. In preferring the\nformer type, we are not only influenced by a more dramatic narrative,\nbut we select for belief the miracle from which we can unconsciously\neliminate more of the miraculous elements, by tracing it to a visible\nnatural cause which cannot be seen in the latter. The antecedent\nincredibility of miracles, however, is not affected by literary skill,\nand is independent of scenic effect.\n\nThe Archbishop of Dublin says: \"Few points present greater difficulties\nthan the attempt to fix accurately the moment when these miraculous\npowers were withdrawn from the Church;\" and he argues that they were\nwithdrawn when it entered into what he calls its permanent state, and no\nlonger required \"these props and strengthenings of the infant plant.\"(1)\nThat their retrocession was gradual, he considers natural, and he\nimagines the fulness of Divine power as gradually waning as it was\n\n{158}\n\nsubdivided, first among the Apostles, and then amongst the\never-multiplying members of the Church, until by sub-division it became\nvirtually extinct, leaving as a substitute \"the standing wonder of\na Church.\"(1) This, of course, is not argument, but merely the\nArchbishop's fanciful explanation of a serious difficulty. The fact\nis, however, that the Gospel miracles were preceded and accompanied\nby others of the same type, and we may here merely mention exorcism of\ndemons, and the miraculous cure of disease, as popular instances;\nthey were also followed by a long succession of others, quite as well\nauthenticated, whose occurrence only became less frequent in proportion\nas the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity. Even at the\npresent day a stray miracle is from time to time reported in outlying\ndistricts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerly produced\nso abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled.\n\nPapias of Hierapolis narrates a wonderful story, according to Eusebius,\nwhich he had heard from the daughters of the Apostle Philip, who lived\nat the same time in Hierapolis: \"For he relates that a dead man was\nrestored to life in his day.\"(2) Justin Martyr, speaking of his own\ntime, frequently asserts that Christians still receive the gift of\nhealing, of foreknowledge, and of prophecy,(3) and he points out to the\nRoman Senate as a fact happening under their own observation, that many\ndemoniacs throughout all the world [--Greek--] and in their own city have\n\n{159}\n\nbeen healed and are healed, many of the Christian' men among is [--Greek--]\nexorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, subduing and expelling the\npossessing demons out of the man, although all the other exorcists with\nincantations and spells had failed to do so.(1) Theophilus of Antioch\nlikewise states that to his day demons are exorcised.(2) Irenaeus in\nthe clearest manner claims for the Church of his time the continued\npossession of the Divine [--Greek--] He contrasts the miracles of the\nfollowers of Simon and Carpocrates, which he ascribes to magical\nillusions, with those of Christians. \"For they can neither give sight\nto the blind,\" he continues, \"nor to the deaf hearing, nor cast out all\ndemons, but only those introduced by themselves, if they can even do\nthat; nor heal the sick, the lame, the paralytic, nor those afflicted\nin other parts of the body, as has been often done in regard to bodily\ninfirmity.... But so far are they from raising the\n\ndead,--as the Lord raised them and the Apostles by prayer, and as\nfrequently in the brotherhood, when the whole Church in a place made\nsupplication with much fasting and prayer, the spirit of the dead was\nconstrained to return, and the man was freely restored in answer to the\nprayers of the saints--that they do not believe this can possibly be\ndone.\"(3) Canon\n\n{160}\n\nMozley, who desires for the purpose of his argument to weaken the\nevidence of patristic belief in the continuance of miracles, says\nregarding this last passage on raising the dead:--\"But the reference is\nso vague that it possesses but little weight as testimony.\"(1) We should\nbe sorry to think that the vice, which seems at present to characterize\nthe Church to which Dr. Mozley belongs, of making simple language\nmean anything or nothing just as any one happens to wish, should be\nintroduced into critical or historical studies. The language of Irenaeus\nis vague only in so far as specific detailed instances are not given\nof the miracles referred to; but no language could be more definite or\nexplicit to express the meaning of Irenaeus, namely, the assertion that\nthe prayers of Christian communities had frequently restored the dead to\nlife. Eusebius, who quotes the passage, and who has preserved to us\nthe original Greek, clearly recognized this. He says, when making the\nquotations: \"In the second book of the same work he (Irenaeus) testifies\nthat up to his time tokens of Divine and miraculous power remained in\nsome Churches,\"(2) In the next chapter Irenaeus further says:--\"On\nwhich account, also, his true disciples receiving grace from him, work\n(miracles) in his name for the benefit of the rest of mankind, according\nto the gift received from him by each of them. For some do certainly and\ntruly [--Greek--] cast out demons, so that frequently those very men who\nhave thus been cleansed from the evil spirits both\n\n{161}\n\nbelieve and are now in the church. And some have foreknowledge of future\noccurrences, and visions, and prophetic utterances. Others heal the\nsick by the imposition of hands and make them whole. Indeed, as we have\nalready stated, even the dead have been raised up, and have remained\nwith us for many years. And what more shall I say? It is not possible to\nstate the number of the gifts which the Church throughout the world has\nreceived from God in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius\nPilate, and which she each day employs for the benefit of the heathen,\"\n&c.(1)\n\nTertullian speaks with the most perfect assurance of miracles occurring\nin his day, and of the power of healing and of casting out devils still\npossessed by Christians. In one place, for iustance, after asserting\nthe power which they have generally over demons, so that if a person\npossessed by a devil be brought before one of the Roman tribunals, a\nfollower of Christ can at once compel the wicked spirit within him to\nconfess that he is a demon, even if he had before asserted himself to\nbe a God, he proceeds to say: \"So at our touch and breathing, violently\naffected by the contemplation and representation of those fires (of\nhell) they (demons) also depart at our command out of bodies, reluctant\nand complaining, and put to shame\n\n{162}\n\nin your presence.\"(1) He declares that although dreams are chiefly\ninflicted upon us by demons, yet they are also sent by God, and indeed\n\"almost the greater part of mankind derive their knowledge concerning\nGod from visions.\"(2) He, elsewhere, states that he himself knows that a\nbrother was severely castigated by a vision the same night on which his\nslaves had, without his knowledge, done something reprehensible.(3)\nHe narrates as an instance of the continued possession of spiritual\n_charismata_ by Christians: \"There is at this day among us a sister who\nhas the gift of revelations, which she receives in church amidst the\nsolemnities of the Lord's day by ecstasy in the spirit: she converses\nwith angels, and sometimes also with the Lord, and she both hears and\nsees mysteries (_sacramenta_), and she reads the hearts of some men, and\nprescribes medicines to those who are in need.\"(4) Tertullian goes on to\nsay that, after the people were dismissed from the Church, this sister\nwas in the regular habit of reporting what she had seen, and that\nmost diligent inquiries were made in order to test the truth of her\ncommunications;(5) and after narrating a vision of a disembodied soul\nvouchsafed to her, he states: \"This is the vision, God being witness,\nand\n\n{163}\n\nthe Apostle(1) having foretold that such spiritual gifts should be in\nthe Church.\"(2) Further on Tertullian relates another story within his\nown knowledge: \"I know the case of a woman, born within the fold of the\nChurch, who was in the prime of life and beauty. After being but once,\nand only a short time, married, having fallen asleep in peace, in the\ninterval before interment (sp.) when the presbyter began to pray as\nshe was being made ready for burial, at the first breath of prayer\nshe removed her hands from her sides, folded them in the attitude of\nsupplication, and again, when the last rites were over, restored them to\ntheir former position.\"(3) He then mentions another story known amongst\nthem: that a dead body in a cemetery moved itself in order to make room\nbeside it for another body;(4) and then he remarks: \"If similar cases\nare also reported amongst the heathen, we conclude that God displays\nsigns of his power for the consolation of his own people, and as a\ntestimony to others.\"(5) Again, he mentions cases where Christians had\ncured persons of demoniacal possession, and adds: \"And how many men of\nposition (for we do not speak of the vulgar) have been delivered either\nfrom devils or from diseases.\"(6) Tertullian\n\n{164}\n\nin the same place refers to the miracle of the \"Thundering Legion,\"(1)\nand he exclaims: \"When indeed have not droughts been removed by our\nprayers and fastings.\"(2) Minucius Felix speaks of the casting out of\ndevils from sick persons by Christians in his own day, as a matter\nof public notoriety even among Pagans.(3) St. Cyprian echoes the same\nassertions.(4) He likewise mentions cases of miraculous punishment\ninflicted upon persons who had lapsed from the Christian faith. One\nof these, who ascended the Capitol to make denial of Christ, suddenly\nbecame dumb after he had spoken the words.(6) Another, a woman, was\nseized by an unclean spirit even at the baths, and bit with her own\nteeth the impious tongue which had eaten the idolatrous food, or spoken\nthe words, and she shortly expired in great agony.(6) He likewise\nmaintains that Christians are admonished by God in dreams and by\nvisions, of which he mentions instances.(7) Origen claims for Christians\nthe power still to expel demons, and to heal diseases in the name\nof Jesus,(8) and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of\nmadness and countless other evils, which could not be otherwise cured by\nmen or devils.(9) Lactantius repeatedly asserts the power of Christians\nover demons; they make them flee from bodies when they adjure them in\nthe name of God.(10)\n\nPassing over the numerous apocryphal writings of the early centuries of\nour era, in which many miracles are\n\n{165}\n\nrecorded, we find in the pages of Eusebius narratives of many miraculous\noccurrences. Many miracles are ascribed to Narcissus, Bishop of\nJerusalem, of which Eusebius relates several. Whilst the vigils of the\ngreat watch of the Passover were being kept, the oil failed, whereupon\nNarcissus commanded that water from the neighbouring well should be\npoured into the lamps. Having prayed over the water, it was changed\ninto oil, of which a specimen had been preserved until that time.(1)\nOn another occasion, three men having spread some vile slanders against\nNarcissus, which they confirmed by an oath, and with imprecations upon\nthemselves of death by a miserable disease, of death by fire, and of\nblindness, respectively, if their statements were not true, omnipotent\njustice in each case inflicted upon the wretches the curse which each\nhad invoked.(2) The election of Fabianus to the Episcopal chair of Rome\nwas marked by the descent of a dove from on high, which rested upon his\nhead, as the Holy Ghost had descended upon our Saviour.(3) At Caesarea\nPhilippi there is a statue of Jesus Christ which Eusebius states that he\nhimself had seen, said to have been erected by the woman healed of the\nbloody issue, and on the pedestal grows a strange plant as high as the\nhem of the brazen garment, which is an antidote to all diseases.(4)\nGreat miracles are recorded as taking place during the persecutions in\nCaesarea.(5)\n\nGregory of Nyssa gives an account of many wonderful works performed by\nhis namesake Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, who was called _Thaumaturgus_ from\nthe miraculous power which he possessed and very freely\n\n{166}\n\nexercised. The Virgin Mary and the Apostle John appeared to him, on\none occasion, when he was in doubt as to the doctrine which he ought to\npreach, and, at the request of Mary, the Apostle gave him all needful\ninstructions.(1) If his faith did not move mountains, it moved a huge\nrock to convert a pagan priest.(2) He drove a demon out of a heathen\ntemple in which he had taken refuge, and the evil spirit could not\nre-enter until he gave permission.(3) Nyssen relates how St. Gregory\naverted an armed contest of two brothers who quarrelled about the\npossession of a lake on their father's property. The saint passed the\nnight in prayer beside the lake, and in the morning it was found dried\nup.(4) On another occasion he rescued the country from the devastation\nof a mountain stream, which periodically burst the dykes by which it was\nrestrained and inundated the plain. He went on foot to the place, and\ninvoking the name of Christ, fixed his staff in the earth at the place\nwhere the torrent had broken through. The staff took root and became a\ntree, and the stream never again burst its bounds. The inhabitants of\nthe district were converted to Christianity by this miracle. The tree\nwas still living in Nyssen's time, and he had seen the bed of the lake\ncovered with trees, pastures, and cottages.(5) Two vagabond Jews once\nattempted to deceive him. One of them lay down and pretended to be\ndead, while the other begged money from the saint wherewith to buy him\na shroud. St. Gregory quietly took off his cloak and laid it on the man,\nand\n\n{167}\n\nwalked away. His companion found that he was really dead.(1) St. Gregory\nexpelled demons from persons possessed, healed the sick and performed\nmany other miracles;(2) and his signs and wonders are not only attested\nby Gregory of Nyssa, but by St. Basil,(3) whose grandmother, St.\nMacrina, was brought up at Neo-Caesarea by the immediate followers of the\nsaint.\n\nAthanasius, in his memoir of St. Anthony, who began to lead the life of\na recluse about a.d. 270, gives particulars of many miracles performed\nby the saint. Although he possessed great power over demons, and\ndelivered many persons possessed by them, Satan tormented him sadly,\nand he was constantly beset by legions of devils. One night Satan with a\ntroop of evil spirits so belaboured the saint that he lay on the ground\nspeechless and almost dead from their blows.(4) We have already referred\nto the case of Natalius, who was scourged by angels during a whole\nnight, till he was brought to repentance.(5) Upon one occasion when\nSt. Anthony had retired to his cell resolved to pass a time in perfect\nsolitude, a certain soldier came to his door and remained long there\nknocking and supplicating the saint to come and deliver his daughter,\nwho was tormented by a demon. At length St. Anthony addressed the man\nand told him to go, and if he believed in Jesus Christ and prayed to\nGod, his prayer should\n\n{168}\n\nbe fulfilled. The man believed, invoked Jesus Christ, and his daughter\nwas delivered from the demon.(1) As Anthony was once travelling across\nthe desert to visit another monastery, the water of the caravan failed\nthem, and his companions in despair threw themselves on the ground. St.\nAnthony, however, retired a little apart, and in answer to his prayer\na spring of water issued at the place where he was kneeling.(2) A man\nnamed Fronto, who was afflicted with leprosy, begged his prayers, and\nwas ordered by the saint to go into Egypt, where he should be healed.\nFronto at first refused, but being told that he could not be healed\nif he remained, the sick man went believing, and as soon as he came in\nsight of Egypt he was made whole.(3) Another miracle was performed by\nAnthony at Alexandria in the presence of St. Athanasius. As they were\nleaving the city a woman cried after him, \"Man of God, stay; my daughter\nis cruelly troubled by a demon;\" and she entreated him to stop lest she\nherself should die in running after him. At the request of Athanasius\nand the rest, the saint paused, and as the woman came up her daughter\nfell on the ground convulsed. St. Anthony prayed in the name of Jesus\nChrist, and immediately the girl rose perfectly restored to health,\nand delivered from the evil spirit.(4) He astonished a number of pagan\nphilosophers, who had come to dispute with him, by delivering several\ndemoniacs, making the sign of the cross over them three times, and\ninvoking the name of Jesus Christ.(5) It is unnecessary, however, to\nmultiply instances of his miraculous power to drive out demons and heal\ndiseases,(6) and to perform other\n\n{169}\n\nwonderful works. St. Athanasius, who was himself for a long time\na personal follower of St. Anthony, protests in his preface to the\nbiography his general accuracy, he having everywhere been mindful of the\ntruth.(1)\n\nHilarion, again, a disciple of St. Anthony, performed many miracles, an\naccount of some of which is given by St. Jerome. He restored sight to a\nwoman who had been blind for no less than ten years; he cast out\ndevils, and miraculously cured many diseases. Rain fell in answer to his\nprayers; and he further exhibited his power over the elements by calming\na stormy sea. When he was buried, ten months after his death, not only\nwas his body as perfect as though he had been alive, but it emitted a\ndelightful perfume. He was so favoured of God that, long after, diseases\nwere healed and demons expelled at his tomb.(2) St. Macarius, the\nEgyptian, is said to have restored a dead man to life in order to\nconvince an unbeliever of the truth of the resurrection.(3) St. Martin,\nof Tours, restored to life a certain catechumen who had died of a fever,\nand Sulpicius, his disciple, states that the man, who lived for many\nyears after, was known to himself, although not until after the miracle.\nHe also restored to life a servant who had hung himself.(4) He performed\na multitude of other miracles, to which we need not here more minutely\nrefer. The relics of the two martyrs Protavius and Gervasius, whose\nbones, with much fresh blood, the miraculous evidence of their martyrdom\nand identity, were discovered by St. Ambrose, worked a\n\n{170}\n\nnumber of miracles. A man suffering from demoniacal possession indicated\nthe proximity of the relics by his convulsions. St. Augustine states\nthat he himself was in Milan when a blind man, who merely touched\nthe cloth which covered the two bodies as they were being moved to\na neighbouring church, regained his sight.(1) Paulinus relates many\nmiracles performed by his master, St. Ambrose, himself. He not only cast\nout many demons and healed the sick,(2) but he also raised the dead.\nWhilst the saint was staying in the house of a distinguished Christian\nfriend, his child, who, a few days before, had been delivered from an\nunclean spirit, suddenly expired. The mother, an exceedingly religious\nwoman, full of faith and the fear of God, carried the dead boy down\nand laid him on the saint's bed during his absence. When St. Ambrose\nreturned, filled with compassion for the mother and struck by her faith,\nhe stretched himself, like Elisha, on the body of the child, praying,\nand restored him living to his mother. Paulinus relates this miracle\nwith minute particulars of name and address.(3)\n\nSt. Augustine asserts that miracles are still performed in his day in\nthe name of Jesus Christ, either by means of his sacraments or by the\nprayers or relics of his saints, although they are not so well-known\nas those of old, and he gives an account of many miracles which had\nrecently taken place.(4) After referring to the miracle performed by the\nrelics of the two martyrs upon the blind man in Milan, which occurred\nwhen he was there, he goes on to narrate the miraculous cure of a friend\nof\n\n{171}\n\nhis own, named Innocent, formerly advocate of the prefecture, in\nCarthage, where Augustine was, and beheld it with his own eyes (_ubi nos\ninterfuimus et oculis aspeximus nostris_). A lady of rank in the same\ncity was miraculously healed of an incurable cancer, and St. Augustine\nis indignant at the apathy of her friends, which allowed so great a\nmiracle to be so little known.(1) An inhabitant of the neighbouring town\nof Curubis was cured of paralysis and other ills by being baptized.\nWhen Augustine heard of this, although it was reported on very good\nauthority, the man himself was brought to Carthage by order of the holy\nbishop Aurelius, in order that the truth might be ascertained. Augustine\nstates that, on one occasion during his absence, a tribunitian man\namongst them named Hesperius, who had a farm close by, called Zubedi, in\nthe Fussalian district, begged one of the Christian presbyters to go and\ndrive away some evil spirits whose malice sorely afflicted his servants\nand cattle. One of the presbyters accordingly went, and offered the\nsacrifice of the body of Christ with earnest prayer, and by the mercy of\nGod, the evil was removed. Now Hesperius happened to have received from\none of his friends a piece of the sacred earth of Jerusalem, where Jesus\nChrist was buried and rose again the third day, and he had hung it up\nin his room to protect himself from the evil spirits. When his house had\nbeen freed from them, however, he begged St. Augustine and his colleague\nMaximinus, who happened to be in that neighbourhood, to come to him,\nand after telling them all that had happened, he prayed them to bury\nthe piece of earth in some place where Christians could assemble for the\nworship of God. They consented, and did as he desired. A young peasant\nof the neighbourhood, who was paralytic, hearing of this, begged that\nhe might be carried without delay to the holy spot, where he offered\nup prayer, and rose up and went away on his feet perfectly cured.\nAbout thirty miles from Hippo, at a farm called Victoriana, there was a\nmemorial to the two martyrs Protavius and Gervasius. To this, Augustine\nrelates, was brought a young man who, having gone one summer day at noon\nto water his horse in the river, was possessed by a demon. The lady to\nwhom the place belonged came according to her custom in the evening,\nwith her servants and some holy women to sing hymns and pray. On hearing\nthem the demoniac started up and seized the altar with a terrible\nshudder, without daring to move, and as if bound to it, and the demon\npraying with a loud voice for mercy confessed where and when he had\nentered into the young man. At last the demon named all the members of\nhis body, with threats to cut them off as he made his exit, and, saying\nthese words, came out of him. In doing so, however, the eye of the youth\nfell from its socket on to his cheek, retained only by a small vein\nas by a root, whilst the pupil became altogether white. Well pleased,\nhowever, that the young man had been freed from the evil spirit, they\nreturned the eye to its place as well as they could, and bound it up\nwith a handkerchief, praying fervently, and one of his relatives said:\n\"God who drove out the demon at the prayer of his saints can also\nrestore the sight.\" On removing the bandage seven days after, the eye\nwas found perfectly whole. St. Augustine knew a girl of\n\n{173}\n\nHippo who was delivered from a demon by the application of oil with\nwhich had mingled the tears of the presbyter who was praying for her. He\nalso knew a bishop who prayed for a youth possessed by a demon, although\nhe had not even seen him, and the young man was at once cured.\n\nAugustine further gives particulars of many miracles performed by the\nrelics of the most glorious martyr Stephen.(1) By their virtue the blind\nreceive their sight, the sick are healed, the impenitent converted,\nand the dead are restored to life. \"Andurus is the name of an estate,\"\nAugustine says, \"where there is a church and in it a shrine dedicated to\nthe martyr Stephen. A certain little boy was playing in the court,\nwhen unruly bullocks drawing a waggon crushed him with the wheel, and\nimmediately he lay in the agonies of death. Then his mother raised him\nup, and placed him at the shrine, and he not only came to life again,\nbut had manifestly received no injury.(2) A certain religious woman, who\nlived in a neighbouring property called Caspalianus, being dangerously\nill and her life despaired of, her tunic was carried to the same shrine,\nbut before it was brought back she had expired. Nevertheless, her\nrelatives covered the body with this tunic, and she received back the\nspirit and was made whole.(3) At Hippo, a certain man named\n\n{174}\n\nBassus, a Syrian, was praying at the shrine of the same martyr for his\ndaughter who was sick and in great peril, and he had brought her dress\nwith him; when lo! some of his household came running to announce to him\nthat she was dead. But as he was engaged in prayer they were stopped by\nhis friends, who prevented their telling him, lest he should give way\nto his grief in public. When he returned to his house, which already\nresounded with the wailing of his household, he cast over the body of\nhis daughter her mantle which he had with him, and immediately she was\nrestored to life.(1) Again, in the same city, the son of a certain man\namong us named Irenaeus, a collector of taxes, became sick and died. As\nthe dead body lay, and they were preparing with wailing and lamentation\nto bury it, one of his friends consoling him suggested that the body\nshould be anointed with oil from the same martyr. This was done, and\nthe child came to life again.(2) In the same way a man amongst us named\nEleusinus, formerly a tribune, laid the body of his child, who had died\nfrom sickness, on a memorial of the martyr which is in his villa in the\nsuburbs, and after he had prayed, with many tears, he took up the child\nliving.\"(3)\n\n{175}\n\nWe shall meet with more of these miracles in considering the arguments\nof Dr. Mozley. In a note he says: \"Augustine again, long after, alludes\nin his list of miracles (De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8,) to some cases in which\npersons had been raised to life again by prayer and the intercession of\nmartyrs, whose relics were applied. But though Augustine relates with\ngreat particularity and length of detail some cases of recoveries\nfrom complaints in answer to prayer, his notices of the cases in which\npersons had been raised to life again, are so short, bare, and summary,\nthat they evidently represent no more than mere report, and report of a\nvery vague kind. Indeed, with the preface which he prefixes to his list,\nhe cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of\nthe different instances contained in it. 'Haec autem, ubicunque fiunt,\nibi sciuntur vix a tota ipsa civitate vel quocumque commanentium loco.\nNam plerumque etiam ibi paucissimi sciunt, ignorantibus eseteris, maxime\nsi magna sit civitas; et quando alibi aliisque narrantur, non tantum ea\ncommendat auctoritas, ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur,\nquamvis Christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur.' He puts down\nthe cases as he received them, then, without pledging himself to their\nauthenticity. 'Eucharius presbyter... mortuus sic jacebat ut ei jam\npol-lices ligarentur: opitulatione memorati martyris, cum de memoria\nejus reportata fuisset et supra jacentis corpus missa ipsius presbyteri\ntunica, suscitatus est... Andurus nomen est &C.\",(1) and then Dr. Mozley\ngives the passage already quoted by us. Before continuing,\n\n{176}\n\nwe must remark with regard to the passages just quoted, that, in the\nmiracle of Eucharius, Dr. Mozley, without explanation, omits details.\nThe whole passage is as follows: \"Eucharius, a presbyter from Spain,\nresided at Calama, who had for a long time suffered from stone. By the\nrelics of the same martyr, which the Bishop Possidius brought to him,\nhe was made whole. The same presbyter, afterwards succumbing to another\ndisease, lay dead, so that they were already binding his hands. Succour\ncame from the relics of the martyr, for the tunic of the presbyter being\nbrought back from the relics and placed upon his body he revived.\"(1) A\nwriter who complains of the bareness of narratives, should certainly not\ncurtail their statements. Dr. Mozley continues: \"There are three other\ncases of the same kind, in which there is nothing to verify the death\nfrom which the return to life is said to take place, as being more than\nmere suspension of the vital powers; but the writer does not go into\nparticulars of description or proof, but simply inserts them in his list\nas they have been reported to him.\"(3)\n\nDr. Mozley is anxious to detract from the miracles described by\nAugustine, and we regret to be obliged to maintain that in order to do\nso he misrepresents, no doubt unintentionally, Augustine's statements,\nand, as we think, also unduly depreciates the comparative value of the\nevidence. We shall briefly refer to the two points in question. I. That\n\"his notices of the cases in which persons had been raised to life again\nare so short,\n\n{177}\n\nbare, and summary that they evidently represent no more than mere\nreport, and report of a very vague kind.\" II. \"That with the preface\nwhich Augustine prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to profess\nto guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained\nin it.\"\n\nIt is true that in several cases Augustine gives the account of\nmiraculous cures at greater length than those of restoration to life.\nIt seems to us that this is almost inevitable at all times, and that\nthe reason is obvious. Where the miracle consists merely of the cure of\ndisease, details are naturally given to show the nature and intensity of\nthe sickness, and they are necessary not only for the comprehension of\nthe cure but to show its importance. In the case of restoration to\nlife, the mere statement of the death and assertion of the subsequent\nresurrection exclude all need of details. The pithy _reddita est\nvitae_, or _factum est et revixit_ is more striking than any more\nprolix narrative. In fact, the greater the miracle the more natural\nis conciseness and simplicity; and practically, we find that Augustine\ngives a more lengthy and verbose report of trifling cures, whilst he\nrelates the more important with greater brevity and force. He narrates\nmany of his cases of miraculous cure, however, as briefly as those in\nwhich the dead are raised. We have quoted the latter, and the reader\nmust judge whether they are unduly curt. One thing may be affirmed, that\nnothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to essential details\nthey are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported. In every\ninstance names and addresses are stated, and it will have been observed\nthat all these miracles occurred in, or close to, Hippo, and in his own\ndiocese. It is very certain that in\n\n{178}\n\nevery case the fact of the miracle is asserted in the most direct and\npositive terms. There can be no mistake either as to the meaning or\nintention of the narrative, and there is no symptom whatever of a\nthought on the part of Augustine to avoid the responsibility of his\nstatements, or to give them as mere vague report. If wo compare these\naccounts with those of the Gospels, we do not find them deficient in any\nessential detail common to the latter. There is in the synoptic Gospels\nonly one case in which Jesus is said to have raised the dead. The\nraising of Jairus' daughter(1) has long been abandoned, as a case of\nrestoration to life, by all critics and theologians, except the few\nwho still persist in ignoring the distinct and positive declaration of\nJesus, \"The damsel is not dead but sleepeth.\" The only case, therefore,\nin the Synoptics is the account in the third Gospel of the raising of\nthe widow's son,(3) of which, strange to say, the other Gospels know\nnothing. Now, although, as might have been expected, this narrative is\nmuch more highly coloured and picturesque, the difference is chiefly\nliterary, and, indeed, there are really fewer important details given\nthan in the account by Augustine, for instance, of the restoration to\nlife of the daughter of Bassus the Syrian, which took place at Hippo, of\nwhich he was bishop, and where he actually resided. Augustine's object\nin giving his list of miracles did not require him to write picturesque\nnarratives. He merely desired to state bare facts, whilst the authors\nof the Gospels composed the Life of their Master, in which interesting\ndetails were everything. For many reasons we refrain here from alluding\nto the artistic narrative of the raising\n\n{179}\n\nof Lazarus, the greatest miracle ascribed to Jesus, yet so singularly\nunknown to the other three Evangelists, who, so readily repeating the\naccounts of trifling cures, would most certainly not have neglected this\nhad they ever heard of it.\n\nDr. Mozley complains of the absence of verification and proof of actual\ndeath in these cases, or that they were more than mere suspension of\nthe vital powers. We cordially agree with him in the desire for such\nevidence, not only in these, but in all miracles. We would ask, however,\nwhat verification of the death have we in the case of the widow's son\nwhich we have not here? If we apply such a test to the miracles of the\nGospels, we must reject them as certainly as those of St. Augustine.\nIn neither case have we more than a mere statement that the subjects\nof these miracles were dead or diseased. So far are we from having\nany competent medical evidence of the reality of the death, or of the\ndisease, or of the permanence of the supposed cures in the Gospels, that\nwe have little more than the barest reports of these miracles by writers\nwho, even if their identity were established, were not, and do not\npretend to have been, eye-witnesses of the occurrences which they\nrelate. Take, for instance, this very raising of the widow's son in\nthe third Gospel, which is unknown to the other Evangelists, and the\nnarrative of which is given only in a Gospel which is not attributed to\na personal follower of Jesus.\n\nNow we turn to the second statement of Dr. Mozley, \"that with the\npreface which Augustine prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to\nprofess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances\ncontained in it.\" This extraordinary assertion is supported by a\nquotation\n\n{180}\n\ngiven above, which Dr. Mozley has separated from what precedes and\nfollows it, so that its real meaning is scarcely apparent. We shall\nas briefly as possible state what is actually the \"preface\" of St.\nAugustine to his list of miracles, and his avowed object for giving\nit. In the preceding chapter, Augustine has been arguing that the\nworld believed in Christ by virtue of divine influence and not by human\npersuasion. He contends that it is ridiculous to speak of the false\ndivinity of Romulus when Christians speak of Christ. If, in the time of\nRomulus, some 600 years before Cicero, people were so enlightened that\nthey refused to believe anything of which they had not experience, how\nmuch more, in the still more enlightened days of Cicero himself, and\nnotably in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, would they have rejected\nbelief in the resurrection and ascension of Christ, if divine truth and\nthe testimony of miracles had not proved not only that such things could\ntake place, but that they had actually done so. When the evidence of\nprophecy joined with that of miracles, and showed that the new doctrines\nwere only contrary to experience and not contrary to reason, the world\nembraced the faith.(1) \"Why, then, say they, do these miracles which you\ndeclare to have taken place formerly, not occur now-a-days?\" Augustine,\nin replying, adopts a common rhetorical device: \"I might, indeed,\nanswer,\" he says, \"that miracles were necessary before the world\nbelieved, in order that the world might believe. Any one who now\nrequires miracles in order that he may believe, is himself a great\nmiracle in not believing what all the world believes. But, really,\nthey say this in order that even those miracles should not be believed\neither.\"\n\n{181}\n\nAnd he reduces what he considers to be the position of the world in\nregard to miracles and to the supernatural dogmas of Christianity to\nthe following dilemma: \"Either things incredible which nevertheless\noccurred, and were seen, led to belief in something else incredible,\nwhich was not seen; or that thing was in itself so credible that no\nmiracles were required to establish it, and so much more is the unbelief\nof those who deny confuted. This might I say to these most frivolous\nobjectors.\" He then proceeds to affirm that it cannot be denied that\nmany miracles attest the great miracle of the ascension in the flesh of\nthe risen Christ, and he points out that the actual occurrence of all\nthese things is not only recorded in the most truthful books, but the\nreasons also given why they took place. These things have become known\nthat they might create belief; these things by the belief they have\ncreated have become much more clearly known. They are read to the\npeople, indeed, that they may believe; yet, nevertheless, they would not\nbe read to the people if they had not been believed. After thus stating\nthe answer which he might give, Augustine now returns to answer the\nquestion directly:--\"But, furthermore,\" he continues, \"miracles are\nperformed now in his name, either by means of his sacraments, or by the\nprayers or relics of his saints, but they are not brought under the\nsame strong light as caused the former to be noised abroad with so\nmuch glory; inasmuch as the canon of sacred scriptures, which must be\ndefinite, causes those miracles to be everywhere publicly read, and\nbecome firmly fixed in the memory of all peoples;\"(l) and then follows\nDr. Mozley's\n\n{182}\n\nquotation: \"but these are scarcely known to the whole of a city itself\nin which they are performed, or to its neighbourhood. Indeed, for the\nmost part, even there very few know of them, and the rest are ignorant,\nmore especially if the city be large; and when they are related\nelsewhere and to others, the authority does not so commend them as\nto make them be believed without difficulty or doubt, albeit they are\nreported by faithful Christians to the faithful.\" He illustrates this by\npointing out in immediate continuation, that the miracle in Milan by the\nbodies of the two martyrs, which took place when he himself was there,\nmight reach the knowledge of many, because the city is large, and the\nEmperor and an immense crowd of people witnessed it, but who knows of\nthe miracle performed at Carthage upon his friend Innocent, when he was\nthere also, and saw it with his own eyes? Who knows of the miraculous\ncure of cancer, he continues, in a lady of rank in the same city? at the\nsilence regarding which he is so indignant. Who knows of the next case\nhe mentions in his list? the cure of a medical man of the same town,\nto which he adds: \"We, nevertheless, do know it, and a few brethren to\nwhose knowledge it may have come.\"(1) Who out of Curubus, besides the\nvery few who may have heard of it, knows of the miraculous cure of the\nparalytic man, whose case Augustine personally investigated? and so on.\nObserve that there is merely a question of the comparative notoriety of\nthe Gospel\n\n{183}\n\nmiracles and those of his own time, not a doubt as to the reality of the\nlatter. Again, towards the end of his long list, immediately after the\nnarrative of the restoration to life of the child of Eleusinus, which\nwe have quoted, Augustine says:--\"What can I do? The promise of the\ncompletion of this work is pressing, so that I cannot here recount all\n(the miracles) that I know; and without doubt many of our brethren when\nthey read this work will be grieved that I have omitted so very much,\nwhich they know as well as I do. This I even now beg that they will\npardon, and consider how long would be the task of doing that which, for\nthe completion of the work, it is thought necessary not to do. For if\nI desired to record merely the miracles of healing, without speaking of\nothers, which have been performed by this martyr, that is to say, the\nmost glorious Stephen, in the district of Calama, and in ours of Hippo,\nmany volumes must be composed, yet will it not be possible to make a\ncomplete collection of them, but only of such as have been published for\npublic reading. For that was our object, since we saw repeated in our\ntime signs of divine power similar to those of old, deeming that they\nought not to be lost to the knowledge of the multitude. Now this relic\nhas not yet been two years at Hippo-Regius, and accounts of many of the\nmiracles performed by it have not been written, as is most certainly\nknown to us, yet the number of those which have been published, up to\nthe time this is written, amounts ta about seventy. At Calama, however,\nwhere these relics have been longer, and more of the miracles were\nrecorded, they incomparably exceed this number.\"(1)\n\n184\n\nAugustine goes on to say that, to his knowledge, many very remarkable\nmiracles were performed by the relics of the same martyr also at Uzali,\na district near to Utica, and of one of these, which had recently taken\nplace when he himself was there, he gives an account. Then, before\nclosing his list with the narrative of a miracle which took place at\nHippo, in his own church, in his own presence, and in the sight of the\nwhole congregation, he resumes his reply to the opening question:--\"Many\nmiracles, therefore,\" he says, \"are also performed now, the same God who\nworked those of which we read, performing these by whom he wills and as\nhe wills; but these miracles neither become similarly known, nor, that\nthey may not slip out of mind, are they stamped, as it were like gravel,\ninto memory, by frequent reading. For even in places where care is\ntaken, as is now the case amongst us, that accounts of those who receive\nbenefit should be publicly read, those who are present hear them only\nonce, and many are not present at all, so that those who were present do\nnot, after a few days, remember\n\n{185}\n\nwhat they heard, and scarcely a single person is met with who repeats\nwhat he has heard to one whom he may have known to have been absent\"(1)\n\nSo far from casting doubt upon the miracles which he narrates, the\n\"Preface\" of Augustine is clearly intended to establish them. These\n\"signs of divine power similar to those of old,\" are not less real and\nimportant, but merely less known, because the eyes of the world are not\ndirected to them, and they have not the advantage of being everywhere\npublished abroad by means of canonical scriptures constantly read to the\npeople and acknowledged as authoritative. Dr. Mozleys statement is quite\nunwarranted, and it seems to us gratuitously injurious to St. Augustine.\nThis Father of the Church and Bishop must have had as little good faith\nas good sense, if he did what such a statement implies. In order to\ndemonstate the truth of his assertion that miracles were still performed\nin his day, Dr. Mozley represents Augustine as deliberately producing a\nlong list of instances of which \"he cannot even be said to guarantee the\ntruth,\" and the more important cases in which \"evidently represent\nno more than mere report, and report of a very vague kind.\" We have\nfurnished the reader with the materials for forming an opinion on these\npoints. The judgment of Dr. Mozley may with equal justice be applied to\n\n{186}\n\nthe authors of the synoptic Gospels. They certainly do not guarantee\nthe truth of the miracles they relate in any more precise way than\nAugustine. Like him, they merely narrate them as facts, and he as\nevidently believes what he states as they do. Indeed, as regards\ncomparative fulness of testimony, the advantage is altogether on the\nside of the miracles reported by St. Augustine. These miracles occurred\nwithin two years of the time at which he wrote, and were at once\nrecorded with the names of the subjects and of the places at which they\noccurred; most of them were performed in his own diocese, and several\nof them in his own presence; some, of which he apparently did not feel\nsure, he personally investigated; he states his knowledge of others,\nand he narrates the whole of them with the most direct and simple\naffirmation of the facts, without a single word indicating hesitation,\nor directly or indirectly attributing the narrative to mere report.\nMoreover, he not only advances these miracles deliberately and in\nwriting, in support of his positive assertion that miracles were still\nperformed, but these accounts of them had in the first instance been\nwritten that they might be publicly read in his own church for the\nedification of Christians, almost on the very spot where they are stated\nto have occurred. We need scarcely say that we do not advance these\nreasons in order to argue the reality of the miracles themselves, but\nsimply to maintain that, so far from his giving the account of them\nas mere report, or not even professing to vouch for their truth, St.\nAugustine both believed them himself, and asked others to believe them\nas facts, and that they are as unhesitatingly affirmed as any related in\nthe Gospels.\n\n{187}\n\nWe shall not attempt any further detailed reference to the myriads of\nmiracles with which the annals of the Church teem up to very recent\ntimes. The fact is too well known to require evidence. The saints in the\nCalendar are legion. It has been computed that the number of those whose\nlives are given in the Bollandist Collection(1) amounts to upwards of\n25,000, although, the saints being arranged according to the Calendar,\nthe unfinished work only reaches the twenty-fourth of October. When it\nis considered that all those upon whom the honour of canonization is\nconferred have worked miracles, many of them, indeed, almost daily\nperforming such wonders, some idea may be formed of the number of\nmiracles which have occurred in unbroken succession from Apostolic days,\nand have been believed and recognized by the Church. Vast numbers of\nthese miracles are in all respects similar to those narrated in the\nGospels, and they comprise hundreds of cases of restoration of the dead\nto life. If it be necessary to point out instances in comparatively\nrecent times, we may mention the miracles of this kind liberally\nascribed to St Francis of Assisi, in the 13th century, and to his\nnamesake St. Francis Xavier, in the 16th, as pretty well known to all,\nalthough we might refer to much more recent miracles authenticated by\nthe Church. At the present day such phenomena have almost disappeared,\nand, indeed, with the exception of an occasional winking picture,\nperiodical liquefaction of blood, or apparition of the Virgin, confined\nto the still ignorant and benighted corners of the earth, miracles are\nextinct.\n\n{188}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. MIRACLES IN RELATION TO IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION\n\nWe have maintained that the miracles which are reported after apostolic\ndays, instead of presenting the enormous distinction which Dr. Mozley\nasserts, are precisely of the same types in all material points as\nthe earlier miracles. Setting aside miracles of a trivial and unworthy\ncharacter, there remains a countless number cast in the same mould as\nthose of the Gospels,--miraculous cure of diseases, expulsion of demons,\ntransformation of elements, supernatural nourishment, resurrection of\ndead--of many of which we have quoted instances. Dr. Mozley anticipates\nan objection and says: \"It will be urged, perhaps, that a large\nportion even of the Gospel miracles are of the class here mentioned\nas ambiguous; cures, visions, expulsions of evil spirits; but this\nobservation does not affect the character of the Gospel miracles as a\nbody, because we judge of the body or whole from its highest specimen,\nnot from its lowest.\" He takes his stand upon, \"e.g. our Lord's\nResurrection and Ascension.\"(1) Now, without discussing the principle\nlaid down here, it is evident that the great distinction between the\nGospel and other miracles is thus narrowed to a very small compass.\nIt is admitted that the mass of the Gospel miracles are of a class\ncharacterized as ambiguous, because \"the current\n\n{189}\n\nmiracles of human history\" are also chiefly of the same type, and\nthe distinctive character is derived avowedly only from a few high\nspecimens, such as the Resurrection. We have already referred to the\nfact that in the synoptic Gospels there is only one case, reported by\nthe third Gospel alone, in which Jesus is said to have raised the dead.\nSt. Augustine alone, however, chronicles several cases in which life was\nrestored to the dead. Post-apostolic miracles, therefore, are far from\nlacking this ennobling type. Observe that Dr. Mozley is here not so\nmuch discussing the reality of the subsequent miracles of the Church,\nas contrasting them and other reputed miracles with those of the Gospel,\nand from this point of view it is impossible to maintain that the\nGospels have a monopoly of the highest class of miracles. Such miracles\nare met with long before the dawn of Christianity, and continued to\noccur long after apostolic times.\n\nMuch stress is laid upon the form of the Gospel miracles; but as we have\nalready shown, it is the actual resurrection of the dead, for instance,\nwhich is the miracle, and this is not affected by the more or less\ndramatic manner in which it is said to have been effected, or in\nwhich the narrative of the event is composed. Literary skill, and\nthe judicious management of details, may make or mar the form of any\nmiracle. The narrative of the restoration of the dead child to life\nby Elisha might have been more impressive, had the writer omitted the\ncircumstance that the child sneezed seven times before opening his eyes,\nand Dr. Mozley would probably have considered the miracle greater had\nthe prophet merely said to the child, \"Arise!\" instead of stretching\nhimself on the body; but setting aside human cravings\n\n{190}\n\nfor the picturesque and artistic, the essence of the miracle would have\nremained the same. There is one point, however, regarding which it may\nbe well to make a few remarks. Whilst a vast number of miracles are\nascribed to direct personal action of saints, many more are attributed\nto their relics. Now this is no exclusive characteristic of later\nmiracles, but Christianity itself shares it with still earlier times.\nThe case in which a dead body which touched the bones of Elisha was\nrestored to life will occur to every one. \"And it came to pass, as they\nwere burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of Moabites; and\nthey cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let\ndown, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his\nfeet.\"(1) The mantle of Elijah smiting asunder the waters before Elisha\nmay be cited as another instance.(2) The woman who touches the hem of\nthe garment of Jesus in the crowd is made whole,(3) and all the sick and\n\"possessed\" of the country are represented as being healed by touching\nJesus, or even the mere hem of his garment.(4) It was supposed that\nthe shadow of Peter falling on the sick as he passed had a curative\neffect,(5) and it is very positively stated: \"And God wrought miracles\nof no common kind by the hands of Paul; so that from his body were\nbrought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed\nfrom them, and the evil spirits went out of them.\" (6)\n\nThe argument which assumes an enormous distinction\n\n{191}\n\nbetween Gospel and other miracles betrays the prevalent scepticism, even\nin the Church, of all miracles except those which it is considered an\narticle of faith to maintain. If we inquire how those think who are more\nlogical and thorough in their belief in the supernatural, we find the\ndistinction denied. \"The question,\" says Dr. Newman, \"has hitherto been\nargued on the admission, that a distinct line can be drawn in point of\ncharacter and circumstances, between the miracles of Scripture and those\nof Church history; but this is by no means the case. It is true, indeed,\nthat the miracles of Scripture, viewed as a whole, recommend themselves\nto our reason, and claim our veneration beyond all others, by a peculiar\ndignity and beauty; but still it is only as a whole that they make this\nimpression upon us. Some of them, on the contrary, fall short of the\nattributes which attach to them in general; nay, are inferior in these\nrespects to certain ecclesiastical miracles, and are received only on\nthe credit of the system of which they form part. Again, specimens are\nnot wanting in the history of the Church, of miracles as awful in\ntheir character, and as momentous in their effects, as those which are\nrecorded in Scripture.\"(1) Now here is one able and thorough supporter\nof miracles denying the enormous distinction between those of the Gospel\nand those of human history, which another admits to be essential to the\nformer as evidence of a revelation.\n\nDr. Mozley, however, meets such a difficulty by asserting that there\nwould be no disadvantage to the Gospel miracles, and no doubt regarding\nthem involved, if for some later miracles there was evidence as strong\nas for those of the Gospel. \"All the result would be,\" he says,\n\n{192}\n\n\"that we should admit these miracles over and above the Gospel ones.\"(1)\nHe denies the equality of the evidence, however, in any case. \"Between\nthe evidence, then, upon which the Gospel miracles stand, and that for\nlater miracles we see a broad distinction arising, not to mention\nagain the nature and type of the Gospel miracles themselves--from the\ncontemporaneous date of the testimony to them, the character of the\nwitnesses, the probation of the testimony; especially when we contrast\nwith these points the false doctrine and audacious fraud which rose up\nin later ages, and in connection with which so large a portion of the\nlater miracles of Christianity made their appearance.\"(2) We consider\nthe point touching the type of the Gospel miracles disposed of, and we\nmay, therefore, confine ourselves to the rest of this argument. If we\nlook for any external evidence of the miracles of Jesus in any marked\neffect produced by them at the time they are said to have occurred, we\nfind anything but confirmation of the statements of the Gospels. It is\na notorious fact that, in spite of these miracles, very few of the\nJews amongst whom they were performed believed in Jesus, and that\nChristianity made its chief converts not where the supposed miracles\ntook place, but where an account of them was alone given by enthusiastic\nmissionaries. Such astounding exhibitions of power as raising the dead,\ngiving sight to the blind, walking on the sea, changing water into wine,\nand indefinitely multiplying a few loaves and fishes, not only did not\nmake any impression on the Jews themselves, but were never heard of out\nof Palestine until long after the events are said to have occurred, when\nthe narrative of them was slowly disseminated by Christian teachers and\nwriters.\n\n{193}\n\nDr. Mozley refers to the contemporary testimony \"for certain great and\ncardinal Gospel miracles which, if granted, clear away all antecedent\nobjection to the reception of the rest,\" and he says: \"That the first\npromulgators of Christianity asserted, as a fact which had come under\nthe cognizance of their senses, the Resurrection of our Lord from the\ndead, is as certain as anything in history.\"(1) What they really did\nassert, so far from being so certain as Dr. Mozley states, must, as we\nshall hereafter see, be considered matter of the greatest doubt. But if\nthe general statement be taken that the Resurrection, for instance,\nwas promulgated as a fact which the early preachers of Christianity\nthemselves believed to have taken place, the evidence does not in that\ncase present the broad distinction he asserts. The miracles recounted by\nSt Athanasius and St. Augustine, for example, were likewise proclaimed\nwith equal clearness, and even greater promptitude and publicity at the\nvery spot where many of them were said to have been performed, and\nthe details were much more immediately reduced to writing. The mere\nassertion in neither case goes for much as evidence, but the fact is\nthat we have absolutely no contemporaneous testimony at all as to what\nthe first promulgators of Christianity actually asserted, or as to the\nreal grounds upon which they made such assertions. We shall presently\nenter upon a thorough examination of the testimony for the Gospel\nnarratives, their authorship and authenticity, but we may here\nbe permitted, so far to anticipate, as to remark that, applied to\ndocumentary evidence, Dr. Mozley's reasoning from the contemporaneous\ndate of the testimony, and the character of\n\n{194}\n\nthe witnesses, is contradicted by the whole history of New Testament\nliterature. Whilst the most uncritically zealous assertors of the\nantiquity of the Gospels never venture to date the earliest of them\nwithin a quarter of a century from the death of Jesus, every tyro is\naware that there is not a particle of evidence of the existence of our\nGospels until very long after that interval,--hereafter we shall show\nhow long;--that two of our synoptic Gospels at least were not, in any\ncase, composed in their present form by the writers to whom they\nare attributed; that there is, indeed, nothing worthy of the name of\nevidence that any one of these Gospels was written at all by the person\nwhose name it bears; that the second Gospel is attributed to one who was\nnot an eye-witness, and of whose identity there is the greatest doubt\neven amongst those who assert the authorship of Mark; that the third\nGospel is an avowed later compilation,(1) and likewise ascribed to one\nwho was not a follower of Jesus himself; and that the authorship of\nthe fourth Gospel and its historical character are amongst the most\nunsettled questions of criticism, not to use here any more definite\nterms. This being the state of the case it is absurd to lay such\nemphasis on the contemporaneous date of the testimony, and on the\ncharacter of the witnesses, since it has not even been determined who\nthose witnesses are, and two even of the supposed evangelists were not\npersonal eye-witnesses at all.(2) Surely the testimony of Athanasius\nregarding the miracles of St. Anthony, and that of Augustine regarding\n\n     1  Luke i. 1--4.\n\n     2  We need scarcely point out that Paul, to whom so many of\n     the writings of the New Testament are ascribed, and who\n     practically is the author of ecclesiastical Christianity,\n     not only was not an eye-witness of the Gospel miracles but\n     never even saw Jesus.\n\n{195}\n\nhis list of miracles occurring in or close to his own diocese, within\ntwo years of the time at which he writes, or, to refer to more recent\ntimes, the evidence of Pascal for the Port-Royal miracles, must be\nadmitted, not only not to present the broad distinction of evidence\nof which Dr. Mozley speaks, but on the contrary to be even more\nunassailable than that of the Gospel miracles. The Church, which is\nthe authority for those miracles, is also the authority for the long\nsuccession of such works wrought by the saints. The identity of the\nwriters we have instanced has never been doubted; their trustworthiness,\nin so far as stating what they believe to be true is concerned, has\nnever been impugned; the same could be affirmed of writers in every age\nwho record such miracles. The broad distinction of evidence for which\nDr. Mozley contends, does not exist; it does not lie within the scope\nof his lectures either to define or prove it, and he does not of course\ncommit the error of assuming the inspiration of the records. The fact is\nthat theologians demand evidence for later miracles, which they have not\nfor those of the Gospels, and which transmitted reverence forbids their\nrequiring. They strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.\n\nDr. Mozley points to the life of sacrifice and suffering of the Apostles\nas a remarkable and peculiar testimony to the truth of the Gospel\nmiracles, and notably of the Resurrection and Ascension.(1) Without\nexamining, here, how much we really know of those lives and sufferings,\none thing is perfectly evident: that sacrifice, suffering, and martyrdom\nitself are evidence of nothing except of the personal belief of the\nperson enduring them; they do not prove the truth of the doctrines\nbelieved. No\n\n{196}\n\none doubts the high religious enthusiasm of the early Christians, or the\nearnest and fanatical zeal with which they courted martyrdom, but this\nis no exclusive characteristic of Christianity. Every religion has\nhad its martyrs, every error its devoted victims. Does the marvellous\nendurance of the Hindoo, whose limbs wither after years of painful\npersistence in vows to his Deity, prove the truth of Brahmanism? or do\nthe fanatical believers who cast themselves under the wheels of the car\nof Jagganath establish the soundness of their creed? Do the Jews, who\nfor centuries bore the fiercest contumelies of the world, and were\npersecuted, hunted, and done to death by every conceivable torture\nfor persisting in their denial of the truth of the Incarnation,\nResurrection, and Ascension, and in their rejection of Jesus Christ, do\nthey thus furnish a convincing argument for the truth of their belief\nand the falsity of Christianity? Or have the thousands who have been\nconsigned to the stake by the Christian Church herself for persisting\nin asserting what she has denounced as damnable heresy, proved the\ncorrectness of their views by their sufferings and death? History is\nfull of the records of men who have honestly believed every kind\nof error and heresy, and have been stedfast to the death, through\npersecution and torture, in their mistaken belief. There is nothing\nso inflexible as superstitious fanaticism, and persecution, instead\nof extinguishing it, has invariably been the most certain means of its\npropagation. The sufferings of the Apostles, therefore, cannot prove\nanything beyond their own belief, and the question what it was they\nreally did believe and suffered for is by no means so simple as it\nappears.\n\nNow the long succession of ecclesiastical and other\n\n{197}\n\nmiracles has an important bearing upon those of the New Testament,\nwhether we believe or deny their reality. If we regard the miracles of\nChurch history to be in the main real, the whole force of the Gospel\nmiracles, as exceptional supernatural evidence of a Divine Revelation,\nis annihilated. The \"miraculous credentials of Christianity\" assume\na very different aspect when they are considered from such a point of\nview. Admitted to be scarcely recognizable from miracles wrought by\nSatanic agency, they are seen to be a continuation of wonders recorded\nin the Old Testament, to be preceded and accompanied by pretension\nto similar power on the part of the Jews and other nations, and to be\nsucceeded by cycles of miracles, in all essential respects the\nsame, performed subsequently for upwards of fifteen hundred years.\nSupernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature certainly\nbetrays a great want of force and divine speciality. How could that be\nconsidered as express evidence for a new Divine Revelation which was\nalready so well known to the world, and which is scattered broad-cast\nover so many centuries, as well as successfully simulated by Satan?\n\nIf, on the other hand, we dismiss the miracles of later ages as false,\nand as merely the creations of superstition or pious imagination, how\ncan the miracles of the Gospel, which are precisely the same in type,\nand not better established as facts, remain unshaken? The Apostles and\nEvangelists were men of like passions, and also of like superstitions\nwith others of their time, and must be measured by the same standard.\nDr. Mozley will not admit that, even in such a case, the difficulty of\ndistinguishing the true miracles amongst the mass of\n\n{198}\n\nspurious justifies the rejection of all, and he demands a judicial\nprocess in each case, and settlement according to the evidence in that\ncase.(1) We might reply that if the great mass of asserted miracles be\ndetermined to be spurious, there is no reason shown for entering upon a\nmore minute consideration of pretensions, which knowledge and experience\nforce us _a priori_ to regard as incredible, and which examination, in\nso many cases, has proved to be delusion. Even if the plea, that \"the\nevidence of the Gospel miracles is a special case which must be decided\non its own grounds,\" be admitted, it must be apparent that the rejection\nof the mass of other miracles is serious presumptive evidence also\nagainst them.\n\n2.\n\nThe argument for the reality of miracles receives very little\nstrength from the character of either the early or the later ages of\nChristianity. \"It is but too plain,\" says Dr. Mozley, \"in discussing\necclesiastical miracles, that in later ages, as the Church advanced\nin worldly power and position, besides the mistakes of imagination and\nimpression, a temper of deliberate and audacious fraud set itself in\naction for the spread of certain doctrines, as well as for the\ngreat object of the concentration of Church power in one absolute\nmonarchy.\"(2) We have already quoted words of Dean Milman regarding the\nframe of mind of the early Church, and it may not be out of place to add\na few lines from the same writer. Speaking of the writings of the first\nages of Christianity, he says: \"That some of the Christian legends were\ndeliberate forgeries can scarcely be questioned; the principle of pious\nfraud\n\n{199}\n\nappeared to justify this mode of working on the popular mind; it was\nadmitted and avowed. To deceive into Christianity was so valuable a\nservice as to hallow deceit itself. But the largest portion was probably\nthe natural birth of that imaginative excitement which quickens its\nday-dreams and nightly visions into reality. The Christian lived in\na supernatural world; the notion of the divine power, the perpetual\ninterference of the Deity, the agency of the countless invisible beings\nwhich hovered over mankind, was so strongly impressed upon the belief,\nthat every extraordinary, and almost every ordinary incident became a\nmiracle, every inward emotion a suggestion either of a good or an evil\nspirit. A mythic period was thus gradually formed, in which reality\nmelted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the\nprovince of history.\"(1) Whether we look upon this picture or on that,\nthe result is equally unfavourable to miracles, and a ready explanation\nboth of the earlier and later instances is suggested. We must, however,\nagain recall the fact that, setting aside for the present the effect of\npious fraud, this vivid and superstitious imagination, which so\nfreely created for itself the miraculous, was not merely developed\nby Christianity, but was equally rampant before it, and was a marked\ncharacteristic of the Jews. The same writer, in a passage already\nquoted, says: \"During the whole life of Christ, and the early\npropagation of the religion, it must be borne in mind that they took\nplace in an age, and among a people which superstition had made so\nfamiliar with what were supposed to be preternatural events, that\nwonders awakened no emotion, or were speedily superseded by some new\ndemand on the ever\n\n{200}\n\nready belief. The Jews of that period not only believed that the Supreme\nBeing had the power of controlling the course of nature, but that the\nsame influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits, both\ngood and evil.\"(1) Between the \"superstition,\" \"imaginative excitement,\"\nand \"pious fraud\" of the early Church, and the \"deliberate and\naudacious fraud\" of the later, we have abundant material for the natural\nexplanation of all supposed miracles, without going to such an extreme\nhypothesis as exceptions to the order of nature, or supposing that a few\nmiracles can be accepted as supernatural facts, whilst all the rest must\nbe discarded as human fables.\n\nIt is certain that throughout the whole period during which miracles are\nsaid to have been performed, gross ignorance and superstition prevailed,\nand nowhere more so than amongst the Jews where those miracles occurred.\nAlmost every operation of nature was inexplicable, and everything\nwhich was inexplicable was considered supernatural. Miracles seemed as\ncredible to the mind of that age as deviations from the order of nature\nseem incredible in ours. It is a suggestive fact that miracles are\nlimited to periods when almost every common incident was readily\nascribed to supernatural agency. There is, however, one remarkable\ncircumstance which casts some light upon the origin of narratives of\nmiracles. Throughout the New Testament, patristic literature, and the\nrecords of ecclesiastical miracles, although we have narratives of\ncountless wonderful works performed by others than the writers, and\nabundant assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the Church,\nthere is no instance whatever, that we can remember, in which\n\n{201}\n\na writer claims to have himself performed a miracle.(1) Wherever there\nhas existed even the comparatively accurate means of information which\na person who himself performed a miracle might possess, the miraculous\nentirely fails, and it is found only where faith or credulity usurps\nthe place of knowledge. Pious men were perfectly ready to believe the\nsupposed miracles of others, and to report them as facts, who were too\nveracious to imagine any of their own. Even if Apostles and Saints had\nchronicled their own miraculous deeds, the argument for their reality\nwould not have been much advanced; but the uniform absence of such\npersonal pretension enables us more clearly to trace such narratives to\npious credulity or superstition.\n\nIf we consider the particular part which miracles have played in human\nhistory, we find precisely the phenomena which might have been expected\nif miracles, instead of being considered as real occurrences, were\nrecognized as the mistakes or creations of ignorance and superstition\nduring that period in which \"reality melted into fable, and invention\nunconsciously trespassed on the province of history.\" Their occurrence\nis limited to ages which were totally ignorant of physical laws, and\nthey have been numerous or rare precisely in proportion to the degree of\nimagination and love of the marvellous characterizing the people\namongst whom they are said to have occurred. Instead of a few evidential\nmiracles taking place at one epoch of history, and filling the world\nwith surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we find miracles\nrepresented as taking place in all ages and in all countries. The Gospel\nmiracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders, which\ncommenced\n\n     1 This is fully discussed in the third volume.\n\n{202}\n\nmany centuries before the dawn of Christianity and continued, without\ninterruption, for fifteen hundred years after it. They did not in the\nmost remote degree originate the belief in miracles, or give the first\nsuggestion of spurious imitation. It may, on the contrary, be much more\ntruly said that the already existing belief created these miracles. No\ndivine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the\nDivine Revelation. The miracles with which the history of the world is\nfull occurred in ages of darkness and superstition, and they gradually\nceased when enlightenment became more generally diffused. At the very\ntime when knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of\njudging of the reality of miracles, these wonders entirely failed. This\nextraordinary cessation of miracles, precisely at the time when their\nevidence might have acquired value by an appeal to persons capable of\nappreciating them, is perfectly unintelligible if they be viewed as the\nsupernatural credentials of a Divine revelation. If, on the other\nhand, they be regarded as the mistakes of imaginative excitement and\nignorance, nothing is more natural than their extinction at the time\nwhen the superstition which created them gave place to knowledge.\n\nAs a historical fact, there is nothing more certain than that miracles,\nand the belief in them, disappeared exactly when education and knowledge\nof the operation of natural laws became diffused throughout Europe, and\nthat the last traces of belief in supernatural interference with the\norder of nature are only to be found in localities where ignorance and\nsuperstition still prevail, and render delusion or pious fraud of that\ndescription possible. Miracles are now denied to places more enlightened\n\n{203}\n\nthan Naples or La Salette. The inevitable inference from this fact is\nfatal to the mass of miracles, and it is not possible to protect them\nfrom it. Miracle cures by the relics of saints, upheld for fifteen\ncenturies by all the power of the Church, utterly failed when medical\nscience, increasing in spite of persecution, demonstrated the natural\naction of physiological laws. The theory of the demoniacal origin\nof disease has been entirely and for ever dispelled, and the host of\nmiracles in connection with it retrospectively exploded by the progress\nof science. Witchcraft and sorcery, the belief in which reigned supreme\nfor so many centuries, are known to have been nothing but the delusions\nof ignorant superstition. \"A l'epoque ou les faits merveilleux qui s'y\n(dans les legendes) trouvent consignes etaient rapportes,\" asks an able\nFrench writer, \"posse dait-on les lumieres suffisantes pour exercer une\ncritique veritable et serieuse sur des temoignages que venaient affirmer\ndes faits en contradiction avec nos connaissances? Or, on peut assurer\nhardiment que non. Au moyen-age, l'intime conviction que la nature voit\ntres frequemment ses lois interverties par la volonte divine regnait\ndans les esprits, en sorte que pour peu qu'un fait se presentat avec\ndes apparences extraordinaires, on se hatait de le regarder comme un\nmiracle, comme loeuvre directe de la divinite. Aujourd'hui on cherche au\ncontraire a tout rapporter a la loi commune; on est tellement sobre de\nfaits miraculeux, que ceux qui paraissent tels sont ^cartes comme des\nfables ou tonus pour des faits ordinaires mal expliques. La foi aux\nmiracles a disparu. En outre, au moyen-age le cercle des connaissances\nqu'on possedait sur la nature etait fort restreint, et tout ce qui n'y\nrentrait pas etait regarde comme surnatural.\n\n{204}\n\nActuellement ce cercle s'agrandit sans cesse; et loin d'en avoir arrete\ndefinitivement la limite, on le declare infini.\" In a note the writer\nadds: \"On voit par la que le nombre des miracles doit etre en raison\ninverse du nombre des lois connues de la nature, et, qu'a mesure que\ncelles-ci nous sont revelees, les faits merveilleux ou miraculeux\ns'evanouissent.\"(1) These remarks are equally applicable to the\ncommencement of the Christian era. On the one hand, we have no other\ntestimony for the reality of miracles than that of ages in which not\nonly the grossest superstition and credulity prevailed, but in which\nthere was such total ignorance of natural laws that men were incapable\nof judging of that reality, even if they desired impartially to\ninvestigate such occurrences, which they did not; on the other hand, we\nhave the sober testimony of science declaring such phenomena violations\nof the invariable laws of nature, and experience teaching us a perfectly\nsimple and natural interpretation of the legends regarding them. Are\nwe to believe ignorance and superstition or science and unvarying\nexperience? Science has already demonstrated the delusion involved\nin the largest class of miracles, and has so far established the\nsuperiority of her testimony.\n\nIn an early part of his discussion Dr. Mozley argues: \"Christianity is\nthe religion of the civilized world, and\n\n     1 L. F. Alfred Maury. Essai sur los Legendes pieuses du\n     Moyen-age, 1843, p. 234 f., and p. 233, note (1).\n\n     The same arguments are employed by the late Mr. Buckle.\n     \"Hence it is that, supposing other things equal, the\n     superstition of a nation must always bear an exact\n     proportion to the extent of its physical knowledge. This may\n     be in some degree verified by the ordinary experience of\n     mankind. For if we compare the different classes of society,\n     we shall find that they are superstitious in proportion as\n     the phenomena with which they are brought in contact have or\n     have not been explained by natural laws.\" Hist, of\n     Civilization, 1867, i. p. 373.\n\n{205}\n\nit is believed upon its miraculous evidence. Now, for a set of miracles\nto be accepted in a rude age, and to retain their authority throughout a\nsuccession of such ages, and over the ignorant and superstitious part\nof mankind, may be no such great result for the miracle to accomplish,\nbecause it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire. But this is\nnot the state of the case which we have to meet on the subject of\nthe Christian miracles. The Christian being the most intelligent, the\ncivilized portion of the world, these miracles are accepted by the\nChristian body as a whole, by the thinking and educated as well as\nthe uneducated part of it, and the Gospel is believed upon that\nevidence.\"(1) The picture of Christendom here suggested is purely\nimaginary. We are asked to believe that succeeding generations of\nthinking and educated as well as uneducated men, since the commencement\nof the period in which the adequate inquiry into the reality of miracles\nbecame possible, have made that adequate inquiry, and have intelligently\nand individually accepted miracles and believed the Gospel in\nconsequence of their attestation. The fact, however, is that\nChristianity became the religion of Europe before men either possessed\nthe knowledge requisite to appreciate the difficulties involved in\nthe acceptance of miracles, or minds sufficiently freed from ignorant\nsuperstition to question the reality of the supposed supernatural\ninterference with the order of nature, and belief had become so much a\nmatter of habit that, in this nineteenth century, the great majority of\nmen have professed belief for no better reason than that their fathers\nbelieved before them. Belief is now little more than a transmitted\nquality or hereditary custom. Few men, even\n\n{206}\n\nnow, have either the knowledge or the leisure requisite to enable them\nto enter upon such an examination of miracles as can entitle Dr. Mozley\nto affirm that they intelligently accept miracles for themselves. We\nhave shown, moreover, that so loose are the ideas even of the clergy\nupon the subject, that dignitaries of the church fail to see either the\nevidential purpose of miracles or the need for evidence at all, and\nthe first intelligent step towards inquiry--doubt--has generally been\nstigmatized almost as a crime.\n\nSo far from Dr. Mozley's statement being correct, it is notorious that\nthe great mass of those who are competent to examine, and who have done\nso, altogether reject miracles. Instead of the \"thinking and educated\"\nmen of science accepting miracles, they, as a body, distinctly deny\nthem, and hence the antagonism between science and ecclesiastical\nChristianity, and Dr. Mozley surely does not require to be told how many\nof the profoundest critics and scholars of Germany, and of all other\ncountries in Europe, who have turned their attention to Biblical\nsubjects, have long ago rejected the miraculous elements of the\nChristian religion. Such being the case we necessarily revert to the\nfirst part of Dr. Mozley's representation, and find with him, that it\nis no great result for miracles to accomplish, merely to be accepted by,\nand retain authority over, a succession of ignorant and superstitious\nages, \"because it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire.\"\n\nIt is necessary that we should now refer to the circumstance that all\nthe arguments which we have hitherto considered in support of miracles,\nwhether to explain or account for them, have proceeded upon an\nassumption of the reality of the alleged phenomena.\n\n{207}\n\nHad it been first requisite to establish the truth of facts of such an\nastounding nature, the necessity of accounting for them might never have\narisen. It is clear, therefore, that an assumption which permits the\nargument to attain any such position begs almost the whole question.\nFacts, however astounding, which, it is admitted, did actually occur,\nclaim a latitude of explanation, which a mere narrative of those alleged\nfacts, written by an unknown person some eighteen centuries ago, could\nnot obtain. If, for instance, it be once established as an absolute\nfact that a man actually dead, and some days buried, upon whose body\ndecomposition had already made some progress,(1) had been restored to\nlife, the fact of his death and of his subsequent resuscitation being so\nabsolutely proved that the possibility of deception or of mistake on the\npart of the witnesses was totally excluded--if such conclusive evidence\nbe supposed possible in such a case--it is clear that an argument, as to\nwhether such an occurrence were to be ascribed to known or unknown laws,\nwould assume a very different character indeed from that which it would\nhave borne if the argument merely sought to account for so astounding a\nphenomenon of whose actual occurrence there was no sufficient evidence.\n\nIt must not be forgotten, therefore, that, as the late Professor Baden\nPowell pointed out: \"At the present day it is not _a miracle_, but the\n_narrative of a miracle_, to which any argument can refer, or to which\nfaith is accorded.\"(2) The discussion of miracles, then, is not one\nregarding miracles actually performed within our own knowledge, but\nmerely regarding miracles said to have been performed eighteen hundred\nyears ago, the reality of\n\n{208}\n\nwhich was not verified at the time by any scientific examination, and\nwhose occurrence is merely reported in the Gospels. Now, although Dr.\nMozley rightly and logically maintains that Christianity requires, and\nshould be believed only upon, its miraculous evidence, the fact is that\npopular Christianity is not believed because of miracles, but miracles\nare accepted because they are related in the Gospels which are supposed\nto contain the doctrines of Christianity. The Gospels have for many\ngenerations been given to the child as inspired records, and doubt\nof miracles has, therefore, either never arisen or has been instantly\nsuppressed, simply because miracles are recorded in the sacred volume.\nIt could scarcely be otherwise, for in point of fact the Gospel miracles\nstand upon no other testimony. We are therefore in this position: We\nare asked to believe astounding announcements beyond the limits of\nhuman reason, which, as Br. Mozley admits, we could only be justified in\nbelieving upon miraculous evidence, upon the testimony of miracles\nwhich are only reported by the records which also alone convey the\nannouncements which those miracles were intended to accredit. There is\nno other contemporary evidence whatever. The importance of the Gospels,\ntherefore, as the almost solitary testimony to the occurrence of\nmiracles can scarcely be exaggerated.(1) We have already\n\n     1 Dr. Farrar, winding up the antecedent discussion, says:\n     \".... we arrive at this point--that the credibility of\n     miracles is in each instance simply and solely a question of\n     evidence, and consequently that our belief or rejection of\n     the Christian miracles must mainly depend on the character\n     of the Gospels in which they are recorded.\" The Witness of\n     History to Christ, 1872, p. 51. It is somewhat singular that\n     after such a declaration he considers it unnecessary to\n     enter into the question of the genuineness and authenticity\n     of the Gospels, deeming it sufficient for his purpose, that\n     Strauss and Renan admit that some portion of these documents\n     existed at the beginning of the second century, or earlier,\n     in the country where the events narrated took place.\n\n{209}\n\nmade an anticipatory remark regarding the nature of these documents,\nto which we may add that they are not the work of perfectly independent\nhistorians, but of men who were engaged in disseminating the new\ndoctrines, and in saying this we have no intention of accusing the\nwriters of conscious deception; it is, however, necessary to state the\nfact in order that the value of the testimony may be fairly estimated.\nThe narratives of miracles were written by ardent partizans, with minds\ninflamed by religious zeal and enthusiasm, in an age of ignorance\nand superstition, a considerable time after the supposed miraculous\noccurrences had taken place. All history shows how rapidly pious memory\nexaggerates and idealizes the traditions of the past, and simple\nactions might readily be transformed into miracles, as the narratives\ncirculated, in a period so prone to superstition and so characterized\nby love of the marvellous. Religious excitement and reverence for the\nnoblest of Teachers could not, under such circumstances and in such an\nage, have escaped this exaggeration. How few men in more enlightened\ntimes have been able soberly to appreciate, and accurately to record\nexciting experiences, where feeling and religious emotion have been\nconcerned. Prosaic accuracy of observation and of language, at all times\nrare, are the last qualities we could expect to find in the early ages\nof Christianity. In the certain fact that disputes arose among the\nApostles themselves so shortly after the death of their great Master, we\nhave one proof that even amongst them there was no accurate appreciation\nof the teaching of Jesus,(1) and the frequent instances of their\nmisunderstanding of very simple matters, and of their want of\nenlightenment, which occur throughout the\n\n{210}\n\nGospels are certainly not calculated to inspire much confidence in their\nintelligence and accuracy of observation. Now it is apparent that the\nevidence for Miracles requires to embrace two distinct points: the\nreality of the alleged facts, and the accuracy of the inference that the\nphenomena were produced by supernatural Agency. The task would even then\nremain of demonstrating the particular supernatural Being by whom the\nmiracles were performed, which is admitted to be impossible. We have\nhitherto chiefly confined ourselves to a consideration of the antecedent\ncredibility of such events, and of the fitness of those who are supposed\nto have witnessed them to draw accurate inferences from the alleged\nphenomena. Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount\nof testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the reality\nof occurrences in violation of an order of Nature, which is based upon\nuniversal and invariable experience, must recognize that, even if the\nearliest asserted origin of our four Gospels could be established upon\nthe most irrefragable grounds, the testimony of the writers--men of\nlike ignorance with their contemporaries, men of like passions with\nourselves--would be utterly incompetentto prove the reality of Miracles.\nWe have already sufficiently discussed this point, more especially\nin connection with Hume's argument, and need not here resume it Every\nconsideration, historical and philosophical, has hitherto discredited\nthe whole theory of miracles, and further inquiry might be abandoned as\nunnecessary. In order, however, to render our conclusion complete,\nit remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be any special\nevidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the Gospel Miracles to\nexceptional attention. If, instead of being\n\n{211}\n\nclear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eyewitnesses free\nfrom superstition, and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly to\nestimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts have\nnone of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to Miracles\nand the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and conclusive.\n\n{212}\n\n\n\n\nPART II. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nBefore commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,\nauthorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a few\npreliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of criticism. We\nshall make no attempt to establish any theory as to the date at which\nany of the Gospels was actually written, but simply examine all the\ntestimony which is extant with the view of ascertaining what is known\nof these works and their authors, certainly and distinctly, as\ndistinguished from what is merely conjectured or inferred. Modern\nopinion, in an Inquiry like ours, must not be mistaken for ancient\nevidence. We propose, therefore, as exhaustively as possible to search\nall the writings of the early Church for information regarding the\nGospels, and to examine even the alleged indications of their use.\n\nIt is very important, however, that the silence of early writers should\nreceive as much attention as any supposed allusions to the Gospels. When\nsuch writers, quoting largely from the Old Testament and other sources,\ndeal\n\n{213}\n\nwith subjects which would naturally be assisted by reference to our\nGospels, and still more so by quoting such works as authoritative,--and\nyet we find that not only they do not show any knowledge of those\nGospels, but actually quote passages from unknown sources, or sayings\nof Jesus derived from tradition,--the inference must be that our Gospels\nwere either unknown, or not recognized as works of authority at the\ntime.\n\nIt is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind,\nthat a great number of Gospels existed in the early Church which are no\nlonger extant, and of most of which even the names are lost. We need\nnot here do more than refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the\npreliminary statement of the author of the third Gospel: \"Forasmuch as\nmany [--Greek--] took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the\nthings which have been accomplished among us,\" &c.(1) It is therefore\nevident that before our third Synoptic was written many similar works\nwere already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity of large\nportions of the three Synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the\nwritings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other and to our\nGospels, and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst\nthe various forms of the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews.\" When,\ntherefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations closely\nresembling, or we may add, even identical with passages which are found\nin our Gospels, the source of which, however, is not mentioned, nor is\nany author's name indicated, the similarity or even identity cannot by\nany means be admitted as proof that the quotation is necessarily from\nour Gospels, and not from some other similar work\n\n{214}\n\nnow no longer extant,(1) and more especially not when, in the same\nwritings, there are other quotations from sources different from our\nGospels. Whether regarded as historical records or as writings embodying\nthe mere tradition of the early Christians, our Gospels cannot be\nrecognized as the exclusive depositaries of the genuine sayings and\ndoings of Jesus. So far from the common possession by many works, in\nearly times, of sayings of Jesus in closely similar form being either\nstrange or improbable, the really remarkable phenomenon is that such\nmaterial variation in the report of the more important historical\nteaching should exist amongst them. But whilst similarity to our Gospels\nin passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot prove\nthe use of our Gospels, variation from them would suggest or prove a\ndifferent origin, and at least it is obvious that anonymous quotations\nwhich do not agree with our Gospels cannot in any case necessarily\nindicate their existence. We shall in the course of the following pages\nmore fully illustrate this, but such a statement is requisite at the\nvery outset from the too general practice of referring every quotation\nof historical sayings of Jesus exclusively to our Gospels, as though\nthey were the only sources of such matter which had ever existed.\n\nIt is unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from apostolic\ntimes without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of\nour Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away. Indeed,\nrequiring as we do clear, direct, and irrefragable evidence of the\nintegrity, authenticity, and historical character of these Gospels,\ndoubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal to them as\nsufficient testimony,--if\n\n{215}\n\nthey could, under any circumstances be considered sufficient\ntestimony,--for miracles and a direct Divine Revelation like\necclesiastical Christianity.\n\nWe propose to examine first, the evidence for the three Synoptics and,\nthen, separately, the testimony regarding the fourth Gospel.\n\n{216}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. CLEMENT OF ROME--THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS--THE PASTOR OF\nHERMAS.\n\nThe first work which presents itself for examination is the so-called\nfirst Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which, together with a\nsecond Epistle to the same community, likewise attributed to Clement, is\npreserved to us in the Codex Alexandrinus,(1) a MS. assigned by the most\ncompetent judges to the second half of the fifth, or beginning of the\nsixth century, in which these Epistles follow the books of the New\nTestament. The second Epistle, which is evidently not epistolary, but\nthe fragment of a Homily,(2) although it thus shares with the first the\nhonour of a canonical position in one of the most ancient codices of the\nNew Testament, is not mentioned at all by the earlier fathers who refer\nto the first;(3)\n\n{217}\n\nand Eusebius,(1) who is the first writer who mentions it, expresses\ndoubt regarding it, while Jerome(2) and Photius(3) state that it was\nrejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as spurious,(4)\nand dated about the end of the second century,(5) or later.(6) We shall\nhereafter see that many other pseudographs were circulated in the name\nof Clement, to which, however, we need not further allude at present.\n\nThere has been much controversy as to the identity of the Clement to\nwhom the first Epistle is attributed. In early days he was supposed to\nbe the Clement\n\n{218}\n\nmentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 3)(1), but this is now\ngenerally doubted or abandoned,(2) and the authenticity of the\nEpistle has, indeed, been called in question both by earlier and later\ncritics.(3) It is unnecessary to detail the various traditions regarding\nthe supposed writer, but we must point out that the Epistle itself makes\nno mention of the author's name. It merely purports to be addressed\nby \"The Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the Church of God\nsojourning at Corinth;\" but in the Codex Alexandrinus, the title of\n\"The first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,\" is added at the\nend. Clement of Alexandria calls the supposed writer the \"Apostle\nClement:\"(4) Origen reports that many also ascribed to him the\nauthorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews;(5) and Photius mentions that\nhe was likewise said to be the writer of the Acts of the Apostles.(6)\nWe know that until a comparatively late date this Epistle was quoted as\nHoly Scripture,(7) and was publicly read in the churches at the Sunday\nmeetings of Christians.(8) It has, as we have seen, a place amongst\n\n{219}\n\nthe canonical books of the New Testament in the Codex Alexandrinus, but\nit did not long retain that position in the canon, for although in the\n\"Apostolic Canons\"(1) of the sixth or seventh century both Epistles\nappear, yet in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, a work of the ninth\ncentury, derived, however, as Credner(2) has demonstrated, from a Syrian\ncatalogue of the fifth century, both Epistles are classed among the\nApocrypha.(3)\n\nGreat uncertainty prevails as to the date at which the Epistle was\nwritten. Reference is supposed to be made to it by the so-called Epistle\nof Polycarp,(4) but, owing to the probable inauthenticity of that\nwork itself, no weight can be attached to this circumstance. The first\ncertain reference to it is by Hegesippus, in the second half of the\nsecond century, mentioned by Eusebius.(5) Dionysius of Corinth, in a\nletter ascribed to him addressed to Soter, Bishop of Rome, is the\nfirst who distinctly mentions the name of Clement as the author of the\nEpistle.(6) There is some difference of opinion as to the order of his\nsuccession to the Bishopric of Rome. Irenaeus(7) and Eusebius(8) say that\nhe followed Anacletus, and the latter adds the date of the twelfth\nyear of the reign of Domitian (a.d. 91-92), and that he died nine years\nafter, in the third year of Trajan's reign (a.d. 100).(9) Internal\nevidence(10) shows that the Epistle was written after some persecution\n\n{220}\n\nof the Roman Church, and the selection lies between the persecution\nunder Nero, which would suggest the date a.d. 64-70, or that under\nDomitian, which would assign the letter to the end of the first century,\nor to the beginning of the second. Those who adhere to the view that\nthe Clement mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians is the author,\nmaintain that the Epistle was written under Nero.(1) One of their\nprincipal arguments for this conclusion is a remark occurring in Chapter\nxli.: \"Not everywhere, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered up, or\nthe votive offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings,\nbut only in Jerusalem. But even there they are not offered in every\nplace, but only at the altar before the Sanctuary, examination of the\nsacrifice offered being first made by the High Priest and the ministers\nalready mentioned.\"(2) From this it is concluded that the Epistle was\nwritten before the destruction of the Temple. It has, however, been\nshown that Josephus,(3) the author of the \"Epistle to Diognetus\" (c. 3),\nand others, long after the Jewish worship of the Temple was at an\nend, continually speak in the present tense of the Temple worship in\nJerusalem; and it is evident, as Cotelier long ago remarked, that this\nmay be done with propriety even in the present\n\n{221}\n\nday. The argument is therefore recognized to be without value.(l)\nTischendorf, who systematically adopts the earliest possible or\nimpossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries,\ndecides, without stating his reasons, that the grounds for the earlier\ndate, about a.d. 69, as well as for the episcopate of Clement from a.d.\n68-77(2) are conclusive; but he betrays his more correct impression by\nclassing Clement, in his index, along with Ignatius and Polycarp, as\nrepresentatives of the period: \"First and second quarters of the second\ncentury:\"(3) and in the Prolegomena to his New Testament he dates the\nepiscopate of Clement \"ab anno 92 usque 102.\"(4) The earlier episcopate\nassigned to him by Hefele upon most insufficient grounds is contradicted\nby the direct statements of Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and others who\ngive the earliest lists of Roman Bishops,(5) as wrell as by the internal\nevidence of the Epistle itself. In Chapter xliv. the writer speaks of\nthose appointed by the apostles to the oversight of the Church, \"or\nafterwards by other notable men, the whole Church consenting.... who\nhave for a long time been commended by all, &c.,\"(6) which indicates\nsuccessions of Bishops since apostolic days. In another\n\n{222}\n\nplace (Chap, xlvii.) he refers the Corinthians to the Epistle addressed\nto them by Paul \"in the beginning of the Gospel\" [--Greek--], and speaks\nof \"the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians\" [--Greek--],\nwhich would be absurd in an Epistle written about a.d. 69. Moreover, an\nadvanced episcopal form of Church Government is indicated throughout the\nletter, which is quite inconsistent with such a date. The great mass\nof critics, therefore, have decided against the earlier date of the\nepiscopate of Clement, and assign the composition of the Epistle to\nthe end of the first century (a.d. 95-100).(1) Others, however, date it\nstill later. There is no doubt that the great number of Epistles and\n\n{223}\n\nother writings falsely circulated in the name of Clement may well excite\nsuspicion as to the authenticity of this Epistle also, which is far from\nunsupported by internal proofs. Of these, however, we shall only mention\none. We have already incidentally remarked that the writer mentions the\nEpistle of Paul to the Corinthians, the only instance in which any New\nTestament writing is referred to by name; but along with the Epistle\nof the \"blessed Paul\" [--Greek--] the author also speaks of the \"blessed\nJudith\" [--Greek--],(1) and this leads to the inquiry: When was the Book\nof Judith written? Hitzig, Volkmar, and others contend that it must be\ndated a.d. 117-118,(3) and if this be admitted, it follows of course\nthat an Epistle which already shows acquaintance with the Book of Judith\ncannot have been written before a.d. 120-125 at the earliest, which\nmany, for this and other reasons, affirm to be the case with the Epistle\nof pseudo-Clement.(3) Whatever date be assigned to it, however, it is\nprobable that the Epistle is interpolated,4 although it must be added\nthat this is not the view of the majority of critics.\n\nIt is important to ascertain whether or not this ancient christian\nEpistle affords any evidence of the existence of\n\n{224}\n\nour Synoptic Gospels at the time when it was written. Tischendorf,\nwho is ever ready to claim the slightest resemblance in language as a\nreference to New Testament writings, states that although this Epistle\nis rich in quotations from the Old Testament, and that Clement here\nand there also makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles, he nowhere\nrefers to the Gospels.(1) This is perfectly true, but several passages\noccur in this Epistle which are either quotations from Evangelical works\ndifferent from ours, or derived from tradition,(2) and in either case\nthey have a very important bearing upon our inquiry.\n\nThe first of these passages occurs in Ch. xiii., and for greater\nfacility of comparison, we shall at once place it both in the Greek and\nin translation, in juxta-position with the nearest parallel readings\nin our Synoptic Gospels; and, as far as may be, we shall in the English\nversion indicate differences existing in the original texts. The passage\nis introduced thus: \"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus,\nwhich he spake teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For thus he\nsaid:\"(3)--\n\n{225}\n\nOf course it is understood that, although for convenience\n\n{226}\n\nof comparison we have broken up this quotation into these phrases, it\nis quite continuous in the Epistle. It must be evident to any one who\ncarefully examines the parallel passages, that \"the words of the Lord\nJesus\" in the Epistle cannot have been derived from our Gospels.\nNot only is there no similar consecutive discourse in them, but the\nscattered phrases which are pointed out as presenting superficial\nsimilarity with the quotation are markedly different both in thought and\nlanguage. In it, as in the \"beatitudes\" of the \"Sermon on the Mount\"\nin the first Gospel, the construction is peculiar and continuous: \"Do\nthis.... in order that [--Greek--]\"; or, \"As [--Greek--]... so [--Greek--]\"\nThe theor of a combination of passages from memory, which is usually\nadvanced to explain such quotations, cannot serve here, for thoughts and\nexpressions occur in the passage in the Epistle which have no parallel\nat all in our Gospels, and such dismembered phrases as can be collected\nfrom our first and third Synoptics, for comparison with it, follow the\ncourse of the quotation in the ensuing order: Matt. v. 7, vi. 14,\npart of vii. 12, phrase without parallel, first part of vii. 2, phrase\nwithout parallel, last part of vii. 2; or, Luke vi. 36, last phrase of\nvi. 37, vi. 31, first phrase of vi. 38, first phrase of vi. 37, phrase\nwithout parallel, last phrase of vi. 38.\n\nThe only question with regard to this passage, therefore, is whether\nthe writer quotes from an unknown written source or from tradition. He\ncertainly merely professes to repeat \"words of the Lord Jesus,\" and does\nnot definitely indicate a written record, but it is much more probable,\nfrom the context, that he quotes from a gospel now no longer extant than\nthat he derives this teaching from oral tradition. He introduces the\nquotation\n\n{227}\n\nnot only with a remark implying a well-known record: \"Remembering\nthe words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching, &c.\" but he\nreiterates: \"For thus he said,\" in a way suggesting careful and precise\nquotation of the very words; and he adds at the end: \"By this injunction\nand by these instructions let us establish ourselves, that we may walk\nin obedience to his holy words, thinking humbly of ourselves.\"(1) seems\nimprobable that the writer would so markedly have indicated a precise\nquotation of words of Jesus, and would so emphatically have commended\nthem as the rule of life to the Corinthians, had these precepts been\nmere floating tradition, until then unstamped with written permanence.\nThe phrase: \"As ye show kindness [--Greek--] which is nowhere found in our\nGospels, recalls an expression quoted by Justin Martyr apparently from\na Gospel different from ours, and frequently repeated by him in the same\nform: \"Be ye kind and merciful [--Greek--] Father also is kind [--Greek--]\nand merciful.\"(2) In the very next chapter of the Epistle a similar\nreference again occurs: \"Let us be kind to each other [--Greek--] according\nto the mercy and benignity of our Creator.\"(3) Without, however, going\nmore minutely into this question, it is certain from its essential\nvariations in language, thought and order, that the passage in the\nEpistle cannot be claimed as a compilation from our Gospels; and we\nshall presently see that some of the expressions in it which are foreign\nto our Gospels are elsewhere quoted by other Fathers, and there is\nreason to believe that these \"words of the Lord Jesus\" were not derived\nfrom tradition but\n\n{228}\n\nfrom a written source different from our Gospels.(1) When the great\ndifference which exists between the parallel passages in the first\nand third Synoptics, and still more between these and the second,\nis considered, it is easy to understand that other Gospels may have\ncontained a version differing as much from them as they do from each\nother.\n\nWe likewise subjoin the next passage to which we must refer, with the\nnearest parallels in our Synoptics. We may explain that the writer\nof the Epistle is rebuking the Corinthians for strifes and divisions\namongst them, and for forgetting that they \"are members one of another,\"\nand he continues: \"Remember the words of our Lord Jesus; for he\nsaid:\"(2)\n\n{229}\n\nThis quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but must be assigned\nto a different written source. The writer would scarcely refer the\nCorinthians to such words of Jesus if they were merely traditional.\nIt is neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory.\nThe language throughout is markedly different from any passage in the\nSynoptics, and to present even a superficial parallel, it is necessary\nto take a fragment of the discourse of Jesus at the Last Supper\nregarding the traitor who should deliver him up (Matth. xxvi. 24), and\njoin it to a fragment of his remarks in connection with the little child\nwhom he set in the midst (xviii. 6). The parallel passage in Luke has\nnot\n\n{230}\n\nthe opening words of the passage in the Epistle at all, and the portion\nwhich it contains (xvii. 2), is separated from the context in which\nit stands in the first Gospel, and which explains its meaning. If we\ncontrast the parallel passages in the three Synoptics, their differences\nof context are very suggestive, and without referring to their numerous\nand important variations in detail, the confusion amongst them is\nevidence of very varying tradition.(1) This alone would make the\nexistence of another form like that quoted in the Epistle before us more\nthan probable.\n\nTischendorf, in a note to his statement that Clement nowhere refers to\nthe Gospels, quotes the passage we are now considering, the only one to\nwhich he alludes, and says: \"These words are expressly cited as 'words\nof Jesus our Lord;' but they denote much more oral apostolic tradition\nthan a use of the parallel passages in Matthew (xxvi. 24, xviii. 6)\nand Luke (xvii. 2).\"(2) It is now, of course, impossible to determine\nfinally whether the passage was actually derived from tradition or from\na written source different from our Gospels, but in either case the fact\nis, that the Epistle not only does not afford the slightest evidence\nfor the existence of any of our Gospels, but from only making use of\ntradition or an apocryphal work as the source of information regarding\nwords of Jesus, it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on\nbehalf of the Synoptics.\n\n{231}\n\nBefore passing on, we may, in the briefest way possible, refer to one or\ntwo other passages, with the view of further illustrating the character\nof the quotations in this Epistle. There are many passages cited which\nare not found in the Old Testament, and others which have no parallels\nin the New. At the beginning of the very chapter in which the words\nwhich we have just been considering occur, there is the following\nquotation: \"It-is written: Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave\nto them shall be made holy,\"(1) the source of which is unknown. In a\nprevious chapter the writer says: \"And our Apostles knew, through our\nLord Jesus Christ, that there will be contention regarding the name,\n[--Greek--], office, dignity?) of the episcopate.\"(2) What was the writers\nauthority for this statement? We find Justin Martyr quoting, as an\nexpress prediction of Jesus: \"There shall be schisms and heresies,\"(3)\nwhich is not contained in our gospels, but evidently derived from an\nuncanonical source,(4) a fact rendered more apparent by the occurrence\nof a similar passage in the Clementine Homilies, still more closely\nbearing upon our Epistle: \"For there shall be, as the Lord said,\nfalse apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy.\"(5)\nHegesippus also speaks in a similar way: \"From these came the\n\n{232}\n\nfalse Christs, false prophets, false apostles who divided the unity of\nthe Church.\"(l) As Hegesippus, and in all probability Justin Martyr, and\nthe author of the Clementines made use of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, or to Peter, it is most probable that these Gospels contained\npassages to which the words of the Epistle may refer.(2) It may be well\nto point out that the author also cites a passage from the Fourth Book\nof Ezra, ii. 16:(3) \"And I shall remember the good day, and I shall\nraise you from your tombs.\"(4) Ezra reads: \"Et resuscitabo mor-tuos de\nlocis suis et de monumentis educam illos,\" &c. The first part of the\nquotation in the Epistle, of which we have only given the latter clause\nabove, is taken from Isaiah xxvi. 20, but there can be no doubt that the\nabove is from this apocryphal book,(5) which, as we shall see, was much\nused in the early Church.\n\n2.\n\nWe now turn to the so-called \"Epistle of Barnabas,\" another interesting\nrelic of the early Church, many points in whose history have\nconsiderable analogy with that of the Epistle of pseudo-Clement. The\nletter itself bears no author's name, is not dated from any place, and\nis not addressed to any special community. Towards the\n\n{233}\n\nend of the second century, however, tradition began to ascribe it to\nBarnabas the companion of Paul.(1) The first writer who mentions it is\nClement of Alexandria, who calls its author several times the \"Apostle\nBarnabas;\"(2) and Eusebius says that he gave an account of it in one of\nhis works now no longer extant.(3) Origen also refers to it, calling it\na \"Catholic Epistle,\" and quoting it as Scripture.(4) We have already\nseen in the case of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, and, as we\nproceed, we shall become only too familiar with the fact, the singular\nfacility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination,\nspurious writings were ascribed by the Fathers to Apostles and their\nfollowers. In many cases such writings were deliberately inscribed with\nnames well known in the Church, but both in the case of the two Epistles\nto the Corinthians, and the letter we are now considering, no such\npious fraud was attempted, nor was it necessary. Credulous piety, which\nattributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon\nfound authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character. To\nBarnabas, the friend of Paul, not only this Epistle was referred, but\nhe was also reported by Tertullian and others to be the author of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews;(5) and an apocryphal \"Gospel according to\nBarnabas,\" said to have had close affinity with our\n\n{234}\n\nfirst Synoptic, is condemned along with many others in the decretal\nof Gelasius.(1) Eusebius, however, classes the so-called \"Epistle of\nBarnabas\" amongst the spurious books [--Greek--],(2) and elsewhere also\nspeaks of it as uncanonical.(3) Jerome mentions it as read amongst\napocryphal writings.(4) Had the Epistle been seriously regarded as a\nwork of the \"Apostle\" Barnabas, it could scarcely have failed to attain\ncanonical rank. That it was highly valued by the early Church is shown\nby the fact that it stands, along with the Pastor of Hermas, after the\nCanonical books of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is\nprobably the most ancient MS. of them now known. In the earlier days of\ncriticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional\nview as to the authorship of the Epistle,(5) but the great mass of\ncritics are now agreed in asserting that the composition, which itself\nis perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed to Barnabas the friend and\nfellow-worker of Paul.(6) Those who maintain the former opinion date\n\n{235}\n\nthe Epistle about a.d. 70--73, or even earlier, but this is scarcely\nthe view of any living critic. There are many indications in the Epistle\nwhich render such a date impossible, but we do not propose to go into\nthe argument minutely, for it is generally admitted that, whilst there\nis a clear limit further back than which the Epistle cannot be set,(1)\nthere is little or no certainty how far into the second century its\ncomposition may not reasonably be advanced. Critics are divided upon the\npoint; a few are disposed to date the Epistle about the end of the first\nor beginning of the second century (2} while a still greater number\nassign it to the reign of Hadrian (a.d.\n\n{236}\n\n117--138);(1) and others, not without reason, consider that it exhibits\nmarks of a still later period.(2) It is probable that it is more or less\ninterpolated.(3) Until the discovery of the Sinaitic MS., a portion\nof the \"Epistle of Barnabas\" was only known through an ancient Latin\nversion, the first four and a half chapters of the Greek having been\nlost. The Greek text, however, is now complete, although often very\ncorrupt. The author quotes largely from the Old Testament, and also from\napocryphal works.(4) He nowhere mentions any book or writer of the New\nTestament, and with one asserted exception, which we shall presently\nexamine, he quotes no passage agreeing with our Gospels. We shall refer\nto these, commencing at once with the most important.\n\nIn the ancient Latin translation of the Epistle, the only form, as we\nhave just said, in which until the discovery\n\n{237}\n\nof the Codex Sinaiticus the first four and a half chapters were extant,\nthe following passage occurs: \"Adtendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum\nest, multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur.\"(l) \"Let us, therefore,\nbeware lest we should be found, as it is written: Many are called, few\nare chosen.\" These words are found in our first Gospel (xxii. 14), and\nas the formula by which they are here introduced--\"it is written,\" is\ngenerally understood to indicate a quotation from Holy Scripture, it\nwas and is argued by some that here we have a passage from one of our\nGospels quoted in a manner which shows that, at the time the Epistle\nof Barnabas was written, the \"Gospel according to Matthew was already\nconsidered Holy Scripture.\"(3) Whilst this portion of the text existed\nonly in the Latin version, it was argued that the \"sicut scriptum est,\"\nat least, must be an interpolation, and in any case that it could not be\ndeliberately applied, at that date, to a passage in any writings of the\nNew Testament. On the discovery of the Sinaitic MS., however, the words\nwere found in the Greek text in that Codex: [--Greek--]. The question,\ntherefore, is so far modified that, however much we may suspect the\nGreek text of interpolation, it must be accepted as the basis of\ndiscussion that this passage, whatever its value, exists in the oldest,\nand indeed only (and this point must not be forgotten) complete MS. of\nthe Greek Epistle.\n\nNow with regard to the value of the expression \"it is written,\" it may\nbe remarked that in no case could its use in the Epistle of Barnabas\nindicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons to\nbe\n\npresently given, be considered to represent the decision of the Church.\nIn the very same chapter in which the formula is used in connection\nwith the passage we are considering, it is also employed to introduce a\nquotation from the Book of Enoch,(1) [--Greek--], and elsewhere (c. xii.)\nhe quotes from another apocryphal book(2) as one of the prophets.(3)\"\nAgain, he refers to the Cross of Christ in another prophet saying: 'And\nwhen shall these things come to pass? and the Lord saith: When, &c. ...\n[--Greek--],\n\n.......[--Greek--].\" He also quotes (ch. vi.) the apocryphal \"Book of\nWisdom\" as Holy Scripture, and in like manner several other unknown\nworks. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to the\nCorinthians, the Pastor of Hennas, the Epistle of Barnabas itself, and\nmany other apocryphal works have been quoted by the Fathers as\nHoly Scripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may be\nunderstood.\n\nWith this passing remark, however, we proceed to say that this supposed\nquotation from Matthew as Holy Scripture, by proving too much, destroys\nits own value as evidence. The generality of competent and\n\n{239}\n\nimpartial critics are agreed, that it is impossible to entertain the\nidea that one of our Gospels could have held the rank of Holy Scripture\nat the date of this Epistle, seeing that, for more than half a century\nafter, the sharpest line was drawn between the writings of the Old\nTestament and of the New, and the former alone quoted as, or accorded\nthe consideration of, Holy Scripture.1 If this were actually a quotation\nfrom our first Gospel, already in the position of Holy Scripture,\nit would indeed be astonishing that the Epistle, putting out of the\nquestion other Christian writings for half a century after it, teeming\nas it does with extracts from the Old Testament, and from known, and\nunknown, apocryphal works, should thus limit its use of the Gospel to\na few words, totally neglecting the rich store which it contains, and\nquoting, on the other hand, sayings of Jesus not recorded at all in\nany of our Synoptics. It is most improbable that, if the author of the\n\"Epistle of Barnabas\" was acquainted with any one of our Gospels, and\nconsidered it an inspired and canonical work, he could have neglected it\nin such a manner. The peculiarity of the quotation which he is supposed\nto make, which we shall presently point out, renders such limitation to\nit doubly singular upon any such hypothesis. The unreasonable nature of\nthe assertion, however, will become more apparent as we proceed with\nour examination, and perceive that none of the early writers quote our\nGospels,\n\n{240}\n\nif they knew them at all, but, on the other hand, make use of other\nworks, and that the inference that Matthew was considered Holy\nScripture, therefore, rests solely upon this quotation of half a dozen\nwords.\n\nThe application of such a formula to a supposed quotation from one of\nour Gospels, in so isolated an instance, led to the belief that, even\nif the passage were taken from our first Synoptic, the author of the\nEpistle in quoting it laboured under the impression that it was derived\nfrom some prophetical book.(1) We daily see how difficult it is to\ntrace the source even of the most familiar quotations. Instances of such\nconfusion of memory are frequent in the writings of the Fathers, and\nmany can be pointed out in the New Testament itself. For instance, in\nMatt, xxvii. 9 f. the passage from Zechariah xi. 12-13 is attributed to\nJeremiah; in Mark i. 2, a quotation from Malachi iii. 1 is ascribed to\nIsaiah. In 1 Corinthians ii. 9, a passage is quoted as Holy Scripture\nwhich is not found in the Old Testament at all, but which is taken, as\nOrigen and Jerome state, from an apocryphal work, \"The Revelation of\nElias,\"(2) and the passage is similarly quoted by the so-called Epistle\nof Clement to the Corinthians (xxxiv). Then in what prophet did the\nauthor of the first Gospel find the words (xiil 35): \"That it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,(3) saying: I will open my\nmouth in parables; I\n\n{241}\n\nwill utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the\nworld \"?\n\nOrelli,(1) afterwards followed by many others,(2) suggested that the\nquotation was probably intended for one in IV Ezra viii. 3: \"Nam multi\ncreati sunt, pauci autem salvabuntur.\"(3) \"For many are created, but few\nshall be saved.\" Bretsclineider proposed as an emendation of the passage\nin Ezra the substitution of \"_vocati_\" for \"_creati_\" but, however\nplausible, his argument did not meet with much favour.(4) Along with\nthis passage was also suggested a similar expression in IV Ezra ix. 15:\n\"Plures sunt qui pereunt, quam qui salvabuntur.\" \"There are more who\nperish than who shall be saved.\"(5) The Greek of the three passages may\nread as follows:--\n\n[--Greek--]\n\n[--Greek--]\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nThere can be no doubt that the sense of the reading in IV Ezra is\nexactly that of the Epistle, but the language is somewhat different. We\nmust not forget, however, that the original Greek of IV Ezra(6) is\nlost, and that we are wholly dependent on the versions and MSS. extant,\nregarding whose numerous variations and great\n\n{242}\n\ncorruption there are no differences of opinion. Orelli's theory,\nmoreover, is supported by the fact that the Epistle, elsewhere, (c. xii)\nquotes from IV Ezra (iv. 33, v. 5).\n\nOn examining the passage as it occurs in our first Synoptic, we are\nat the very outset struck by the singular fact, that this short saying\nappears twice in that Gospel with a different context, and in each case\nwithout any propriety of application to what precedes it, whilst it is\nnot found at all in either of the other two Synoptics. The first time\nwe meet with it is at the close of the parable of the labourers in the\nvineyard.(1) The householder engages the labourers at different hours\nof the day, and pays those who had worked but one hour the same wages as\nthose who had borne the burden and heat of the day, and the reflection\nat the close is, xx. 16: \"Thus the last shall be first and the first\nlast; for many are called but few chosen.\" It is perfectly evident that\nneither of these sayings, but especially not that with which we are\nconcerned, has any connection with the parable at all. There is no\nquestion of many or few, or of selection or rejection; all the labourers\nare engaged and paid alike. If there be a moral at all to the parable,\nit is the justification of the master: \"Is it not lawful for me to do\nwhat I will with mine own?\" It is impossible to imagine a saying more\nirrelevant to its context than \"many are called but few chosen,\" in\nsuch a place. The passage occurs again (xxii. 14) in connection with the\nparable of the king who made a marriage for his son. The guests who are\nat first invited refuse to come, and are destroyed by the king's armies;\nbut the wedding is nevertheless \"furnished\n\n{243}\n\nwith guests\" by gathering together as many as are found in the highways.\nA new episode commences when the king comes in to see the guests (v.\n11). He observes a man there who has not on a wedding garment, and he\ndesires the servants to (v. 13) \"Bind him hand and foot, and cast him\ninto the darkness without,\" where \"there shall be weeping and gnashing\nof teeth;\"(1) and then comes our passage (v. 14): \"For many are called\nbut few chosen.\" Now, whether applied to the first or to the latter part\nof the parable, the saying is irrelevant. The guests first called were\nin fact chosen as much as the last, but themselves refused to come,\nand of all those who, being \"called\" from the highways and byways,\nultimately furnished the wedding with guests in their stead, only one\nwas rejected. It is clear that the facts here distinctly contradict the\nmoral that \"few are chosen.\" In both places the saying is, as it were,\n\"dragged in by the hair.\" On examination, however, we find that the\noldest MSS. of the New Testament omit the sentence from Matthew xx. 16.\nIt is neither found in the Sinaitic nor Vatican codices, and whilst it\nhas not the support of the Codex Alexandrinus, which is defective at the\npart, nor of the Dublin rescript (z), which omits it, many other MSS.\nare also without it. The total irrelevancy of the saying to its context,\nits omission by the oldest authorities from Matth. xx. 16, where it\nappears in later MSS., and its total absence from both of the other\nGospels, must at once strike every one as peculiar, and as very\nunfortunate, to say\n\n     1 This is not the place to criticize the expectation of\n     finding a wedding garment on a guest hurried in from\n     highways and byways, or the punishment inflicted for such an\n     offence, as questions affecting the character of the\n     parable.\n\n{244}\n\nthe least of it, for those who make extreme assertions with regard to\nits supposed quotation by the Epistle of Barnabas. Weizsacker, with\ngreat probability, suggests that in this passage we have merely\na well-known proverb,(1) which the author of the first gospel has\nintroduced into his work from some uncanonical or other source, and\nplaced in the mouth of Jesus.(2) Certainly under the circumstances it\ncan scarcely be maintained in its present context as a historical saying\nof Jesus. Ewald, who naturally omits it from Matthew xx. 16, ascribes\nthe parable xx. 1--16 as well as that xxii. 1--14, in which it stands,\noriginally to the Spruchsammlung(3) or collection of discourses, out of\nwhich, with intermediate works, he considers that our first Gospel was\ncomposed.(4) However this may be, there is, it seems to us, good reason\nfor believing that it was not originally a part of these parables, and\nthat it is not in that sense historical; and there is, therefore, no\nground for asserting that it may not have been derived by the author of\nthe Gospel from some older work, from which also it may have come into\nthe \"Epistle of Barnabas.\"(5)\n\n{245}\n\nThere is, however, another passage which deserves to be mentioned. The\nEpistle has the following quotation: \"Again, I will show thee how, in\nregard to us, the Lord saith, He made a new creation in the last\ntimes. The Lord saith: Behold I make the first as the last.\"(l) Even\nTischendorf does not pretend that this is a quotation of Matth. xx.\n16,(2) \"Thus the last shall be first and the first last,\" [--Greek--] the\nsense of which is quite different. The application of the saying in\nthis place in the first, and indeed in the other, Synoptic Gospels is\nevidently quite false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not\nof ideas. In xix. 30 it is quoted a second time, quite irrelevantly,\nwith some variation: \"But many first shall be last and last first\"\n[--Greek--]. Now it will be remembered that at xx. 16 it occurs in several\nMSS. in connection with \"Many are called but few are chosen,\" although\nthe oldest codices omit the latter passage, and most critics consider it\ninterpolated. The separate quotation of these two passages by the author\nof the Epistle, with so marked a variation in the second, renders it\nmost probable that he found both in the source from which he quotes. We\nhave, however, more than sufficiently discussed this passage. The author\nof the Epistle does not indicate any source from which he makes his\nquotation; and the mere existence in the first Synoptic of a proverbial\nsaying\n\n{246}\n\nlike this does not in the least involve the conclusion that it is\nnecessarily the writing from which the quotation was derived, more\nespecially as apocryphal works are repeatedly cited in the Epistle. If\nit be maintained that the saying is really historical, it is obvious\nthat the prescriptive right of our Synoptic is at once excluded, and it\nmay have been the common property of a score of evangelical works.\n\nThere can be no doubt that many Scriptural texts have crept into early\nChristian writings which originally had no place there; and where\nattendant circumstances are suspicious, it is always well to remember\nthe fact. An instance of the interpolation of which we speak is found in\nthe \"Epistle of Barnabas.\" In one place the phrase: \"Give to every one\nthat asketh of thee\" [--Greek--](1) occurs, not as a quotation, but merely\nwoven into the Greek text as it existed before the discovery of the\nSinaitic MS. This phrase is the same as the precept in Luke vi. 30,\nalthough it was argued by some that, as no other trace of the third\nGospel existed in the Epistle, it was more probably an alteration of\nthe text of Matth. v. 42. Omitting the phrase from the passage in the\nEpistle, the text read as follows: \"Thou shalt not hesitate to give,\nneither shalt thou murmur when thou givest... so shalt thou know who is\nthe good Recompenser of the reward.\" The supposed quotation, inserted\nwhere we have left a blank, really interrupted the sense and repeated\nthe previous injunction. The oldest MS., the \"Codex Sinaiticus,\" omits\nthe quotation, and so ends the question, but it is afterwards inserted\nby another hand. Some pious scribe, in fact, seeing the relation of the\npassage to the Gospel, had added the\n\n{247}\n\nwords in the margin as a gloss, and they afterwards found their way into\nthe text In this manner very many similar glosses have crept into texts\nwhich they were originally intended to illustrate.\n\nTischendorf, who does not allude to this, lays much stress upon the\nfollowing passage: \"But when he selected His own apostles, who should\npreach His Gospel, who were sinners above all sin, in order that he\nmight show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners, then He\nmanifested Himself to be the Son of God.\"(1) We may remark that, in\nthe common Greek text, the words \"to repentance\" were inserted after\n\"sinners,\" but they are not found in the Sinaitic MS. In like manner\nmany Codices insert them in Matth, ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17, but they\nare not found in some of the oldest MSS., and are generally rejected.\nTischendorf considers them a later addition both to the text of the\nGospel and of the Epistle.(3) But this very fact is suggestive. It is\nclear that a supposed quotation has been deliberately adjusted to what\nwas considered to be the text of the Gospel. Why should the whole phrase\nnot be equally an interpolation? We shall presently see that there is\nreason to think that it is so. Alhough there is no quotation in the\npassage, who, asks Tischendorf,(3) could mistake the words as they stand\nin Matthew, ix. 13, \"For I came not to call the righteous but sinners\"?\nNow this passage is referred to by Origen in his work against Celsus, in\na way which indicates that the supposed quotation did not exist in his\ncopy; Origen says: \"And as Celsus has called\n\n{248}\n\nthe Apostles of Jesus infamous men, saying that they were tax-gatherers\nand worthless sailors, we have to remark on this, that, &c.... Now in\nthe Catholic Epistle of Barnabas from which, perhaps, Celsus derived the\nstatement that the Apostles were infamous and wicked men, it is written\nthat 'Jesus selected his own Apostles who were sinners above all\nsin,\"(1)--and then he goes on to quote the expression of Peter to Jesus\n(Luke v. 8), and then I Timothy, L 15, but he nowhere refers to the\nsupposed quotation in the Epistle. Now, if we read the passage without\nthe quotation, we have: \"But when he selected his own Apostles who\nshould preach his Gospel, who were sinners above all sin.... then he\nmanifested himself to be the Son of God.\" Here a pious scribe very\nprobably added in the margin the gloss: \"in order that he might show\nthat he came not to call the righteous but sinners,\" to explain the\npassage, and as in the case of the phrase: \"Give to every one that\nasketh of thee,\" the gloss became subsequently incorporated with the\ntext. The Epistle, however, goes on to give the only explanation which\nthe author intended, and which clashes with that of the scribe. \"For if\nhe had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding\nhim? Seeing that looking on the sun that shall cease to be, the work of\nhis hands, they have not even power to endure his rays. Accordingly, the\nSon of Man came in the flesh for this, that he might bring to a head the\nnumber of their sins who had persecuted to death his prophets.\"(2) The\nargument of Origen bears out this view, for he does not at all take the\nexplanation of\n\n{249}\n\nthe gloss as to why Jesus chose his disciples from such a class, but he\nreasons: \"What is there strange, therefore, that Jesus being minded\nto manifest to the race of men his power to heal souls, should have\nselected infamous and wicked men, and should have elevated them so\nfar, that they became a pattern of the purest virtue to those who were\nbrought by their persuasion to the Gospel of Christ.\"(1) The argument,\nboth of the author of the Epistle and of Origen, is different from that\nsuggested by the phrase under examination, and we consider it a mere\ngloss introduced into the text; which, as the [--Greek--] shows, has, in\nthe estimation of Tischendorf himself, been deliberately altered. Even\nif it originally formed part of the text, however, it would be wrong\nto affirm that it affords proof of the use or existence of the first\nGospel. The words of Jesus in Matt. ix. 12--14, evidently belong to the\noldest tradition of the Gospel, and, in fact, Ewald ascribes them, apart\nfrom the remainder of the chapter, originally to the Spruchsammlung,\nfrom which, with two intermediate books, he considers that our present\nMatthew was composed.(2} Nothing can be more certain than that such\nsayings, if they be admitted to be historical at all, must have existed\nin many other works, and the mere fact of their happening to be also in\none of the Gospels which has survived, cannot prove its use, or even\n\n{250}\n\nits existence at the time the Epistle of Barnabas was written, more\nespecially as the phrase does not occur as a quotation, and there is no\nindication of the source from which it was derived.\n\nTeschendorf, however, finds a further analogy between the Epistle and\nthe Gospel of Matthew, in ch. xii. \"Since, therefore, in the future,\nthey were to say that Christ is the son of David, fearing and perceiving\nclearly the error of the wicked, David himself prophesies--\"The Lord\nsaid unto my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy\nfootstool.\"(1) Teschendorf upon this inquires: \"Could Barnabas so write\nwithout the supposition, that his readers had Matthew, xxii. 41. ff,\nbefore them, and does not such a supposition likewise infer the actual\nauthority of Matthew's Gospel?\"(2) Such rapid argument and extreme\nconclusions are startling indeed, but, in his haste, our critic has\nforgotten to state the whole case. The author of the Epistle has been\nelaborately showing that the Cross of Christ is repeatedly typified in\nthe Old Testament, and at the commencement of the chapter, after quoting\nthe passage from IV Ezra, iv. 33, v. 5, he points to the case of Moses,\nto whose heart \"the spirit speaks that he should make a form of the\ncross,\" by stretching forth his arms in supplication, and so long as he\ndid so Israel prevailed over their enemies; and again he typified the\ncross, when he set up the brazen serpent upon which the people might\nlook and be healed. Then that which Moses, as a prophet, said to Joshua\n(Jesus) the son of Nave, when he gave him that\n\n{251}\n\nname, was solely for the purpose that all the people might hear that\nthe Father would reveal all things regarding his Son to the son of Nave.\nThis name being given to him when he was sent to spy out the land, Moses\nsaid: \"Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith, that the\nSon of God will in the last days cut off by the roots all the house of\nAmalek.\" This, of course, is a falsification of the passage, Exodus,\nxvii. 14, for the purpose of making it declare Jesus to be the \"Son of\nGod.\" Then proceeding in the same strain, he says: \"Behold again Jesus\nis not the son of Man, but the Son of God, manifested in the type and in\nthe flesh. Since, therefore, in the future, they were to say that Christ\nis the son of David,\" (and here follows the passage we are discussing)\n\"fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked, David himself\nprophesied: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand until I\nmake thine enemies thy footstool.' And again, thus speaks Isaiah: 'The\nLord said to Christ my Lord, whose right hand I have held, that the\nnations may obey Him, and I will break in pieces the strength of kings.'\nBehold how David calleth Him Lord, and the Son of God.\" And here ends\nthe chapter and the subject. Now it is quite clear that the passage\noccurs, not as a reference to any such dilemma as that in Matthew, xxii.\n41 ff., but simply as one of many passages which, at the commencement\nof our era, were considered prophetic declarations of the divinity of\nChrist, in opposition to the expectation of the Jews that the Messiah\nwas to be the son of David,(1) and, as we have seen, in order to prove\nhis point the author alters the text. To argue that such a passage of a\nPsalm, quoted in such a manner in this\n\n{252}\n\nepistle, proves the use of our first Synoptic, is in the highest degree\narbitrary.\n\nWe have already pointed out that the author quotes apocryphal works as\nHoly Scripture; and we may now add that he likewise cites words of Jesus\nwhich are nowhere found in our Gospels. For instance, in ch. vii. we\nmeet with the folio wing expressions directly attributed to Jesus. \"Thus\nhe say': 'Those who desire to behold me, and to attain my kingdom,\nmust through tribulation and suffering receive me.'\"(1) Hilgenfeld(2)\ncompares this with another passage, similar in sense, in IV Ezra, vii.\n14; but in any case it is not a quotation from our Gospels; (3) and with\nso many passages in them suitable to his purpose, it would be amazing,\nif he knew and held Matthew in the consideration which Tischendorf\nasserts, that he should neglect their stores, and go elsewhere for\nsuch quotations. There is nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of\nevidence even of the existence of our Gospels.\n\n3.\n\nThe Pastor of Hennas is another work which very nearly secured permanent\ncanonical rank with the writings of the New Testament. It was quoted as\nHoly Scripture by the Fathers and held to be divinely inspired, and it\nwas publicly read in the Churches.(4) It has a\n\n{253}\n\nplace, with the \"Epistle of Barnabas,\" in the Sinaitic Codex, after the\ncanonical books. In early times it was attributed to the Hermas who is\nmentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, xiv. 14, in consequence of\na mere conjecture to that effect by Origen;(l) but the Canon of\nMuratori(2) confidently ascribes it to a brother of Pius, Bishop of\nRome, and at least there does not seem any ground for the statement\nof Origen.(3) It may have been written about the middle of the second\ncentury or a little earlier.(4)\n\n{254}\n\nTischendorf dismisses this important memorial of the early Christian\nChurch with a note of two lines, for it has no quotations either from\nthe Old or New Testament.(1) He does not even suggest that it contains\nany indications of acquaintance with our Gospels. The only direct\nquotation in the \"Pastor\" is from an apocryphal work which is cited as\nHoly Scripture: \"The Lord is nigh unto them who return to him, as it\nis written in Eldad and Modat, who prophesied to the people in the\nwilderness.\"(2) This work, which appears in the Stichometry of\nNicephorus amongst the apocrypha of the Old Testament, is no longer\nextant.(3)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS--THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP\n\nAlthough, in reality, appertaining to a very much later period, we shall\nhere refer to the so-called \"Epistles of Ignatius,\" and examine any\ntestimony which they afford regarding the date and authenticity of our\nGospels. There are in all fifteen epistles bearing the name of Ignatius.\nThree of these, addressed to the Virgin Mary and the Apostle John 2,\nexist only in a Latin version, and these, together with five others\ndirected to Mary of Cassobolita, to the Tarsians, to the Antiochans,\nto Hero of Antioch, and to the Philippians, of which there are versions\nboth in Greek and Latin, are universally admitted to be spurious, and\nmay, so far as their contents are concerned, be at once dismissed from\nall consideration.(1) They are not mentioned by Eusebius, nor does any\nearly writer refer to them. Of the remaining seven epistles, addressed\nto the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians,\nSmyrnaeans, and to Polycarp, there are two distinct versions extant,\none long version, of which there are both Greek and Latin texts, and\nanother much shorter, and presenting considerable variations, of which\nthere are also both Greek and Latin texts. After a couple of centuries\nof discussion, critics\n\n{256}\n\nalmost without exception have finally agreed that the longer version\nis nothing more than an interpolated version of the shorter and more\nancient form of the Epistles. The question regarding the authenticity\nof the Ignatian Epistles, however, was re-opened and complicated by\nthe publication, in 1845, by Dr. Cureton, of a Syriac version of three\nepistles only--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in a\nstill shorter form, discovered amongst a large number of MSS. purchased\nby Dr. Tattam from the monks of the Desert of Nitria. These three Syriac\nepistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the\nablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic Epistles\nof Ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these 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.(1) As early as the sixteenth century, however,\nthe strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of\nthe epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg\n\n{257}\n\nCenturiators first attacked them, and Calvin declared them to be\nspurious,(1) an opinion fully shared by Dallaeus, and others; Chemnitz\nregarded them with suspicion; and similar doubts, more or lass definite,\nwere expressed throughout the seventeenth century,(2) and onward to\ncomparatively recent times,(3) although the means of forming a judgment\nwere not then so complete as now. That the epistles were interpolated\nthere was no doubt. Fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge\nof the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of\ncritics either recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles\ncan be established, or that they\n\n{258}\n\ncan only be considered later and spurious compositions.(1)\n\nOmitting for the present the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the\nPhilippians, the earliest reference to any of these epistles, or to\nIgnatius himself, is made by Irenaeus, who quotes a passage which is\nfound in the Epistle to the Romans (ch. iv.), without, however, any\nmention of name,' introduced by the following words: \"As a certain\nman of ours said, being condemned to the wild beasts on account of his\ntestimony to God: 'I am the wheat of God, and by the teeth of beasts I\nam ground, that I may be found pure\n\n{259}\n\nbread.\"(1) Origen likewise quotes two brief sentences which he refers to\nIgnatius. The first is merely: \"But my love is crucified,\"(2) which is\nlikewise found in the Epistle to the Romans (ch. vii.); and the other\nquoted as \"out of one of the Epistles\" of the martyr Ignatius: \"From the\nPrince of this world was concealed the virginity of Mary,\"(3) which is\nfound in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. xix). Eusebius mentions seven\nepistles,(4) and quotes one passage from the Epistle to the Romans (ch.\nv.), and a few words from an apocryphal Gospel contained in the Epistle\nto the Smyrnaeans (ch. iii.), the source of which he says that he does\nnot know, and he cites from Irenaeus the brief quotation given above, and\nrefers to the mention of the epistles in the letter of Polycarp which we\nreserve. Elsewhere,(5) he further quotes a short sentence found in the\nEpistle to the Ephesians (ch. xix.), part of which had previously been\ncited by Origen. It will be observed that all these quotations, with the\nexception of that from Irenaeus, are taken from the three Epistles which\nexist in the Syriac translation, and they are found in that version; and\nthe first occasion on which any passage attributed to Ignatius is quoted\nwhich is not in the Syriac version of the three Epistles occurs in\nthe second half of the fourth century, when Athanasius, in his Epistle\nregarding the Synods of Ariminum and Selucia,(6) quotes a few words from\nthe Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. vii.); but although foreign to the\nSyriac text, it is to be noted that the words are\n\n{260}\n\nat least from a form of one of the three epistles which exist in that\nversion.(1) It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of\nthe fourth century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by\nEusebius, exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.\n\nAs we have already remarked, the Syriac version of the three epistles\nis very much shorter than the shorter Greek version, the Epistle to the\nEphesians, for instance, being only about one-third of the length of the\nGreek text. Those who still maintain the superior authenticity of the\nGreek shorter version argue that the Syriac is an epitome of the Greek.\nThis does not, however, seem tenable when the matter is carefully\nexamined. Although so much is absent from the Syriac version, not only\nis there no interruption of the sense and no obscurity or undue curtness\nin the style, but the epistles read more consecutively, without faults\nof construction or grammar, and passages which in the Greek text were\nconfused and almost unintelligible have become quite clear in the\nSyriac. The interpolations of the text, in fact, had been so clumsily\nmade, that they had obscured the meaning, and their mere omission,\nwithout any other alteration of grammatical construction, has restored\nthe epistles to clear and simple order.(2) It is, moreover, a remarkable\nfact that the passages which, long before the discovery of the Syriac\nepistles, were pointed out as chiefly determining that the epistles were\nspurious, are not found in the Syriac version at all.3 Archbishop Usher,\nwho only admitted the authenticity of six epistles, showed that much\ninterpolation of these letters took place in the\n\n{261}\n\nsixth century,(1) but this very fact increases the probability of much\nearlier interpolation also, at which the various existing versions\nmost clearly point. The interpolations can be explained upon the most\npalpable dogmatic grounds, but not so the omissions upon the hypothesis\nthat the Syriac version is an abridgment made upon any distinct dogmatic\nprinciple, for that which is allowed to remain renders the omissions\nineffectual for dogmatic reasons. There is no ground of interest upon\nwhich the portions omitted and retained by the Syriac version can be\nintelligently explained.(2) Finally, here, we may mention that the MSS.\nof the three Syriac epistles are more ancient by some centuries than\nthose of any of the Greek versions of the Seven epistles.(3) The\nstrongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which space forbids\nour going in detail, has led the majority of critics to recognize the\nSyriac version as the most ancient form of the letters of Ignatius\nextant, and this is admitted by many of those who nevertheless deny the\nauthenticity of any of the epistles.(4)\n\nSeven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally\npurporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that number was\nmentioned by Eusebius, from whom for the first time, in the fourth\ncentury,--except the general reference in the so-called Epistle of\nPoly-carp, to which we shall presently refer,--we hear of them. Now\nneither the silence of Eusebius regarding the eight epistles, nor his\nmention of the seven, can have much weight in deciding the question of\ntheir authenticity. The only point which is settled by the reference\n\n{262}\n\nof Eusebius is that, at the date at which he wrote, seven epistles were\nknown to him which were ascribed to Ignatius. He evidently knew little\nor nothing regarding the man or the Epistles, beyond what he had learnt\nfrom themselves,(1) and he mentions the martyr-journey to Rome as a mere\nreport: \"It is said that he was conducted from Syria to Rome to be cast\nto wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ.\"(2) It would be\nunreasonable to argue that no other epistles existed simply because\nEusebius did not mention them; and on the other hand it would be still\nmore unreasonable to affirm that the seven epistles are authentic merely\nbecause Eusebius, in the fourth century,--that is to say, some two\ncenturies after they are supposed to have been written,--had met with\nthem. Does any one believe the letter of Jesus to Abgarus Prince of\nEdessa to be genuine, because Eusebius inserts it in his history(3) as\nan authentic document out of the public records of the city of Edessa \\\nThere is, in fact, no evidence that the brief quotations of Irenaeus\nand Origen are taken from either of the extant Greek versions of the\nepistles; for, as we have mentioned, they exist in the Syriac epistles,\nand there is nothing to show the original state of the letters from\nwhich they were derived. Nothing is more certain than the fact that, if\nany writer wished to circulate letters in the name of Ignatius, he\nwould insert such passages as were said to have been quoted from genuine\nepistles of Ignatius, and supposing those quotations to be real, all\nthat could be said on finding such passages would be that at least so\nmuch might be genuine.(4) It is a total\n\n{263}\n\nmistake to suppose that the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius have\nbeen transmitted to us in any special way. These epistles are mixed\nup in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin MSS. with the\nother eight epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without\ndistinction of any kind, and all have equal honour.(1) The recognition\nof the number seven may, therefore, be ascribed simply to the reference\nto them by Eusebius, and his silence regarding the rest.\n\nWhat, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian Epistles? Towards\nthe end of the second century, Irenaeus makes a very short quotation from\na source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an\nepistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes a\nvery few words which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definite\nreference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century\nEusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other\nevidence. There are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which are\nattributed to Ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three\nwhich are only known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latin\nversions. Of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by\nEusebius--we have two Greek versions, one of which is very much shorter\nthan the other; and finally we now possess a Syriac version of three\nepistles only(2) in a form still shorter than the shorter Greek version,\nin which are found all the quotations of the Fathers, without exception,\nup to the fourth century. Eight of the fifteen\n\n     2  It is worthy of remark that at the end of the Syriac\n     version the subscription is: \"Here end the three Epistles of\n     Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr;\" cf. Cureton, The Ancient\n     Syriac Version, &c, p. 25.\n\n{264}\n\nepistles are universally rejected as spurious. The longer Greek version\nof the remaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as\ngrossly interpolated; and the great majority of critics recognize that\nthe shorter Greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the Syriac\nversion, which so far as MSS. are concerned is by far the most ancient\ntext of any of the letters which we posses, reduces their number to\nthree, and their contents to a very small compass indeed. It is not\nsurprising that the vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more\nor less strong regarding the authenticity of all of these epistles, and\nthat so large a number have repudiated them altogether. One thing is\nquite evident,--that amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation,\nand fraud, the Ignatian Epistles cannot in any form be considered\nevidence on any important point.(1)\n\nWe have not, however, finished. All of these epistles, including the\nthree of the Syriac recension, profess to have been written by Ignatius\nduring his journey from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of Roman\nsoldiers, in order to be exposed to wild beasts, the form of martyrdom\nto which he had been condemned. The writer describes the circumstances\nof his journey as follows: \"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild\nbeasts, by sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten\nleopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even receiving benefits\nbecome worse.\"(2) Now if this account be in the least degree true, how\nis it possible to suppose that the martyr could have found means to\nwrite\n\n{265}\n\nso many long epistles, entering minutely into dogmatic teaching,\nand expressing the most deliberate and advanced views regarding\necclesiastical government? Indeed it may be asked why Ignatius should\nhave considered it necessary in such a journey, even if the possibility\nbe for a moment conceded, to address such epistles to communities and\nindividuals to whom, by the showing of the letters themselves, he had\njust had opportunities of addressing his counsels in person.(1) The\nepistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such\ncircumstances, and it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as\nthe quotation above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild\nbeasts for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles\nat every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which\nhe was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to martyrdom, he\nhas, according to the epistles,(2) perfect freedom to see his friends.\nHe receives the bishops, deacons, and members of various Christian\ncommunities, who come with greetings to him, and devoted followers\naccompany him on his journey. All this without hindrance from the \"ten\nleopards,\" of whose cruelty he complains, and without persecution or\nharm to those who so openly declare themselves his friends and fellow\nbelievers. The whole story is absolutely incredible.(3) This conclusion,\nirresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by facte arrived at from\na totally different point of view.\n\n{266}\n\nIt has been demonstrated that, most probably, Ignatius was not sent to\nRome at all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself(l) on the 20th\nDecember, a.d. 115,(2) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts\nin the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced\nby the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(3) There\nare no less than three martyrologies of Ignatius,(4) giving an\naccount of the martyr's journey from Antioch to Rome, but they are all\nrecognised to be mere idle legends, of whose existence we do not hear\ntill a very late period.(5) In fact the whole of the Ignatian literature\nis a mass of falsification and fraud.\n\nWe might well spare our readers the trouble of examining further the\ncontents of the epistles of pseudo-Ignatius, for it is manifest that\nthey cannot afford testimony\n\n{267}\n\nof any value on the subject of our inquiry. We shall, however, briefly\npoint out all the passages contained in the seven Greek Epistles which\nhave any bearing upon our synoptic Gospels, in order that their exact\nposition may be more fully appreciated. Teschendorf(1) refers to a\npassage in the Epistle to the Romans, c. vi., as a verbal quotation of\nMatthew xvi. 26, but he neither gives the context nor states the facts\nof the case. The passage reads as follows: \"The pleasures of the world\nshall profit me nothing, nor the kingdoms of this time; it is better for\nme to die for Jesus Christ, than to reign over the ends of the earth.\nFor what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his\nsoul.\"(2) Now this quotation not only is not found in the Syriac version\nof the Epistle, but it is also omitted from the ancient Latin version,\nand is absent from the passage in the work of Timotheus of Alexandria\nagainst the Council of Chalcedon, and from other authorities. It\nis evidently a later addition, and is recognized as such by most\ncritics.(3) It was probably a gloss, which subsequently was inserted in\nthe text. Of these facts, however, Tischendorf does not say a word.(4)\n\nThe next passage to which he refers is in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,\nc. i., where the writer says of Jesus: \"He was baptized by John in order\nthat all righteousness\n\n{268}\n\nmight be fulfilled by Him,\"(1)--which Teschendorf considers a\nreminiscence of Matthew iii. 15, \"For thus it becometh us to fulfil all\nrighteousness.\"(2) The phrase, besides being no quotation, has again all\nthe appearance of being an addition; and when in Ch. iii. of the same\nEpistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal Gospel, which\nJerome states to be the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews,\" to which\nwe shall presently refer, a Gospel which we know to have contained the\nbaptism of Jesus by John, it is not possible, even if the Epistle were\ngenuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words.\nThere is not only the alternative of tradition, but the use of the same\napocryphal Gospel, elsewhere quoted in the Epistle, as the source of\nthe reminiscence. Tischendorf does not point out any more supposed\nreferences to our synoptic Gospels, but we proceed to notice all the\nother passages which have been indicated by others. In the Epistle to\nPolycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs: \"Be thou wise as a\nserpent in everything, and harmless as the dove.\" This is, of course,\ncompared with Matth. x. 16, \"Be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and\ninnocent as doves.\" The Greek of both reads as follows: [--Greek--]\n\nIn the Syriac version, the passage reads: \"Be thou wise as the serpent\nin everything, and harmless as to those things which are requisite as\nthe dove.\"(4) It is unnecessary\n\n{269}\n\nto add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence. Ewald assigns\nthis part of our first Gospel originally to the Spruchsammlung,(1) and\neven apart from the variations presented in the Epistle there is nothing\nto warrant exclusive selection of our first Gospel as the source of the\nsaying. The remaining passages we subjoin in parallel columns.\n\nNone of these passages are quotations, and they generally present such\nmarked linguistic variations from the parallel\n\n{270}\n\npassages in our first Gospel, that there is not the slightest ground\nfor specially referring them to it. The last words cited are introduced\nwithout any appropriate context. In no case are the expressions\nindicated as quotations from, or references to, any particular source.\nThey may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous\nGospels current in the early Church, such as the Gospel according to the\nHebrews. That the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted. In\nthe Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. iii., there occurs a quotation from an\napocryphal Gospel to which we have already, in passing, referred: \"For I\nknow that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe\nhe is so now. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to\nthem: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit,\n[--Greek--]. And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced\nby his flesh and spirit.\" Eusebius, who quotes this passage, says that\nhe does not know whence it is taken.(2) Origen, however, quotes it from\na work well known in the early Church, called \"The Doctrine of Peter,\"\n[--Greek--];(3) and Jerome found it in the \"Gospel according to the\nHebrews,\" in use among the Nazarenes,(4) which he translated, as we\nshall hereafter sec. It was, no doubt, in both of those works. The\nnarrative, Luke xxiv. 39 f., being neglected, and an apocryphal Gospel\nused here, the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive. As it\nis certain that this quotation was taken from a source\n\n{271}\n\ndifferent from our Gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other\npassages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. The\npassage on the three mysteries in the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. xix.,\nis evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source.(1)\n\nWe must, however, again point out that, with the single exception of\nthe short passage in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., which is not a\nquotation, differs from the reading in Matthew, and may well be from\nany other source, none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic\nGospels are found in the Syriac version of the three epistles. The\nevidential value of the seven Greek epistles is clearly stated by\nan English historian and divine: \"My conclusion is, that I should be\nunwilling to claim historical authority for any passage not contained in\nDr. Cureton's Syriac reprint.\"(3) We must, however, go much further,\nand assert that none of the Epistles have any value as evidence for\nan earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third\ncentury, if indeed they possess any value at all. The whole of the\nliterature ascribed to Ignatius is, in fact, such a tissue of fraud and\nimposture, and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks\nof the grossest interpolation, that even if any small original element\nexist referrible to Ignatius, it is impossible to define it, or to\ndistinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is\nauthentic and what is spurious. The Epistles do not, however, in any\ncase afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic Gospels.\n\n{272}\n\n2.\n\nWe have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called Epistle of\nPolycarp to the Philippians, from the fact that, instead of proving\nthe existence of the Epistles of Ignatius, with which it is intimately\nassociated, it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to\nbe in authentic. We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius\nto Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the\nepistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to\nbe spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers to the\nmartyr-journey (c. ix.), but to the Ignatian Epistles which are\ninauthentic (c. xiii.), and the manifest inference is that it also is\nspurious.\n\nPolycarp, who is said by Irenaeus(1) to have been in his youth a disciple\nof the Apostle John, became Bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom at\na very advanced age.(2) On the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, it\nhas hitherto been generally believed that his death took place in a.d.\n166-167. In the account of his martyrdom, which we possess in the shape\nof a letter from the Church of Smyrna, purporting to have been written\nby eye-witnesses, which must be pronounced spurious, Polycarp is said to\nhave died under the Proconsul Statius Quadratus.(3) If this statement\nbe correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained,\nfor recent investigations have determined that Statius Quadratus was\nproconsul in a.d. 154-5 or 155-6.(4) Some critics,\n\n{273}\n\nwho affirm the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, date\nthe Epistle before a.d. 120,(1) but the preponderance of opinion assigns\nit to a much later period.(2) Doubts of its authenticity, and of the\nintegrity of the text, were very early expressed,(3) and the close\nscrutiny to which later and more competent criticism has subjected it,\nhas led very many to the conclusion that the Epistle is either largely\ninterpolated,(4) or altogether spurious.(5) The principal argument in\nfavour\n\n{274}\n\nof its authenticity is the fact that the Epistle is mentioned by\nIrenaeus,(1) who in his extreme youth was acquainted with Polycarp.(2)\nWe have no very precise information regarding the age of Irenaeus, but\nJerome states that he flourished under Commodus (180-192), and we may,\nas a favourable conjecture, suppose that he was then about 35-37. In\nthat case his birth must be dated about a.d. 145. There is reason to\nbelieve that he fell a victim to persecution under Septimius Severus,\nand it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the first outbreak\nin a.d. 202, or later. According to this calculation, the martyrdom of\nPolycarp, in a.d. 155-156, took place when he was ten or eleven years\nof age. Even if a further concession be made in regard to his age, it is\nevident that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the Bishop of Smyrna\nmust have been confined to his very earliest years,(3) a fact which is\nconfirmed by the almost total absence of any record in his writings of\nthe communications of Polycarp. This certainly does not entitle Irenaeus\nto speak more authoritatively of an epistle ascribed to Polycarp, than\nany one else of his day.(4)\n\nIn the Epistle itself, there are several anachronisms. In ch. ix. the\nblessed Ignatius\" is referred to as already dead, and he is held up with\nZosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul and the rest of the Apostles, as\nexamples of patience: men who have not run in vain, but are with the\nLord; but in ch. xiii. he is spoken of as living, and information is\nrequested regarding him,\n\n{275}\n\n\"and those who are with him.\"(1) Yet, although thus spoken of as alive,\nthe writer already knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to\nthose written by him \"to us, and all the rest which we have by us.\"(2)\nThe reference here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to\nthe Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles\nwhich are not included in the Syriac version. Dallseus(3) pointed out\nlong ago, that ch. xiii. abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the\nEpistle, and most critics, including those who assert the authenticity\nof the rest of the Epistle, reject it at least, although many of these\nlikewise repudiate ch. ix. as interpolated.(4) Others, however, consider\nthat the latter chapter is quite consistent with the later date, which,\naccording to internal evidence, must be assigned to the Epistle. The\nwriter vehemently denounces,(5) as already widely spread, the Gnostic\nheresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist until\nthe time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he refers in\nunmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii. in speaking of\nthese heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenseus to have actually\napplied to Marcion in person, during his visit to Home. He is said to\nhave called Marcion the \"first-born of Satan,\" [--Greek--](6) and the same\nterm\n\n{276}\n\nis employed in this epistle with regard to every one who holds such\nfalse doctrines. The development of these heresies, therefore, implies\na date for the composition of the Epistle, at earliest, after the\nmiddle of the second century, a date which is further confirmed by other\ncircumstances.(1) The writer of such a letter must have held a position\nin the Church, to which Polycarp could only have attained in the\nlatter part of his life, when he was deputed to Rome for the Paschal\ndiscussion, and the Epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical\norganization of a later time.(2) The earlier date which has now been\nadopted for the martyrdom of Polycarp, by limiting the period during\nwhich it is possible that he himself could have written any portion\nof it, only renders the inauthenticity of the Epistle more apparent.\nHilgenfeld has pointed out, as another indication of the same date, the\ninjunction \"Pray for the kings\" (Orate pro regibus), which, in 1 Peter\nii. 17, is \"Honour the king\" [--Greek--], which, he argues, accords with\nthe period after Antoninus Pius had elevated Marcus Aurelius\n\n{277}\n\nto joint sovereignty (a.d. 147), or better still, with that in which\nMarcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his colleague, a.d. 161, for\nto rulers outside of the Roman empire there can be no reference. If\nauthentic, however, the Epistle must have been written, at latest,\nshortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius in a.d. 115, but, as we have\nseen, there are strong internal characteristics excluding such a\nsupposition. The reference to the martyr-journey of Ignatius and to\nthe epistles falsely ascribed to him, is alone sufficient to betray the\nspurious nature of the composition, and to class the Epistle with the\nrest of the pseudo-Ignatian literature.\n\nWe shall now examine all the passages in this epistle which are pointed\nout as indicating any acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels.(1) The\nfirst occurs in ch. ii., and we subjoin it in contrast with the nearest\nparallel passages of the Gospels, but although we break it up into\nparagraphs, it will, of course, be understood that the quotation is\ncontinuous in the Epistle.\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{278}\n\nIt will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of words\nof Jesus occurs in the so-called Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,\nc. xiii., which we have already examined.(1) There, the passage is\nintroduced by the same words, and in the midst of brief phrases which\nhave parallels in our Gospel there occurs in both Epistles the same\nexpression, \"Be pitiful that ye may be pitied,\" which is not found in\nany of our Gospels. In order to find any parallels for the quotation,\nupon the hypothesis of a combination of texts, we have to add together\nportions of the following verses in the following order: Matthew vii. 1,\nvi. 14 (although, with complete linguistic variations, the sense of\nLuke vi. 37 is much closer), v. 7, vii. 2, v. 3, v. 10. Such fragmentary\ncompilation is in itself scarcely conceivable in an epistle of this\nkind, but when in the midst we find a passage foreign to our Gospels,\nbut which occurs in another work in connection with so similar a\nquotation, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is derived from\ntradition or from a Gospel different from ours.(2) In no case can such\n\n{279}\n\na passage be considered material evidence of the existence of any one of\nour Gospels.\n\nAnother expression which is pointed out occurs in ch. vii., \"beseeching\nin our prayers the all-searching God not to lead us into temptation, as\nthe Lord said: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.\"(1)\nThis is compared with the phrase in \"the Lord's Prayer\" (Matthew vi.\n13), or the passage (xxvi. 41): \"Watch and pray that ye enter not into\ntemptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.\"(2) The\nsecond Gospel, however, equally has the phrase (xiv. 38), and shows how\nunreasonable it is to limit these historical sayings to a single Gospel.\nThe next passage is of a similar nature (c. vi.): \"If, therefore,\nwe pray the Lord that he may forgive us, we ought also ourselves\nto forgive.\"(3) The thought but not the language of this passage\ncorresponds with Matthew vi. 12--14, but equally so with Luke xi. 4. Now\nwe must repeat that all such sayings of Jesus were the common property\nof the early Christians--were no doubt orally current amongst them, and\nstill more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous Gospels then\nin circulation, as they are by several of our own. In no case is there\nany written source indicated from which these passages are derived; they\nare simply quoted as words of Jesus, and being all connected either with\nthe \"Sermon on the Mount\" or the \"Lord's Prayer,\" the two portions of\nthe teaching of Jesus which were most\n\n{280}\n\npopular, widely known, and characteristic, there can be no doubt that\nthey were familiar throughout the whole of the early Church, and must\nhave formed a part of most or all of the many collections of the words\nof the Master. To limit them to our actual Gospels, which alone\nsurvive, would be quite unwarrantable, and no reference to them, without\nspecification of the source, can be received as evidence even of the\nexistence of our Synoptics. We may here briefly illustrate the point\nfrom the Synoptics themselves. Assuming the parable of the Sower to be\na genuine example of the teaching of Jesus, as there is every reason\nto believe, it may with certainty be asserted that it must have been\nincluded in many of the records circulating among early Christians, to\nwhich reference is made in the prologue to the third Gospel. It would\nnot be permissible to affirm that no part of that parable could\nbe referred to by an early writer without that reference being an\nindication of acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels. The parable is\nreported in closely similar words in each of those three Gospels,(1) and\nit may have been, and probably was, recorded similarly in a dozen more.\nConfining ourselves, however, for a moment to the three Synoptics: what\ncould a general allusion to the parable of the Sower prove regarding\ntheir existence and use, no mention of a particular source being made?\nWould it prove that all the three were extant, and that the writer knew\nthem all, for each of them containing the parable would possess an equal\nclaim to the reference? Could it with any reason be affirmed that he\nwas acquainted with Matthew and not with Mark? or with Mark and not with\nMatthew and Luke? or with the third Gospel and\n\n{281}\n\nnot with either of the other two? The case is the very same if we extend\nthe illustration, and along with the Synoptics include the numerous\nother records of the early Church. The anonymous quotation of historical\nexpressions of Jesus cannot prove the existence of one special document\namong many to which we may choose to trace it. This is more especially\nto be insisted on from the fact, that hitherto we have not met with\nany mention of any one of our Gospels, and have no right even to assume\ntheir existence from any evidence which has been furnished.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. JUSTIN MARTYR\n\nWe shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of Justin\nMartyr, regarding the existence of our synoptic Gospels at the middle\nof the second century, and we may remark, in anticipation, that whatever\ndifferences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of\nthe problem which we have to examine, at least it is clear that the\ntestimony of Justin Martyr is not of a nature to establish the date,\nauthenticity, and character of Gospels professing to communicate such\nmomentous and astounding doctrines. The determination of the source from\nwhich Justin derived his facts of Christian history has for a century\nattracted more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any\nother similar question in connection with patristic literature, and upon\nnone have more divergent opinions been expressed.\n\nJustin, who suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166--167,(1) under Marcus\nAurelius, probably at the instigation of the cynical philosopher,\nCrescens, was born in the Greek-Roman colony, Flavia Neapolis,(2)\nestablished during the\n\n{283}\n\nreign of Vespasian, near the ancient Sichem in Samaria. By descent he\nwas a Greek, and during the earlier part of his life a heathen, but\nafter long and disappointed study of Greek philosophy, he became a\nconvert to Christianity(l) strongly tinged with Judaism. It is not\nnecessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the\nwritings which have come down to us bearing Justin's name, many of which\nare undoubtedly spurious, for the two Apologies and the Dialogue with\nTrypho, with which we have almost exclusively to do, are generally\nadmitted to be genuine. It is true that there has been a singular\ncontroversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two\nApologies now extant, the following contradictory views having been\nmaintained: that they are the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and\nin their original order; that they are Justin's two Apologies, but that\nEusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus\nAurelius; that our second Apology was the preface or appendix to\nthe first, and that the original second is lost. The shorter Apology\ncontains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry.\n\nThere has been much controversy as to the date of the two Apologies,\nand much difference of opinion still exists on the point. Many critics\nassign the larger to about a.d. 138--140, and the shorter to a.d.\n160--161.(2) A passage, however, occurs in the longer Apology, which\n\n{284}\n\nindicates that it must have been written about a century and a half\nafter the commencement of the Christian era, or, according to accurate\nreckoning, about a.d. 147. Justin speaks, in one part of it, of\nperverted deductions being drawn from his teaching \"that Christ was born\n150 years ago under Cyrenius.\"(l) Those who contend for the earlier date\nhave no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported\nassertion, that in this passage Justin merely speaks \"in round numbers,\"\nbut many important circumstances confirm the date which Justin thus\ngives us. In the superscription of the Apology, Antoninus is called\n\"Pius,\" a title which was first bestowed upon him in the year 139.\nMoreover, Justin directly refers to Marcion, as a man \"now living and\nteaching his disciples.... and who has by the aid of demons caused\nmany of all nations to utter blasphemies,\" &c.(2) Now the fact has been\nestablished that Marcion did not come to Rome, where Justin himself was,\nuntil a.d. 139--142,(3) when his prominent public career commenced,\nand it is apparent that the words of Justin indicate a period when his\ndoctrines had already\n\n{285}\n\nbecome widely diffused. For these and many other strong reasons, which\nneed not here be detailed, the majority of competent critics agree in\nmore correctly assigning the first Apology to about a.d. 147.(1) The\nDialogue with Trypho, as internal evidence shows,(2) was written after\nthe longer Apology, and it is therefore generally dated some time within\nthe first decade of the second half of the second century.(3)\n\nIn these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old Testament,\nand he also very frequently refers to facts of Christian history and to\nsayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in\nthe first Apology, and upwards of seventy in the Dialogue with Trypho,\na goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of which to identify the\nsource from which he quotes. Justin himself frequently and distinctly\nsays that his information and quotations are derived from the \"Memoirs\nof the Apostles\" [--Greek--], but except upon one occasion, which we\nshall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, he never mentions an\nauthor's name. Upon examination it is found that, with only one or two\nbrief exceptions, the\n\n{286}\n\nnumerous quotations from these Memoirs differ more or less widely from\nparallel passages in our synoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in\nthe same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of\nthe second century, the writers of which are known to have made use of\nuncanonical Gospels, and further, that these passages are quoted several\ntimes, at intervals, by Justin with the same variations. Moreover,\nsayings of Jesus are quoted from these Memoirs which are not found in\nour Gospels at all, and facts in the life of Jesus and circumstances of\nChristian history derived from the same source, not only are not found\nin our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them.\n\nThese peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created much\ndiversity of opinion regarding the nature of the \"Memoirs of the\nApostles.\" In the earlier days of New Testament criticism more\nespecially, many of course at once identified the Memoirs with our\nGospels exclusively, and the variations were explained by conveniently\nelastic theories of free quotation from memory, imperfect and varying\nMSS., combination, condensation and transposition of passages, with\nslight additions from tradition, or even from some other written source,\nand so on.(1) Others endeavoured to explain\n\n{287}\n\naway difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of\nour Gospels,(1) or a harmony of the Gospels, with passages added from\nsome apocryphal work.(2) A much greater number of critics, however,\nadopt the conclusion that, along with our Gospels, Justin made use\nof one or more apocryphal Gospels, and more especially of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, and also perhaps\nof tradition.(3) Others assert that he made use of a special unknown\nGospel, or of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or according to Peter,\nwith a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our Gospels to\nwhich, however, he did not attach much importance, preferring the\napocryphal work;(4) whilst\n\n{288}\n\nothers have concluded that Justin did not make use of our Gospels at\nall, and that his quotations are either from the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, or according to Peter, or from some other special apocryphal\nGospel now no longer extant.(1)\n\nEvidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and\nlaborious investigation of the identity of Justin's Memoirs of the\nApostles, cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity\nof our Gospels, and in the absence of any specific mention of our\nSynoptics any very elaborate examination of the Memoirs might be\nconsidered unnecessary, more especially as it is admitted almost\nuniversally by competent critics, that Justin did not himself consider\nthe Memoirs of the Apostles inspired, or of any dogmatic authority, and\nhad no idea of attributing canonical rank to them.(2) In pursuance of\nthe system which we desire invariably to adopt of\n\n{289}\n\nenabling every reader to form his own opinion, we shall as briefly as\npossible state the facts of the case, and furnish materials for a full\ncomprehension of the subject. Justin himself, as we have already\nstated, frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding\nChristian history and his quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the\nApostles [--Greek--], to adopt the usual translation, although the word\nmight more correctly be rendered \"Recollections,\" or \"Memorabilia.\" It\nhas frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the\n[--Greek--] of Xenophon, but, as Credner has pointed out, the similarity is\npurely accidental, and to constitute a parallel the title should have\nbeen \"Memoirs of Jesus.\"(1) The word [--Greek--] is here evidently used\nmerely in the sense of records written from memory, and it is so\nemployed by Papias in the passage preserved by Eusebius regarding Mark,\nwho, although he had not himself followed the Lord, yet recorded his\nwords from what he heard from Peter, and who, having done so without\norder, is still defended for \"thus writing some things as he remembered\nthem\" [--Greek--].(2) In the same way Irenseus refers to the \"Memoirs of a\ncertain Presbyter of apostolic times\" [--Greek--](3) whose name he does not\nmention; and Origen still more closely approximates to Justin's use of\nthe word when, expressing his theory regarding, the Epistle to the\nHebrews, he says that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the\nphraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory\n\n{290}\n\nwhat the Apostle said [--Greek--], and as of one writing at leisure the\ndictation of his master.(1) Justin himself speaks of the authors of\nthe Memoirs as [--Greek--],(2) and the expression was then and afterwards\nconstantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers.(3)\n\nThis title, \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" however, although most\nappropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of Jesus,\nevidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical Gospels,\nbut in fact excludes such an idea; and the whole of Justin's views\nregarding Holy Scripture, prove that he saw in the Memoirs merely\nrecords from memory to assist memory.(4) He does not call them [--Greek--],\nbut adheres always to the familiar name of [--Greek--], and whilst his\nconstant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment\nof oral tradition, there is nothing in the name of his records which can\nidentify them with our Gospels.\n\nJustin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the \"Memoirs\nof the Apostles,\"(5) and five times he calls it simply the \"Memoirs.\"(6)\nHe says, upon one occasion, that these Memoirs were composed \"by his\nApostles and their followers,\"(7) but except in one place,\n\n{291}\n\nto which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter fully\nexamine, he never mentions the author's name, nor does he ever give any\nmore precise information regarding their composition. It has been argued\nthat, in saying that these Memoirs were recorded by the Apostles and\ntheir followers, Justin intentionally and literally described the\nfour canonical Gospels, the first and fourth of which are ascribed\nto Apostles, and the other two to Mark and Luke, the followers of\nApostles;(1) but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded.\nThe language itself forbids this explanation, for Justin does not speak\nindefinitely of Memoirs of Apostles and their followers, but of Memoirs\nof the Apostles, invariably using the article, which refers the Memoirs\nto the collective body of the Apostles.(2) Moreover, the incorrectness\nof such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are\nstated by Justin as derived from these Memoirs, which do not exist in\nour Gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to them. Vast\nnumbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the names of Apostles\nand their followers, and claiming more or less direct apostolic\nauthority, were in circulation in the early Church: Gospels according to\nPeter,(3) to Thomas,(4) to James,(5) to Judas,(6) according to the\n\n{292}\n\nApostles, or according to the Twelve,(1) to Barnabas,(2) to Matthias,(3)\nto Nicodemus,(4) &c., and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony\nto the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature.(5) The very\nnames of most of such apocryphal Gospels are lost, whilst of others we\npossess considerable information; but nothing is more certain than\nthe fact, that there existed many works bearing names which render the\nattempt to interpret the title of Justin's Gospel as a description of\nthe four in our canon quite unwarrantable. The words of Justin evidently\nimply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective\nrecollections of the Apostles, and those who followed them, regarding\nthe life and teaching of Jesus.\n\nThe title: \"Memoirs of the Apostles\" by no means indicates a plurality\nof Gospels.(6) A single passage has been pointed out, in which the\nMemoirs are said to have been called [--Greek--] in the plural: \"For the\nApostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called\n\n{293}\n\nGospels,\"(1) &c. The last expression, a [--Greek--], as many scholars have\ndeclared, is probably an interpolation. It is, in all likelihood,\na gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist afterwards\ninserted in the text.(2) If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were\ncalled Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them\nso himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the\nplural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the\n\"so-called Gospel,\" which he states that he has carefully read,(3) and\nwhich, of course, can only be Justin's \"Memoirs;\" and again, in another\npart of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are written\n\"in the Gospel\"(4) [--Greek--]. The term \"Gospel\" is nowhere else used\nby Justin in reference to a written record.(5) In no case, however,\nconsidering the numerous Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that\nmany of these, different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have\nbeen exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by\nvarious communities of Christians in that day, could such an expression\nbe taken as a special indication of the canonical Gospels.(6)\n\n{294}\n\nDescribing the religious practices amongst Christians, in another place,\nJustin states that, at their assemblies on Sundays, \"the Memoirs of\nthe Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time\npermits.\"(1( This, however, by no means identifies the Memoirs with the\ncanonical Gospels, for it is well known that many writings which have\nbeen excluded from the canon were publicly read in the Churches, until\nvery long after Justin's day.(2) We have already met with several\ninstances of this. Eusebius mentions that the Epistle of the Roman\nClement was publicly read in Churches in his time,(3) and he quotes\nan Epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, the Bishop of Rome, which\nstates that fact for the purpose of \"showing that it was the custom to\nread it in the Churches, even from the earliest times.\"(4) Dionysius\nlikewise mentions the public reading of the Epistle of Soter to the\nCorinthians. Epiphanius refers to the reading in the Churches of the\nEpistle of Clement,(5) and it continued to be so read in Jerome's\nday.(6) In like manner, the \"Pastor\" of Hermas,(7) the \"Apocalypse of\nPeter,\"(8) and other works excluded from the canon were publicly read in\nthe Church in early days.(9) It is certain that Gospels which\n\n{295}\n\ndid not permanently secure a place in the canon, such as the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to Peter, the Gospel\nof the Ebionites, and many kindred Gospels, which in early times were\nexclusively used by various communities,(1) must have been read at their\npublic assemblies. The public reading of Justin's Memoirs, therefore,\ndoes not prove anything, for this practice was by no means limited to\nthe works now in our canon.\n\nThe idea of attributing inspiration to the Memoirs, or to any other work\nof the Apostles, with the single exception, as we shall presently see,\nof the Apocalypse of John,(2) which, as prophecy, entered within his\nlimits, was quite foreign to Justin, who recognized the Old Testament\nalone as the inspired word of God.(3) Indeed, as we\n\n{296}\n\nhave already said, the very name \"Memoirs\" in itself excludes the\nthought of inspiration,(1) which Justin attributed only to prophetic\nwritings; and he could not in any way regard as inspired the written\ntradition of the Apostles and their followers, or a mere record of the\nwords of Jesus. On the contrary, he held the accounts of the Apostles to\nbe credible solely from their being authenticated by the Old Testament,\nand he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the Memoirs\nbecause the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them.(2) According\nto Justin, the Old Testament contained all that was necessary for\nsalvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth, the\nMemoirs, and even Christ himself, being merely its interpreters.(3) He\nsays that Christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines, but\nin those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and taught by himself.(4)\nProphecy and the words of Christ himself are alone of dogmatic value,\nall else is human teaching.(5) Indeed, from a passage quoted with\napproval by Irenaeus, Justin, in his lost work against Marcion, said: \"I\nwould not have believed the Lord himself, if he had proclaimed any other\nGod than the Creator;\" that is to say, the God of the Old Testament.(6)\n\n{297}\n\nThat Justin does not mention the name of the author of the Memoirs would\nin any case render any argument as to their identity with our canonical\nGospels inconclusive; but the total omission to do so is the more\nremarkable from the circumstance that the names of Old Testament writers\nconstantly occur in his writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations of the\nOld Testament, in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the\nbook, and only 117 in which he omits to do so,(1) and the latter number\nmight be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and\nthe inutility of repeating the reference.(2) When it is considered,\ntherefore, that notwithstanding the extremely numerous quotations, and\nreferences to facts of Christian history, all purporting to be derived\nfrom the \"Memoirs,\" he absolutely never, except in the one instance\nreferred to, mentions an author's name, or specifies more clearly the\nnature of the source, the inference must not only be that he attached\nsmall importance to the Memoirs, but also that he was actually\nignorant of the author's name, and that his Gospel had no more definite\nsuperscription. Upon the theory that the Memoirs of the Apostles were\nsimply our\n\n{298}\n\nfour canonical Gospels, the singularity of the omission is increased by\nthe diversity of contents and of authors, and the consequently greater\nnecessity and probability that he should, upon certain occasions,\ndistinguish between them. The fact is that the only writing of the\nNew Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already\nmentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to \"a certain man whose\nname was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a\nrevelation made to him,\" &c.(1) The manner in which John is here\nmentioned, after the Memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely\nreferred to, clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also\nattributed to John. That he does name John, however, as author of the\nApocalypse and so frequently refers to Old Testament writers by name,\nyet never identifies the author of the Memoirs, is quite irreconcilable\nwith the idea that they were the canonical Gospels.(2)\n\nIt is perfectly clear, however, and this is a point of very great\nimportance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views\nare agreed, that Justin quotes from a _written_ source, and that oral\ntradition is excluded from his system.(3) He not only does not, like\nPapias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms that\nin the Memoirs is recorded \"everything that concerns our \"Saviour Jesus\nChrist.,,(4) He constantly refers to them\n\n{299}\n\ndirectly, as the source of his information regarding the history of\nJesus, and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from\nthem. There is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that Justin\nsupplemented or modified the contents of the Memoirs by oral tradition.\nIt must, therefore, be remembered, in considering the nature of these\nMemoirs, that the facts of Christian history and the sayings of Jesus\nare derived from a determinate written source, and are quoted as Justin\nfound them there.(1) Those who attempt to explain the divergences\nof Justin's quotations from the canonical Gospels, which they still\nmaintain to have been his Memoirs, on the plea of oral tradition, defend\nthe identity at the expense of the authority of the Gospels. For nothing\ncould more forcibly show Justin's disregard and disrespect for the\nGospels, than would the fact that, possessing them, he not only never\nnames their authors, but considers himself at liberty continually to\ncontradict, modify, and revise their statements.\n\nAs we have already remarked, when we examine the contents of the Memoirs\nof the Apostles, through Justin's numerous quotations, we find that many\nparts of the Gospel narratives are apparently quite unknown, whilst,\non the other hand, we meet with facts of evangelical history, which are\nforeign to the canonical Gospels, and others which are contradictory of\nGospel statements. Justin's quotations, almost without exception, vary\nmore or less from the parallels in the canonical text, and often these\nvariations are consistently repeated by himself, and are found in other\nworks about his time. Moreover, Justin quotes expressions of Jesus,\nwhich are not found in our Gospels at all. The omissions, though often\nvery\n\n{300}\n\nsingular, supposing the canonical Gospels before him, and almost\ninexplicable when it is considered how important they would often have\nbeen to his argument, need not, as merely negative evidence, be dwelt\non here, but we shall briefly illustrate the other peculiarities of\nJustin's quotations.\n\nThe only genealogy of Jesus which is recognized by Justin is traced\nthrough the Virgin Mary. She it is who is descended from Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob, and from the house of David, and Joseph is completely set\naside.(1) Jesus \"was born of a virgin of the lineage of Abraham and\ntribe of Judah and of David, Christ the Son of God.\"(2) \"Jesus Christ\nthe Son of God has been born without sin of a virgin sprung from the\nlineage of Abraham.\"(3) \"For of the virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was\nthe father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews,\nby the power of God was he conceived; and Jesse was his forefather\naccording to the prophecy, and he (Jesus) was the son of Jacob and\nJudah according to successive descent.\"(4) The genealogy of Jesus in the\ncanonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely through Joseph,\nwho alone is stated to be of the lineage of David.(5) The genealogies of\nMatthew and Luke, though differing in several important points, at least\nagree in excluding Mary. That of the third Gospel commences with Joseph,\n\n{301}\n\nand that of the first ends with him: \"And Jacob begat Joseph, the\nhusband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.\"(1)\nThe angel who warns Joseph not to put away his wife, addresses him as\n\"Joseph, thou son of David,\"(2) and the angel Gabriel, who, according to\nthe third Gospel, announces to Mary the supernatural conception, is sent\n\"to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of\nDavid.\"(3) So persistent, however, is Justin in ignoring this Davidic\ndescent through Joseph, that not only does he at least eleven times\ntrace it through Mary, but his Gospel materially differs from the\ncanonical, where the descent of Joseph from David is mentioned by the\nlatter. In the third Gospel, Joseph goes to Judaea \"unto the city\nof David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and\nlineage of David.\"(4) Justin, however, simply states that he went\n\"to Bethlehem... for his descent was from the tribe of Judah, which\ninhabited that region.\"(5) There can be no doubt that Justin not only\ndid not derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels, but that on\nthe contrary the Memoirs, from which he did learn the Davidic descent\nthrough Mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.(6)\n\nMany traces still exist to show that the view of Justin's Memoirs of the\nApostles of the Davidic descent of Jesus through Mary instead of through\nJoseph, as the canonical Gospels represent it, was anciently held in the\nChurch. Apocryphal Gospels of early date, based without doubt upon more\nancient evangelical works, are still extant, in which the genealogy of\nJesus is traced, as in\n\n{302}\n\nJustin's Memoirs, through Mary. One of these is the Gospel of\nJames, commonly called the _Protevangelium_, a work referred to by\necclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries,(1) and which\nTischendorf even ascribes to the first three decades of the second\ncentury,(2) in which Mary is stated to be of the lineage of David.(3)\nShe is also described as of the royal race and family of David in the\nGospel of the Nativity of Mary,(4) and in the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew\nher Davidic descent is prominently mentioned.(5) There can be no doubt\nthat all of these works are based upon earlier originals,(6) and there\nis no reason why they may not have been drawn from the same source from\nwhich Justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction to\nthe Synoptics.(7)\n\nIn the narrative of the events which preceded the\n\n{303}\n\nbirth of Jesus, the first Gospel describes the angel as appearing only\nto Joseph and explaining the supernatural conception,(1) and the author\nseems to know nothing of any announcement to Mary.(2) The third Gospel,\non the contrary, does not mention any such angelic appearance to Joseph,\nbut represents the angel as announcing the conception to Mary herself\nalone.(3) Justin's Memoirs know of the appearances both to Joseph and\nto Mary, but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ\nmaterially from those of both Gospels.(4) In this place, only one point,\nhowever, can be noticed. Justin describes the angel as saying to Mary:\n\"'Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a son,\nand he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call\nhis name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,' as\nthey taught who recorded everything that concerns our Saviour Jesus\nChrist.\"(5) Now this is a clear and direct quotation, but besides\ndistinctly differing in form from our Gospels, it presents the important\npeculiarity that the words, \"for he shall save his people from\n\n{304}\n\ntheir sins,\" are not, in Luke, addressed to Mary at all, but that they\noccur in the first Gospel in the address of the angel to Joseph.(1)\n\nThese words, however, are not accidentally inserted in this place, for\nwe find that they are joined in the same manner to the address of the\nangel to Mary in the Protevangelium of James: \"For the power of the Lord\nwill overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which is born of\nthee shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call\nhis name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.\"(2)\nTischendorf states his own opinion that this passage is a recollection\nof the Protevangelium unconsciously added by Justin to the account in\nLuke,(3) but the arbitrary nature of the limitation \"unconsciously\"\n(ohne dass er sich dessen bewusst war) here is evident. There is a point\nin connection with this which merits a moment's attention. In the text\nof the Protevangelium, edited by Tischendorf, the angel commences his\naddress to Mary by saying: \"Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour\nbefore the Lord, and thou shalt conceive of his Word\" [--Greek--].(4) Now\nJustin,\n\nafter quoting the passage above, continues to argue that the Spirit and\nthe power of God must not be misunderstood to mean anything else\nthan the Word, who is also the first born of God as the prophet Moses\ndeclared; and it was this which, when it came upon the Virgin and\novershadowed her, caused\n\n{305}\n\nher to conceive.(1) The occurrence of the singular expression in\nthe Protovangelium and the similar explanation of Justin immediately\naccompanying a variation from our Gospels, which is equally shared\nby the apocryphal work, strengthens the suspicion of a similarity\nof origin. Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our\nsupposing that, in its present state, it could have been the actual\nsource of his quotations, but the wide differences which exist between\nthe extant MSS. of the Protevangelium show that even the most ancient\ndoes not present it in its original form. It is much more probable\nthat Justin had before him a still older work, to which both the\nProtevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted.(2)\n\nJustin's account of the removal of Joseph to Bethlehem is peculiar, and\nevidently is derived from a distinct un-canonical source. It may be well\nto present his account and that of Luke side by side:\n\n{306}\n\nAttention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in which the\nDavidic descent of Jesus is traced by Justin through Mary, and to the\nsuppression in this passage of all that might seem to indicate a\nclaim of descent through Joseph. As the continuation of a peculiar\nrepresentation of the history of the infancy of Jesus, differing\nmaterially from that of the Synoptics, it is impossible to regard this,\nwith its remarkable variations, as an arbitrary correction by Justin of\nthe canonical text, and we must hold it to be derived from a different\nsource, perhaps, indeed, one of those from which Luke's Gospel itself\nfirst drew the elements of the narrative, and this persuasion\nincreases as further variations in the earlier history, presently to be\nconsidered, are taken into account. It is not necessary to enter into\nthe question of the correctness of the date of this census, but it\nis evident that Justin's Memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the\ncanonical narrative. The limitation of the census to Judaea, instead of\nextending it to the whole Roman Empire; the designation of Cyrenius\nas [--Greek--] of Judaea instead of [--Greek--] of Syria; and the careful\nsuppression of the Davidic element in connection with Joseph indicate a\npeculiar written source different from the Synoptics.(1)\n\nHad Justin departed from the account in Luke with the view of correcting\ninaccurate statements, the matter might have seemed more consistent with\nthe use of the third Gospel, although at the same time it might have\nevinced but little reverence for it as a canonical\n\n{307}\n\nwork. On the contrary, however, the statements of Justin are still more\ninconsistent with history than those in Luke, inasmuch as, so far from\nbeing the first procurator of Judsea, as Justin's narrative states in\nopposition to the third Gospel, Cyrenius never held that office, but\nwas really, later, the imperial proconsul over Syria, and as such, when\nJudaea became a Roman province after the banishment of Archelaus, had\nthe power to enrol the inhabitants, and instituted Coponius as first\nProcurator of Judaea. Justin's statement involves the position that\nat one and the same time Herod was the King, and Cyrenius the Roman\nProcurator of Judsea.(1) In the same spirit, and departing from the\nusual narrative of the Synoptics, which couples the birth of Jesus with\n\"the days of Herod the King,\" Justin in another place states that Christ\nwas born \"under Cyrenius.\"(2) Justin evidently adopts without criticism\na narrative which he found in his Memoirs, and does not merely correct\nand remodel a passage of the third Gospel, but, on the contrary, seems\naltogether ignorant of it.(3)\n\nThe genealogies of Jesus in the first and third Gospels differ\nirreconcileably from each other. Justin differs from both. In this\npassage another discrepancy arises. While Luke seems to represent\nNazareth as the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, and Bethlehem as the\ncity to which they went solely on account of the census,(4)\n\n{308}\n\nMatthew, who seems to know nothing of the census, makes Bethlehem, on\nthe contrary, the place of residence of Joseph,(1) and on coming back\nfrom Egypt, with the evident intention of returning to Bethlehem, Joseph\nis warned by a dream to turn aside into Galilee, and he goes and dwells,\napparently for the first time, \"in a city called Nazareth, that it might\nbe fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be called a\nNazarene.\"(2) Justin, however, goes still further than the third Gospel\nin his departure from the data of Matthew, and where Luke merely infers,\nJustin distinctly asserts Nazareth to have been the dwelling-place of\nJoseph [--Greek--], and Bethlehem, in contradistinction, the place from\nwhich he derived his origin [--Greek--].3\n\nThe same view is to be found in several apocryphal Gospels still extant.\nIn the Protevangelium of James again, we find Joseph journeying to\nBethlehem with Mary before the birth of Jesus.(4) The census here is\nordered by Augustus, who commands: \"That all who were in Bethlehem\n_of Judeae_, should be enrolled.\"(5) a limitation worthy of notice\nin comparison with that of Justin. In like manner the Gospel of the\nNativity. This Gospel represents the parents of Mary as living in\nNazareth, in\n\n{309}\n\nwhich place she was born,(1) and it is here that the Angel Gabriel\nannounces to her the supernatural conception.(2) Joseph goes to\nBethlehem to set his house in order and prepare what is necessary for\nthe marriage, but then returns to Nazareth, where he remains with Mary\nuntil her time was nearly accomplished,(3) \"when Joseph having taken\nhis wife with whatever else was necessary went to the city of Bethlehem,\nwhence he was.\"(4) The phrase \"_unde ipse erat_\" recalls the [--Greek--]\nof Justin.(6) As we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of\nJesus, we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical\nGospels for which the preceding have prepared us, and which indicate\nthat Justin's Memorials certainly differed from them:\n\n{310}\n\nAt least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of Jesus,--not\ntaking place in Bethlehem itself but in a cave [--Greek--] near the\nvillage, because Joseph could not find a lodging there,--are not derived\nfrom our Gospels, and here even Scmisch(1) is forced to abandon his\ntheory that Justin's variations arise merely from imperfectly quoting\nfrom memory, and to conjecture that he must have adopted tradition.\nIt has, however, been shown that Justin himself distinctly excludes\ntradition, and in this case, moreover, there are many special reasons\nfor believing that he quotes from a written source. Ewald rightly points\nout that here, and in other passages where, in common with ancient\necclesiastical writers, Justin departs from our Gospels, the variation\ncan in no way be referred to oral tradition;(2) and, moreover, that when\nJustin proves(3) from Isaiah xxxiii. 16, that Christ _must_ be born in\na cave, he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the cave in\nhis written Gospel.(4) The whole argument of Justin excludes the\nidea that he could avail himself of mere tradition. He maintains that\neverything which the prophets had foretold of Christ had actually been\nfulfilled, and he perpetually refers to the Memoirs and other written\ndocuments for the verification of his assertions. He either refers to\nthe prophets for the confirmation of the Memoirs, or shows in the\n\n{311}\n\nMemoirs the narrative of facts which are the accomplishment of\nprophecies, but in both cases it is manifest that there must have been\na record of the facts which he mentions. There can be no doubt that\nthe circumstances we have just quoted, and which are not found in the\ncanonical Gospels, must have been narrated in Justin's Memoirs.\n\nWe find, again, the same variations as in Justin in several extant\napocryphal Gospels. The Protevangelium of James represents the birth\nof Jesus as taking place in a cave;(1) so also the Arabic Gospel of\nthe Infancy,(2) and several others.(3) This uncanonical detail is also\nmentioned by several of the Fathers, Origen and Eusebius both stating\nthat the cave and the manger were still shown in their day.(4)\nTeschendorf does not hesitate to affirm that Justin derived this\ncircumstance from the Protevangelium.(5) Justin, however, does not\ndistinguish such a source; and the mere fact that we have a form of that\nGospel, in which it occurs, still extant, by no means justifies such\na specific conclusion, when so many other works, now lost, may equally\nhave contained\n\n{312}\n\nit. If the fact be derived from the Protevangelium, that work, or\nwhatever other apocryphal Gospel may have supplied it, must be admitted\nto have at least formed part of the Memoirs of the Apostles, and with\nthat necessary admission ends all special identification of the Memoirs\nwith our canonical Gospels. Much more probably, however, Justin quotes\nfrom the more ancient source from which the Protevangelium and, perhaps,\nLuke drew their narrative.(1) There can be very little doubt that the\nGospel according to the Hebrews contained an account of the birth in\nBethlehem, and as it is, at least, certain that Justin quotes other\nparticulars known to have been in it, there is fair reason to suppose\nthat he likewise found this fact in that work.(2) In any case it\nis indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our\ncanonical Gospels.(3)\n\nJustin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the shepherds\nof the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, narrated in the third\nGospel.(4)\n\nTo the cave in which the infant Jesus is born came the Magi, but\ninstead of employing the phrase used by the first Gospel, \"Magi from the\nEast,\"(5) [--Greek--] Justin always describes them as \"Magi from Arabia,\"\n[--Greek--]. Justin is so punctilious that he\n\n{313}\n\nnever speaks of these Magi without adding \"from Arabia,\" except twice,\nwhere, however, he immediately mentions Arabia as the point of the\nargument for which they are introduced; and in the same chapter in which\nthis occurs he four times calls them directly Magi from Arabia.(1)\nHe uses this expression not less than nine times.(2) That he had no\nobjection to the term \"the East,\" and that with a different context it\nwas common to his vocabulary, is proved by his use of it elsewhere.(3)\nIt is impossible to resist the conviction that Justin's Memoirs\ncontained the phrase \"Magi from Arabia,\" which is foreign to our\nGospels.(4)\n\nAgain, according to Justin, the Magi see the star \"in heaven\"\n[--Greek--],(5) and not \"in the East\" [--Greek--] as the first Gospel has\nit:(6) \"When a star rose in heaven [--Greek--] at the time of his birth\nas is recorded in the Memoirs of the Apostle.\"(7) He apparently knows\nnothing of the star guiding them to the place where the young child\nwas.(8) Herod, moreover, questions the elders [--Greek--](9) as to the\nplace where the Christ should be born, and not the \"chief priests\nand scribes of the people\" [--Greek--].(10) These divergences, taken in\nconnection with those which are interwoven with the whole narrative\nof the birth, can only proceed from the fact that Justin quotes from a\nsource different from ours.(11)\n\nJustin relates that when Jesus came to Jordan he was\n\n{314}\n\nbelieved to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and he appeared without\ncomeliness, as the Scriptures announced; \"and being considered a\ncarpenter,--for, when he was amongst men, he made carpenter's works,\nploughs and yokes [--Greek--]; by these both teaching the symbols of\nrighteousness and an active life.\"(1) These details are foreign to the\ncanonical Gospels. Mark has the expression: \"Is not this the carpenter,\nthe son of Mary? \"(2) but Luke omits it altogether.(3) The idea that the\nSon of God should do carpenter's work on earth was very displeasing to\nmany Christians, and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are\nevident in Mark. Apparently the copy which Origen used had omitted\neven the modified phrase, for he declares that Jesus himself is nowhere\ncalled a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church.(4) A few\nMSS. still extant are without it, although it is found in all the more\nancient Codices.\n\nTraces of these details are found in several apocryphal works,\nespecially in the Gospel of Thomas, where it is said: \"Now his father\nwas a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and yokes\" [--Greek--](5), an\naccount which, from the similarity of language, was in all\n\n{315}\n\nprobability derived from the same source as that of Justin. The\nexplanation which Justin adds: \"by which he taught the symbols of\nrighteousness and an active life,\" seems to indicate that he refers to a\nwritten narrative containing the detail, already, perhaps, falling into\nsufficient disfavour to require the aid of symbolical interpretation.\nIn the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities which prove\nthat Justin did not derive it from our Gospels. Thrice he speaks of\nJohn sitting by the river Jordan: \"He cried as he sat by the river\nJordan;\"(1( \"While he still sat by the river Jordan;\"(2) and \"For when\nJohn sat by the Jordan.\"(3) This peculiar expression so frequently\nrepeated must have been derived from a written Gospel.(4) Then Justin,\nin proving that Jesus predicted his second coming and the re-appearance\nof Elijah, states: \"And therefore our Lord in his teaching announced\nthat this should take place, saying Elias also should come\" [--Greek--].\nA little lower down he again expressly quotes the words of Jesus: \"For\nwhich reason our Christ declared on earth to those who asserted\nthat Elias must come before Christ: Elias, indeed, shall come,\" &c.\n[--Greek--].(5)\n\nMatthew, however, reads: \"Elias indeed cometh,\" [--Greek--].(6) Now there\nis no version in which [--Greek--] is substituted for [--Greek--] as Justin\ndoes, but, as Credner has pointed out,(7) the whole weight of Justin's\nargument lies in the use of the future tense. As there are so many other\nvariations\n\n{316}\n\nin Justin's context, this likewise appears to be derived from a source\ndifferent from our Gospels.(1)\n\nWhen Jesus goes to be baptized by John many-striking peculiarities occur\nin Justin's narrative: \"As Jesus went down to the water, a fire also\nwas kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy\nSpirit like a dove fell upon him, as the apostles of this very Christ of\nours wrote... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens... Thou\nart my son, this day have I begotten thee.\"(2)\n\nThe incident of the fire in Jordan is of course quite foreign to our\nGospels, and further the words spoken by the heavenly voice differ from\nthose reported by them, for instead of the passage from Psalm ii. 7, the\nGospels have: \"Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased.\"(3)\nJustin repeats his version a second time in the same chapter, and again\nelsewhere he says regarding the temptation: \"For this devil also at\nthe time when he (Jesus) went up from the river Jordan, when the voice\ndeclared to him: 'Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee,' it\nis written in the Memoirs of the Apostles, came to him and tempted him,\"\n&c.(4)\n\nIn both of these passages, it will be perceived that Justin directly\nrefers to the Memoirs of the Apostles as the source of his statements.\nSome have argued that\n\n{317}\n\nJustin only appeals to them for the fact of the descent of the Holy\nGhost, and not for the rest of the narrative.(1) It has of course been\nfelt that, if it can be shown that Justin quotes from the Memoirs words\nand circumstances which are not to be found in our canonical Gospels,\nthe identity of the two can no longer be maintained. It is, however, in\nthe highest degree arbitrary to affirm that Justin intends to limit his\nappeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence.\nTo quote authority for one assertion and to leave another in the same\nsentence, closely connected with it and part indeed of the very\nsame narrative, not only unsupported, but indeed weakened by direct\nexclusion, would indeed be singular, for Justin affirms with equal\ndirectness and confidence the fact of the fire in Jordan, the descent\nof the Holy Ghost, and the words spoken by the heavenly voice. If in\nthe strictest grammatical accuracy there may be no absolute necessity\nto include in that which the Apostles wrote more than the phrase\nimmediately preceding, there is not, on the other hand, anything which\nrequires or warrants the exclusion of the former part of the sentence.\nThe matter must therefore be decided according to fair inference and\nreasonable probability, and not to suit any foregone conclusion, and\nthese as well as all the evidence concerning Justin's use of the Memoirs\nirresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole passage is derived\nfrom one source. In the second extract given above, it is perfectly\nclear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice, which Justin again\nquotes, and which are not in our Gospels, were recorded in the Memoirs,\nfor Justin could\n\n{318}\n\nnot have referred to them for an account of the temptation at the time\nwhen Jesus went up from Jordan and the voice said to him: \"Thou art my\nson; this day have I begotten thee,\" if these facts and words were not\nrecorded in them at all.(1) It is impossible to doubt, after impartial\nconsideration, that the incident of the fire in Jordan, the words spoken\nby the voice from heaven, and the temptation were taken from the same\nsource: they must collectively be referred to the Memoirs.(2)\n\nOf one thing we may be sure: had Justin known the form of words used by\nthe voice from heaven according to our Gospels, he would certainly have\nmade use of it in preference to that which he actually found in his\nMemoirs. He is arguing that Christ is preexisting God, become incarnate\nby God's will through the Virgin Mary, and Trypho demands how he can be\ndemonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is said to be filled with\nthe power of the Holy Ghost, as though he had required this, Justin\nreplies that these powers of the Spirit have come upon him not because\nhe had need of them, but because they would accomplish Scripture, which\ndeclared that after him there should be no prophet.(3) The proof of\nthis, he continues, is that, as soon as the child was born, the Magi\nfrom Arabia came to worship him, because even at his birth he was in\npossession of his power,(4) and after he had grown up like other men by\nthe use of suitable means, he came to\n\n{319}\n\nthe river Jordan where John was baptizing, and as he went into the water\na fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the Holy Ghost descended like a\ndove. He did not go to the river because he had any need of baptism or\nof the descent of the Spirit, but because of the human race which had\nfallen under the power of death. Now if, instead of the passage actually\ncited, Justin could have quoted the words addressed to Jesus by the\nvoice from heaven according to the Gospels: \"Thou art my beloved son;\nin thee I am well pleased,\" his argument would have been greatly\nstrengthened by such direct recognition of an already existing, and, as\nhe affirmed, pre-existent divinity in Jesus. Not having these words in\nhis Memoirs of the Apostles, however, he was obliged to be content with\nthose which he found there: \"Thou art my son; this day have I begotten\nthee;\"--words which, in fact, in themselves destroyed the argument for\npre-existence, and dated the divine begetting of Jesus as the son of\nGod that very day. The passage, indeed, supported those who actually\nasserted that the Holy Ghost first entered into Jesus at his baptism.\nThese considerations, and the repeated quotation of the same words in\nthe same form, make it clear that Justin quotes from a source different\nfrom our Gospel.(1)\n\nIn the scanty fragments of the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews\" which\nhave been preserved, we find both the incident of the fire kindled in\nJordan and the words\n\n{320}\n\nof the heavenly voice as quoted by Justin. \"And as he went up from the\nwater, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the\nform of a dove which came down and entered into him. And a voice\ncame from heaven saying: 'Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well\npleased;' and again: 'This day have I begotten thee.' And immediately\na great light shone round about the place.\"(1) Epiphanius extracts this\npassage from the version in use amongst the Ebionites, but it is well\nknown that there were many other varying forms of the same Gospel; and\nHilgenfeld,(2) with all probability, conjectures that the version known\nto Epiphanius was no longer in the same purity as that used by Justin,\nbut represents the transition stage to the Canonical Gospels,--adopting\nthe words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the older\nform. Jerome gives another form of the words from the version in use\namongst the Nazarenes: \"Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de\naqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum, et\ndixit illi: Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis expectabam te ut venires\net requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus\nprimo-genitus qui regnas in sempiternum.\"(3) This supports Justin's\nreading. Regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews more must be said\nhereafter, but when it is remembered that Justin, a native of Samaria,\nprobably first knew Christianity through believers in Syria to whose\nJewish view of Christianity he all his\n\n{321}\n\nlife adhered, and that these Christians almost exclusively used this\nGospel(1) under various forms and names, it is reasonable to suppose\nthat he also like them knew and made use of it, a supposition increased\nalmost to certainty when it is found that Justin quotes words and facts\nforeign to the Canonical Gospels which are known to have been contained\nin it. The argument of Justin that Jesus did not need baptism may also\nbe compared to another passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews\npreserved by Jerome, and which preceded the circumstances narrated\nabove, in which the mother and brethren of Jesus say to him that John\nthe Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins, and propose that\nthey should go to be baptized by him. Jesus replies, \"In what way have\nI sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?\"(2) The most competent\ncritics agree that Justin derived the incidents of the fire in Jordan\nand the words spoken by the heavenly voice from the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews or some kindred work,(3) and there is every probability that\nthe numerous other quotations in his works differing from our Gospels\nare taken from the same source.\n\nThe incident of the fire in Jordan likewise occurs in the ancient work\n\"Praedicatio Pauli,\"(4) coupled with a\n\n{322}\n\ncontext which forcibly recalls the passage of the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, which has just been quoted, and apparent allusions to it\nare found in the Sibylline Books and early Christian literature.(1)\nCredner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or\nlights at Baptism by the Church, during early times, probably rose out\nof this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in Jordan at the\nbaptism of Jesus.(2) The peculiar form of words used by the heavenly\nvoice according to Justin and to the Gospel according to the Hebrews was\nalso known to several of the Fathers.(3) Augustine mentions that some\nMSS. in his time contained that reading in Luke iii. 22, although\nwithout the confirmation of more ancient Greek codices.(4) It is still\nextant in the Codex Bezae (D). The Itala version adds to Matthew iii. 15:\n\"and when he was baptized a great light shone round from the water, so\nthat all who had come were afraid\" (et cum baptizaretur, lumen ingens\ncircumfulsit de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant); and again\nat Luke iii. 22 it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing\nat least in sense with those which Justin found in his Memoirs of the\nApostles.\n\n{323}\n\nThese circumstances point with certainty to an earlier original\ncorresponding with Justin, in all probability the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the passage\nfrom the Gospels finally adopted by the Church for dogmatic reasons, as\nvarious sects based on the words doctrines which were at variance with\nthe ever-enlarging belief of the majority.(1)\n\nThen Justin states that the men of his time asserted that the miracles\nof Jesus were performed by magical art [--Greek--], \"for they ventured\nto call him a magician and deceiver of the people.\"(2) This cannot be\naccepted as a mere version of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by\nBeelzebub, but must have been found by Justin in his Memoirs.(3) In the\nGospel of Nicodemus or Acta Pilati, the Jews accuse Jesus before Pilate\nof being a magician,(4) coupled with the assertion that he casts out\ndemons through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and again they simply\nsay: \"Did we not tell thee that he is a magician?\"(5) We shall presently\nsee that Justin actually refers to certain acts of Pontius Pilate in\njustification of other assertions regarding the trial of Jesus.(6) In\nthe Clementine Recognitions, moreover, the same charge is made by one\nof the Scribes, who says that Jesus did not perform his miracles as a\nprophet, but as a magician.(7)\n\n{324}\n\nOelsus makes a similar charge,(1) and Lactantius refers to such an\nopinion as prevalent among the Jews at the time of Jesus,(2) which we\nfind confirmed by many passages in Talmudic literature.(3) There was\nindeed a book called \"Magia Jesu Christi,\" of which Jesus himself, it\nwas pretended, was the author.(4)\n\nIn speaking of the trial of Jesus, Justin says: \"For also as the prophet\nsaith, they reviled him and set him on the judgment seat and said: Judge\nfor us,\"(5) a peculiarity which is not found in the Canonical Gospels.\nJustin had just quoted the words of Isaiah (lxv. 2, lviii. 2)... \"They\nnow ask of me judgment and dare to draw nigh to God,\" and then he cites\nPsalm xxii. 16, 22: \"They pierced my hands and my feet, and upon my\nvesture they cast lots.\" He says that this did not happen to David, but\nwas fulfilled in Christ, and the expression regarding the piercing the\nhands and feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven\nthrough his hands and feet. And after he was crucified they cast lots\nupon his vesture. \"And that these things occurred,\" he continues, \"you\nmay learn from the Acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate.\"(6) He likewise\nupon another occasion refers to the same Acta for confirmation of\nstatements.(7) The Gospel of Nicodemus or Gesta\n\n{325}\n\nPilati, now extant, does not contain the circumstance to which we are\nnow referring, but in contradiction to the statement in the fourth\nGospel (xviii. 28, 29) the Jews in this apocryphal work freely go into\nthe very judgment seat of Pilate.(1) Teschendorf maintains that the\nfirst part of the Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acta Pilati, still extant,\nis the work, with more or less of interpolation, which, existing in the\nsecond century, is referred to by Justin.(2) A few reasons may here be\ngiven against such a conclusion. The fact of Jesus being set upon the\njudgment seat is not contained in the extant Acta Pilati at all, and\ntherefore this work does not correspond with Justin's statement. It\nseems most unreasonable to suppose that Justin should seriously refer\nRoman Emperors to a work of this description, so manifestly composed\nby a Christian, and the Acta to which he directs them must have been a\npresumed official document, to which they had access, as of course no\nother evidence could be of any weight with them.(3) The extant work\nneither pretends to be, nor has in the slightest degree the form of, an\nofficial report. Moreover, the prologue attached to it distinctly states\nthat Ananias, a provincial warden in the reign of Flavius Theodosius\n(towards the middle of the fifth century), found these Acts written in\nHebrew by Nicodemus, and that he translated them into Greek.(4) The work\nitself, therefore, only pretends to be a private composition in Hebrew,\nand does not claim any relation to Pontius Pilate. The Greek is very\ncorrupt and\n\n{326}\n\ndegraded, and considerations of style alone would assign it to the fifth\ncentury, as would still more imperatively the anachronisms with which it\nabounds.1 Tischendorf considers that Tertullian refers to the same work\nas Justin, but it is evident that he infers an official report, for he\nsays distinctly, after narrating the circumstances of the crucifixion\nand resurrection: \"All these facts regarding Christ, Pilate.... reported\nto the reigning Emperor Tiberius.\"(3) It is extremely probable that\nin saying this Tertullian merely extended the statement of Justin. He\nnowhere states that he himself had seen this report, nor does Justin,\nand as is the case with the latter, some of the facts which Tertullian\nsupposes to be reported by Pilate are not contained in the apocryphal\nwork.(3) There are still extant some apocryphal writings in the form\nof official reports made by Pilate of the trial, crucifixion, and\nresurrection of Jesus,(4) but none are of very ancient date. It is\ncertain that, on the supposition that Pilate may have made an official\nreport of events so important in their estimation, Christian writers;\nwith greater zeal than conscience, composed fictitious reports in his\nname, in the supposed interest of their religion, and there was in that\nday little or no critical sense to detect and discredit such forgeries.\nThere is absolutely no evidence to show that Justin was acquainted with\nany official report of Pilate to the Roman Emperor, nor indeed is it\neasy to understand how he could possibly have been, even if such a\ndocument existed, and it is most probable, as\n\n{327}\n\nScholten conjectures, that Justin merely referred to documents which\ntradition supposed to have been written, but of which he himself had no\npersonal knowledge.(1) Be this as it may, as he considered the incident\nof the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy, there can be little or\nno doubt that it was narrated in the Memoirs which contained \"everything\nrelating to Jesus Christ,\" and finding it there he all the more\nnaturally assumed that it must have been mentioned in any official\nreport.\n\nIn narrating the agony in the Garden, there are further variations.\nJustin says: \"And the passage: 'All my bones are poured out and\ndispersed like water; my heart has become like wax melting in the midst\nof my belly,' was a prediction of that which occurred to him that night\nwhen they came out against him to the Mount of Olives to seize him. For\nin the Memoirs composed, I say, by his Apostles and their followers, it\nis recorded that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed, saying:\n'If possible, let this cup pass.'\"(2) It will be observed that this is\na direct quotation from the Memoirs, but there is a material difference\nfrom our Gospels. Luke is the only Gospel which mentions the bloody\nsweat, and there the account reads (xxii. 44), \"as it were drops of\nblood falling down to the ground.\"\n\n[--Greek--]\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nIn addition to the other linguistic differences Justin omits the\nemphatic [--Greek--] which gives the whole point to Luke's account, and\nwhich evidently could not have been in the text of the Memoirs. Semisch\nargues that [--Greek--] alone, especially in medical phraseology, meant\n\n{328}\n\n\"drops of blood,\" without the addition of [--Greek--];(l) but the author of\nthe third Gospel did not think so, and undeniably makes use of both, and\nJustin does not. Moreover, Luke introduces the expression [--Greek--] to\nshow the intensity of the agony, whereas Justin evidently did not mean\nto express \"drops of blood\" at all, his intention in referring to the\nsweat being to show that the prophecy: \"All my bones are poured out, &c,\nlike water,\" had been fulfilled, with which the reading in his Memoirs\nmore closely corresponded. The prayer also so directly quoted decidedly\nvaries from Luke xxii. 42, which reads: \"Father, if thou be willing to\nremove this cup from me \":\n\n[--Greek--]\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nIn Matthew xxvi. 39 this part of the prayer is more like the reading of\nJustin: \"Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me \"--[--Greek--]\nbut that Gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony, which excludes it\nfrom consideration. In another place Justin also quotes the prayer in\nthe Garden as follows: \"He prayed, saying: 'Father, if it be possible,\nlet this cup pass from me;' and besides this, praying, he said: 'Not as\nI wish, but as thou willest.'\"(2) The first phrase in this place, apart\nfrom some transposition of words, agrees with Matthew; but even if this\nreading be preferred of the two, the absence of the incident of the\nsweat of agony from the first Gospel renders it impossible to regard it\nas the source; and, further, the second part of the prayer which is here\n\n{329}\n\ngiven differs materially both from the first and third Gospels.\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nThe two parts of this prayer, moreover, seem to have been separate in\nthe Memoirs, for not only does Justin not quote the latter portion\nat all in Dial. 103, but here he markedly divides it from the former.\nJustin knows nothing of the episode of the Angel who strengthens Jesus,\nwhich is related in Luke xxii. 43. There is, however, a still more\nimportant point to mention: that although verses 43, 44 with the\nincidents of the angel and the bloody sweat are certainly in a great\nnumber of MSS., they are omitted by some of the oldest Codices, as for\ninstance by the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS.(1) It is evident that in\nthis part Justin's Memoirs differed from our first and third Gospels\nmuch in the same way that they do from each other.\n\nIn the same chapter Justin states that when the Jews went out to the\nMount of Olives to take Jesus, \"there was not even a single man to run\nto his help as a guiltless person.\"(2) This is in direct contradiction\nto all the Gospels,(3) and Justin not only completely ignores the\nepisode of the ear of Malchus, but in this passage\n\n     1  In the Sinaitic Codex they are marked for omission by a\n     later hand. Lachmann brackets, and Drs. Westcott and Hort\n     double-bracket them. The MS. evidence may bo found in detail\n     in Scrivener's Int. to Crit. N. T. 2nd ed. p. 521, stated in\n     the way which is most favourable for the authenticity.\n\n{330}\n\nexcludes it, and his Gospel could not have contained it.(1) Luke is\nspecially marked in generalizing the resistance of those about Jesus to\nhis capture: \"When they which were about him saw what would follow, they\nsaid unto him: Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And a certain one of\nthem smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.\"(2)\nAs this episode follows immediately after the incident of the bloody\nsweat and prayer in the Garden, and the statement of Justin occurs in\nthe very same chapter in which he refers to them, this contradiction\nfurther tends to confirm the conclusion that Justin employed a different\nGospel.\n\nIt is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that Justin states\nthat, \"after he (Jesus) was crucified, all his friends (the Apostles)\nstood aloof from him, having denied him(3).... (who, after he rose\nfrom the dead, and after they were convinced by himself that before his\npassion he had told them that he must suffer these things, and that they\nwere foretold by the prophets, repented of their flight from him when he\nwas crucified), and while remaining among them he sang praises to\nGod, as is made evident in the Memoirs of the Apostles.\"(4) Justin,\ntherefore, repeatedly asserts that _after_ the crucifixion all the\nApostles forsook him, and he extends the denial of Peter\n\n{331}\n\nto the whole of the twelve. It is impossible to consider this distinct\nand reiterated affirmation a mere extension of the passage: \"they\nall forsook him and fled \"[--Greek--],(1) when Jesus was arrested, which\nproceeded mainly from momentary fear.(2) Justin seems to indicate\nthat the disciples withdrew from and denied Jesus when they saw him\ncrucified, from doubts which consequently arose as to his Messianic\ncharacter. Now, on the contrary, the Canonical Gospels represent the\ndisciples as being together after the Crucifixion.(3) Justin does not\nexhibit any knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the\nsepulchre as to Christ's having foretold all that had happened,(4) but\nmakes this proceed from Jesus himself. Indeed, he makes no mention of\nthese angels at all.\n\nThere are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples were\noffended after the Crucifixion.(5) Hilgenfeld points out the appearance\nof special Petrine tendency in this passage, in the fact that it is not\nPeter alone, but all the Apostles, who are said to deny their master;\nand he suggests that an indication of the source from which Justin\nquoted may be obtained from the kindred quotation in the Epistle to the\nSmyrnaeans (iii.) by pseudo-Ignatius:\n\n\"For I know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and\nI believe that he is so now. And when he came to those that were with\nPeter, he said to them: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am\n\n{332}\n\nnot an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched him and\nbelieved, being convinced by his flesh and spirit.\" Jerome, it will be\nremembered, found this in the Gospel according to the Hebrews used by\nthe Nazarenes, which he translated,(1) from which we have seen that\nJustin in all probability derived other particulars differing from the\nCanonical Gospels, and with which we shall constantly meet, in a similar\nway, in examining Justin's quotations. Origen also found it in a work\ncalled the \"Doctrine of Peter\" [--Greek--],(2) which must have been akin to\nthe \"Preaching of Peter\" [--Greek--].(3) Hilgenfeld suggests that, in the\nabsence of more certain information, there is no more probable source\nfrom which Justin may have derived his statement than the Gospel\naccording to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is\nknown to have contained so much in the same spirit.(4)\n\nIt may well be expected that, at least in touching such serious matters\nas the Crucifixion and last words of Jesus, Justin must adhere with care\nto authentic records, and not fall into the faults of loose quotation\nfrom memory, free handling of texts, and careless omissions and\nadditions, by which those who maintain the identity of the Memoirs\nwith the Canonical Gospels seek to explain the systematic variations of\nJustin's quotations from the text of the latter. It will, however, be\nfound that here also marked discrepancies occur. Justin says, after\nreferring to numerous prophecies regarding the treatment of Christ: \"And\nagain, when he says: 'They spake with their lips, they wagged the head,\nsaying: Let him\n\n{333}\n\ndeliver himself.' That all these things happened to the Christ from the\nJews, you can ascertain. For when he was being crucified they shot out\nthe lips, and wagged their heads, saying: 'Let him who raised the dead\ndeliver himself.'\"(1) And in another place, referring to the same Psalm\n(xxii.) as a prediction of what was to happen to Jesus, Justin says:\n\"For they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of\nthem, and distorted [--Greek--] their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful\nirony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in\nthe Memoirs of his Apostles: He declared himself the Son of God; (let\nhim) come down, let him walk about; let God save him.\"(2) In both\nof these passages Justin directly appeals to written authority. The\n[--Greek--] may leave the source of the first uncertain,(3) but the second\nis distinctly stated to contain the actual words \"written in the Memoirs\nof his Apostles,\" and it seems reasonable to suppose that the former\npassage is also derived from them. It is scarcely necessary to add that\nboth differ very materially from the Canonical Gospels.(4) The taunt\n\n     4  Canon Westcott admits that in the latter passage Justin\n     does profess to give the exact words which were recorded in\n     the Memoirs, and that they are not to be found in our\n     Gospels; \"but,\" he apologetically adds, \"we do find these\n     others so closely connected with them that few readers would\n     feel the difference\"! This is a specimen of apologetic\n     criticism. Dr. Westcott goes on to say that as no MS. or\n     Father known to him has preserved any reading more closely\n     resembling Justin's, \"if it appear not to be deducible from\n     our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which\n     he had in view, its source) must remain concealed.\" On the\n     Canon, p. 114 f. Cf. Matt, xxvii. 39--43; Mark xv. 29--32;\n     Luke xxiii. 34--37.\n\n{334}\n\ncontained in the first of these passages is altogether peculiar to\nJustin: \"Let him who raised the dead deliver himself\" [--Greek--];(1) and\neven if Justin did not himself indicate a written source, it would\nnot be reasonable to suppose that he should himself for the first time\nrecord words to which he refers as the fulfilment of prophecy.(2) It\nwould be still more ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty\npresented by such a variation by attributing the words to tradition, at\nthe same time that it is asserted that Justin's Memoirs were actually\nidentical with the Gospels. No aberration of memory could account\nfor such a variation, and it is impossible that Justin should prefer\ntradition regarding a form of words, so liable to error and alteration,\nwith written Gospels within his reach. Besides, to argue that Justin\naffirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained [--Greek--],\nwhilst the words which he states to have been spoken were not actually\nrecorded, would be against all reason.\n\nThe second of the mocking speeches (3) of the lookers-on is referred\ndistinctly to the Memoirs of the Apostles, but is also, with the\naccompanying description, foreign\n\n     1 The nearest parallel in our Gospels is in Luke xxiii. 35.\n     \"He saved others, let him save himself if this man be the\n     Christ of God, his chosen.\"    [--Greek--]\n\n     3  Semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same\n     sentence, and that there is consequently a contradiction in\n     the very quotations themselves; but there can be no doubt\n     whatever that the two phrases are distinct parts of the\n     mockery, and the very same separation and variation occur in\n     each of the Canonical Gospels. Die ap. Denkw. Mart. Just.,\n     p. 282; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 244.\n\n{335}\n\nto our Gospels. The nearest approach to it occurs in our first Gospel,\nand we subjoin both passages for comparison:\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nIt is evident that Justin's version is quite distinct from this, and\ncannot have been taken from our Gospels,(2) although professedly derived\nfrom the Memoirs of the Apostles.\n\nJustin likewise mentions the cry of Jesus on the Cross, \"O God, my God,\nwhy hast thou forsaken me?\" [--Greek--];(3) as a fulfilment of the words\nof the Psalm, which he quotes here, and elsewhere,(4) with the peculiar\naddition of the Septuagint version, \"attend to me\" [--Greek--], which,\nhowever, he omits when giving the cry of Jesus, thereby showing that he\nfollows a written source which did not contain it, for the quotation of\nthe Psalm, and of\n\n{336}\n\nthe cry which is cited to show that it refers to Christ, immediately\nfollow each other. He apparently knows nothing whatever of the Chaldaic\ncry, \"Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani\" of the Gospels.(1) The first and second\nGospels give the words of the cry from the Chaldaic differently from\nJustin, from the version of the LXX., and from each other. Matthew\nxxvii. 46, [--Greek--] the third Gospel makes no mention at all of this\ncry, but instead has one altogether foreign to the other Gospels:\n\"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said: Father, into thy hands I\ncommend my spirit: and having said this, he expired.\"(2) Justin has this\ncry also, and in the same form as the third Gospel. He says: \"For when\nhe (Jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross, he said: 'Father,\ninto thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have also learned from the\nMemoirs.\"(3) Justin's Gospel, therefore, contained both cries, and as\neven the first two Synoptics mention a second cry of Jesus(4) without,\nhowever, giving the words, it is not surprising that other Gospels\nshould have existed which included both. Even if we had no trace of this\ncry in any other ancient work, there would be no ground for asserting\nthat Justin must have derived it from the third Gospel, for if there\nbe any historical truth in the statement that these words were actually\nspoken by Jesus, it follows of course that they may have been, and\nprobably were, reported in a dozen Christian writings now\n\n{337}\n\nno longer extent, and in all probability they existed in some of the\nmany works referred to in the prologue to the third Gospel. Both cries,\nhowever, are given in the Gospel of Nieodemus, or Gesta Pilati, to which\nreference has already so frequently been made. In the Greek versions\nedited by Teschendorf we find only the form contained in Luke. In the\nCodex A, the passage reads: \"And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said:\nFather, Baddach ephkid rouchi, that is, interpreted: 'into thy hands I\ncommend my spirit;' and having said this he gave up the ghost.\"(l) In\nthe Codex B, the text is: \"Then Jesus having called out with a loud\nvoice: 'Father, into thy hands will I commend my spirit,' expired.\"(2)\nIn the ancient Latin version, however, both cries are given: \"And about\nthe ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Hely, Hely,\nlama zabacthani, which interpreted is: 'My God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me.' And after this, Jesus said: 'Father, into thy hands I\ncommend my spirit': and saying this, he gave up the ghost.\"(3)\n\nOne of the Codices of the same apocryphal work likewise gives the\ntaunting speeches of the Jews in a form more nearly approaching that of\nJustin's Memoirs\n\n{338}\n\nthan any found in our Gospels. \"And the Jews that stood and looked\nridiculed him, and said: If thou saidst truly that thou art the Son of\nGod, come down from the cross, and at once, that we may believe in thee.\nOthers ridiculing, said: He saved others, he healed others, and restored\nthe sick, the paralytic, lepers, demoniacs, the blind, the lame, the\ndead, and himself he cannot heal.\"(1) The fact that Justin actually\nrefers to certain Acta Pilati in connection with the Crucifixion renders\nthis coincidence all the more important. Other texts of this Gospel\nread: \"And the Chief Priests, and the rulers with them, derided him,\nsaying: He saved others, let him save himself; if he is the Son of God,\nlet him come down from the cross.\"(2)\n\nIt is clear from the whole of Justin's treatment of the narrative, that\nhe followed a Gospel adhering more closely than the Canonical to the\nPsalm xxii., but yet with peculiar variations from it. Our Gospels\ndiffer very much from each other; Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles\nin like manner differed from them. It had its characteristic features\nclearly and sharply defined. In this way his systematic variations are\nnatural and perfectly intelligible, but they become totally inexplicable\nif it be supposed that, having our Gospels for his source, he thus\n\n     2 Ev. Niood., Pars. I. A. x.; Tischendorf Ev. Apocr., p.\n     232; cf. Thilo. Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 584; Fabricius, Cod.\n     Apocr. N. T., i. p. 259; Tiachendorf ib., p. 340. There are\n     differences between all these texts--indeed there are\n     scarcely two MSS. which agree--clearly indicating that wo\n     have now nothing but corrupt versions of a more ancient\n     text.\n\n{339}\n\npersistently and in so arbitrary a way ignored, modified, or\ncontradicted their statements.\n\nUpon two occasions Justin distinctly states that the Jews sent persons\nthroughout the world to spread calumnies against Christians. \"When you\nknew that he had risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the\nprophets had foretold, not only did you (the Jews) not repent of the\nwickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and\nsent forth from Jerusalem throughout the land chosen men, saying that\nthe atheistic heresy of the Christians had arisen/' &c.(1).... \"from\na certain Jesus, a Galilrean impostor, whom we crucified, but his\ndisciples stole him by night from the tomb where he had been laid when\nhe was unloosed from the cross, and they now deceive men, saying that he\nhas risen from the dead and ascended into heaven.\"(2) This circumstance\nis not mentioned by our Gospels, but, reiterated twice by Justin in\nalmost the same words, it was in all probability contained in the\nMemoirs. Eusebius quotes the passage from Justin, without comment,\nevidently on account of the information which it conveyed.\n\nThese instances, which, although far from complete, have already\noccupied too much of our space, show that Justin quotes from the Memoirs\nof the Apostles many statements and facts of Gospel history which are\nnot only foreign to our Gospels, but in some cases contradictory to\nthem, whilst the narrative of the most solemn events in the life of\nJesus presents distinct and systematic variations from parallel passages\nin the Synoptic records.\n\n{340}\n\nIt will now be necessary to compare his general quotations from the same\nMemoirs with the Canonical Gospels, and here a very wide field opens\nbefore us. As we have already stated, Justin's works teem with these\nquotations, and to take them all in detail would be impossible within\nthe limits of this work. Such a course, moreover, is unnecessary. It may\nbe broadly stated that even those who maintain the use of the Canonical\nGospels can only point out two or three passages out of this vast array\nwhich verbally agree with them.(1) This extraordinary anomaly--on the\nsupposition that Justin's Memoirs were in fact our Gospels--is, as\nwe have mentioned, explained by the convenient hypothesis that Justin\nquotes imperfectly from memory, interweaves and modifies texts, and in\nshort freely manipulates these Gospels according to his argument.\nEven strained to the uttermost, however, could this be accepted as a\nreasonable explanation of such systematic variation, that only twice or\nthrice out of the vast number of his quotations does he literally agree\nwith passages in them? In order to illustrate the case with absolute\nimpartiality we shall first take the instances brought forward as\nshowing agreement with our Synoptic Gospels.\n\nTeschendorf only cites two passages in support of his affirmation that\nJustin makes use of our first Gospel.(2) It might be supposed that,\nin selecting these, at least two might have been produced literally\nagreeing, but this is\n\n{341}\n\nnot the case, and this may be taken as an illustration of the almost\nuniversal variation of Justin's quotations. The first of Teschendorf s\nexamples is the supposed use of Matthew viii. 11, 12: \"Many shall come\nfrom the east and from the west, and shall sit down,\" &c. [--Greek--]. Now\nthis passage is repeated by Justin no less than three times in three\nvery distinct parts of his Dialogue with Trypho,(1) with a uniform\nvariation from the text of Matthew--_They_ shall come from the _west_\nand from the east,\" &c. &c. [--Greek--](2) That a historical saying of\nJesus\n\nshould be reproduced in many Gospels, and that no particular work can\nhave any prescriptive right to it, must be admitted, so that even if the\npassage in Justin agreed literally with our first Synoptic, it would\nnot afford any proof of the actual use of that Gospel; but when on the\ncontrary Justin upon three several occasions, and at distinct intervals\nof time, repeats the passage with the same persistent variation from the\nreading in Matthew, not only can it not be ascribed to that Gospel, but\nthere is reason to conclude that Justin derived it from another source.\nIt may be added that [--Greek--] is anything but a word uncommon in the\nvocabulary of Justin, and that elsewhere, for instance, he twice quotes\na passage similar to one in Matthew, in which, amongst other variations,\nhe reads \"_Many_ shall come [--Greek--],\" instead of the phrase found in\nthat Gospel.(3)\n\nThe second example adduced by Tischendorf is the supposed quotation of\nMatthew xii. 39; but in order fully\n\n{342}\n\nto comprehend the nature of the affirmation, we quote the context of the\nGospel and of Justin in parallel columns:--\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nNow it is clear that Justin here directly professes to quote from the\nMemoirs, and consequently that accuracy may be expected; but passing\nover the preliminary substitution of \"some of your nation,\" for \"certain\nof the scribes and Pharisees,\" although it recalls the \"some of them,\"\nand \"others,\" by which the parallel passage, otherwise so different,\nis introduced in Luke xi. 15, 16, 29 ff.,(1) the question of the Jews,\nwhich should be literal, is quite different from that of the first\nGospel, whilst there are variations in the reply of Jesus, which, if\nnot so important, are still undeniable. We cannot compare with the first\nGospel the parallel passages in the second and third Gospels without\nrecognizing that other works may have narrated the\n\n{343}\n\nsame episode with similar variations, and whilst the distinct\ndifferences which exist totally exclude the affirmation that Justin\nquotes from Matthew, everything points to the conclusion that he\nmakes use of another source. This is confirmed by another important\ncircumstance. After enlarging during the remainder of the chapter upon\nthe example of the people of Nineveh, Justin commences the next by\nreturning to the answer of Jesus, and making the following statement:\n\"And though all of your nation were acquainted with these things which\noccurred to Jonah, and Christ proclaimed among you, that he would give\nyou the sign of Jonah, exhorting you at least after his resurrection\nfrom the dead to repent of your evil deeds, and like the Ninevites to\nsupplicate God, that your nation and city might not be captured and\ndestroyed as it has been destroyed; yet not only have you not repented\non learning his resurrection from the dead, but as I have already\nsaid,(1) you sent chosen(2) and select men throughout all the world,\nproclaiming that an atheistic and impious heresy had arisen from a\ncertain Jesus, a Galilaean impostor,\" &c. &c.(3) Now not only do our\nGospels not mention this mission, as we have already pointed out,\nbut they do not contain the exhortation to repent at least after the\nresurrection of Jesus here referred to, and which evidently must have\nformed part of the episode in the Memoirs.\n\nTischendorf does not produce any other instances of supposed quotations\nof Justin from Matthew, but rests his case upon these. As these are the\nbest examples apparently which he can point out, we may judge of the\n\n{344}\n\nweakness of his argument. Do Wette divides the quotations of Justin\nwhich may be compared with our first and third Gospels into several\ncategories. Regarding the first class, he says: \"Some agree quite\nliterally, which, however, is seldom: \"(1) and under this head he can\nonly collect three passages of Matthew and refer to one of Luke. Of\nthe three from Matthew the first is that, viii. 11, 12,(2) also brought\nforward by Teschendorf, of which we have already disposed. The second is\nMatt. v. 20: \"For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall\nexceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the\nkingdom of heaven.\" A parallel passage to this exists in Dial. 105, a\nchapter in which there are several quotations not found in our Gospels\nat all, with the exception that the first words, \"For I say unto you\nthat,\" are not in Justin. We shall speak of this passage presently. De\nWette's third passage is Matt. vii. 19: \"Every tree that bringeth not\nforth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire,\" which, with the\nexception of one word, \"but,\" at the commencement of the sentence in\nJustin, also agrees with his quotation.(3) In these two short passages\nthere are no peculiarities specially pointing to the first Gospel\nas their source, and it cannot be too often repeated that the mere\ncoincidence of short historical sayings in two works by no means\nwarrants the conclusion that the one is dependent on the other. In\norder, however, to enable the reader to form a correct estimate of the\nvalue of the similarity of the two passages above noted, and also at the\nsame time to examine a considerable body of evidence, selected with\n\n{315}\n\nevident impartiality, we propose to take all Justin's readings of\nthe Sermon on the Mount, from which the above passages are taken, and\ncompare them with our Gospels. This should furnish a fair test of the\ncomposition of the Memoirs of the Apostles.\n\nTaking first, for the sake of continuity, the first Apology, we find\nthat Chapters xv., xvi., xvii., are composed almost entirely of examples\nof what Jesus himself taught, introduced by the remark with which\nChapter xiv. closes, that: \"Brief and concise sentences were uttered by\nhim, for he was not a sophist, but his word was the power of God.\"(1) It\nmay broadly be affirmed that, with the exception of the few words quoted\nabove by De Wette, not a single quotation of the words of Jesus in\nthese three chapters agrees with the Canonical Gospels. We shall however\nconfine ourselves at present to the Sermon on the Mount. We must mention\nthat Justin's text is quite continuous, except where we have inserted\nasterisks. We subjoin Justin's quotations, together with' the parallel\npassages in our Gospels, side by side, for greater facility of\ncomparison.(2)\n\n     1  [--Greek--] How completely this description contradicts the\n     representation of the fourth Gospel of the discourses of\n     Jesus. It seems clearly to indicate that Justin had no\n     knowledge of that Gospel.\n\n     2  It need not be said that the variations between the\n     quotations of Justin and the text of our Gospels must be\n     looked for only in the Greek. For the sake of the reader\n     unacquainted with Greok, however, we shall endeavour as far\n     as possible to indicate in translation where differences\n     exist, although this cannot of course be fully done, nor\n     often, without being more literal than is desirable. Whore\n     it is not necessary to amend the authorized version of the\n     New Testament for the sake of more closely following the\n     text, and marking differences from Justin, wo shall adopt\n     it. We divide the quotations where desirable by initial\n     letters, in order to assist reference at the end of our\n     quotations from the Sermon on the Mount.\n\n{340}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n     4  Matt. v. 29, 30, it will be remembered, are repeated with\n     some variation and also reversed in order, and with a\n     totally different context, Matt, xviii. 8, 9. The latter\n     verse, the Greek of the concluding part of which we give\n     above, approximates more nearly in form to Justin's, but is\n     still widely different. \"And if thine eye ('right' omitted)\n     offend thee pluck it out and cast it from theo; it is good\n     for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having\n     two eyes to be cast into hell fire.\" The sequence of Matt.\n     v. 28, 29, points specially to it. The double occurrence of\n     this passage, however, with a different context, and with\n     the order reversed in Matthew, renders it almost certain\n     that the two passages A. and B. were separate in the\n     Memoirs. The reading of Mark ix. 47, is equally distinct\n     from Justin's: And if thine eye offend thee cast it out\n     [--Greek--]; it is good for thee [--Greek--] to enter into the kingdom\n     of God [--Greek--] with one eye rather than having two eyes to\n     be cast into hell, [--Greek--]\n\n{347}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{348}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n     1  In the first Gospel the subject breaks off at the end of\n     v. 42. v. 40 may be compared with Justin's continuation, but\n     it is fundamentally different. The parallel passages in Luke\n     vi. 30, 34, present still greater variations. We have given\n     vi. 34 above, as nearer Justin than Matt. v. 46. It will be\n     remarked that to find a parallel for Justin's continuation,\n     without break, of the subject, we must jump from Matt. v.\n     42, 46, to vi. 19, 20.\n\n{349}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n1 This phrase, it will bo observed, is also introduced higher up in the\npassage, and its repetition in such a manner, with the same variations,\nemphatically demonstrates the unity of the whole quotation.\n\n2 There is no parallel to this in the first Gospel. Matt. v. 48, is too\nremote in sense as well as language.\n\n3 The first part of v. 45 is quite different from the context in Justin:\n\"That ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh,\"\n&c, &c.\n\n{350}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{351}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{352}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{353}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{354}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{355}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n{356}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\n\n{357}\n\n[---Greek---]\n\nWe have taken the whole of Justin's quotations from the Sermon on\nthe Mount not only because, adopting so large a test, there can be no\nsuspicion that we select passages for any special purpose, but also\nbecause, on the contrary, amongst these quotations are more of the\npassages claimed as showing the use of our Gospels than any series which\ncould have been selected. It will have been observed that most of the\npassages follow each other in unbroken sequence in Justin, for with the\nexception of a short break between y and 8 the whole extract down to the\nend of 0 is continuous, as indeed, after another brief interruption at\nthe end of i, it is again to the close of the very long and remarkable\npassage k. With two exceptions, therefore, the whole of these quotations\nfrom the Sermon on the Mount occur consecutively in two succeeding\nchapters of Justin's first Apology, and one passage follows in the next\nchapter. Only a single passage comes from a distant part of the dialogue\nwith Trypho. These passages are bound together by clear unity of idea\nand context, and as, where there is a separation of sentences in his\nGospel, Justin clearly marks it by [--Greek--], there is every reason\nto decide that those quotations which are continuous in form and in\nargument were likewise consecutive in the Memoirs. Now the hypothesis\nthat these quotations are from the\n\n{358}\n\nCanonical Gospels requires the assumption of the fact that Justin, with\nsingular care, collected from distant and scattered portions of those\nGospels a series of passages in close sequence to each other, forming a\nwhole unknown to them but complete in itself, and yet, although this\nis carefully performed, he at the same time with the most systematic\ncarelessness misquoted and materially altered almost every precept he\nprofesses to cite. The order of the Canonical Gospels is as entirely set\nat naught as their language is disregarded. As Hilgenfeld has pointed\nout, throughout the whole of this portion of his quotations the\nundeniable endeavour after accuracy, on the one hand, is in the most\nglaring contradiction with the monstrous carelessness on the other, if\nit be supposed that our Gospels are the source from which Justin quotes.\nNothing is more improbable than the conjecture that he made use of the\nCanonical Gospels, and we must accept the conclusion that Justin quotes\nwith substantial correctness the expressions in the order in which he\nfound them in his peculiar Gospel.(1)\n\nIt is a most arbitrary proceeding to dissect a passage, quoted by Justin\nas a consecutive and harmonious whole, and finding parallels more or\nless approximate to its various phrases scattered up and down distant\nparts of our Gospels, scarcely one of which is not materially different\nfrom the reading of Justin, to assert that he is quoting these Gospels\nfreely from memory, altering, excising, combining, and interweaving\ntexts, and introverting their order, but nevertheless making use of them\nand not of others. It is perfectly obvious that such an assertion is\nnothing but the merest assumption. Our Synoptic Gospels themselves\ncondemn\n\n{359}\n\nit utterly, for precisely similar differences of order and language\nexist in them and distinguish between them. Not only the language but\nthe order of a quotation must have its due weight, and we have no right\nto dismember a passage and, discovering fragmentary parallels in various\nparts of the Gospels, to assert that it is compiled from them and not\nderived, as it stands, from another source.(1) As an illustration from\nour Gospels, let us for a moment suppose the \"Gospel according to Luke\"\nto have been lost, like the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews\" and\nso many others. In the works of one of the Fathers, we discover the\nfollowing quotation from an unnamed evangelical work: \"And he said unto\nthem [--Greek--]: The harvest truly is great but the labourers are few:\npray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth\nlabourers into his harvest. Go your ways: [--Greek--] behold I send you\nforth as lambs [--Greek--] in the midst of wolves.\" Following the system\nadopted in regard to Justin, apologetic critics would of course maintain\nthat this was a compilation from memory of passages quoted freely from\nour first Gospel, that is to say Matt. ix. 37. \"Then saith he unto his\ndisciples [--Greek--] the harvest,\" &c, and Matt. x. 16, \"Behold I\n[--Greek--] send you forth as sheep [--Greek--] in the midst of wolves: be\nye therefore,\" &c, which, with the differences which we have indicated,\nagree. It would probably be in vain\n\n     1 For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader may\n     be referred to Canon Westcott's work On the Canon, p. 112--\n     139. Dr. Westcott does not, of course, deny the fact that\n     Justin's quotations are different from the text of our\n     Gospels, but he accounts for his variations ou grounds which\n     seem to us purely imaginary. It is evident that, so long as\n     there are such variations to be explained away, at least no\n     proof of identity is possible.\n\n{360}\n\nto argue that the quotation indicated a continuous order, and the\nvariations combined to confirm the probability of a different source,\nand still more so to point out that, although parts of the quotation\nseparated from their context might to a certain extent correspond with\nscattered verses in the first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof\nthat the quotation was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The\npassage, however, is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2, 3, which, as we\nhave assumed, had been lost.\n\nAgain, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might\nfind the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: \"Take heed to\nyourselves [--Greek--] of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy\n[--Greek--].\n\nFor there is nothing covered up [--Greek--] which shall not be revealed,\nand hid which shall not be known.\" It would of course be affirmed that\nthis was evidently a combination of two verses of our first Gospel\nquoted almost literally, with merely a few very immaterial slips\nof memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory words \"which is\nhypocrisy\" introduced by the Father, and not a part of the quotation at\nall. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6: \"Beware and [--Greek--] take heed of\nthe leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees\" [--Greek--] and Matt. x. 26\n\n.... \"For [--Greek--] there is nothing covered [--Greek--] that shall not be\nrevealed, and hid that shall not be known.\" The sentence would in\nfact be divided as in the case of Justin, and each part would have its\nparallel pointed out in separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such\na system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to\nJustin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation,\n\n{361}\n\ninstead of being such a combination, is simply taken from the Gospel\naccording to Luke xii. 1, 2, as it stands. To give one more example, and\nsuch might easily be multiplied, if our second Gospel had been lost, and\nthe following passage were met with in one of the Fathers without its\nsource being indicated, what would be the argument of those who insist\nthat Justin's quotations, though differing from our Gospels, were yet\ntaken from them? \"If any one have [--Greek--] ears to hear let him hear.\nAnd he said unto them: Take heed what [--Greek--] ye hear: with what\nmeasure ye mete it shall be measured to you: and more shall be given\nunto you. For he [--Greek--] that hath to him shall be given, and he\n[--Greek--] that hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath.\"\nUpon the principle on which Justin's quotations are treated, it would\ncertainly be affirmed positively that this passage was a quotation\nfrom our first and third Gospels combined and made from memory. The\nexigencies of the occasion might probably cause the assertion to be made\nthat the words: \"And he said to them,\" really indicated a separation of\nthe latter part of the quotation from the preceding, and that the Father\nthus showed that the passage was not consecutive; and as to the phrase:\n\"and more shall be given unto you,\" that it was evidently an addition\nof the Father. The passage would be dissected, and its different\nmembers compared with scattered sentences, and declared almost literal\nquotations from the Canonical Gospels: Matt. xiii. 0. He that hath\n[--Greek--] ears to hear let him hear.\"(l) Luke viii. 18, \"Take heed\ntherefore how [--Greek--] ye hear.\" Matt. vii. 2... \"with what measure ye\n\n{362}\n\nmete it shall be measured to you.\"(1) Matt. xiii. 12: \"For whosoever\n[--Greek--] hath, to him shall be given (and he shall have abundance); but\nwhosoever [--Greek--] hath not from him shall be taken even that which he\nhath.\" a In spite of these ingenious assertions, however, the quotation\nin reality is literally and consecutively taken from Mark iv. 23--25.\n\nThese examples may suffice to show that any argument which commences\nby the assumption that the order of a passage quoted may be entirely\ndisregarded, and that it is sufficient to find parallels scattered\nirregularly up and down the Gospels to warrant the conclusion that the\npassage is compiled from them, and is not a consecutive quotation from\nsome other source, is utterly unfounded and untenable. The supposition\nof a lost Gospel which has just been made to illustrate this argument\nis, however, not a mere supposition as applied to Justin but a fact, for\nwe no longer have the Gospel according to Peter nor that according to\nthe Hebrews, not to mention the numerous other works in use in the early\nChurch. The instances we have given show the importance of the order as\nwell as the language of Justin's quotations, and while they prove the\nimpossibility of demonstrating that a consecutive passage which differs\nnot only in language but in order from the parallels in our Gospels\nmust be derived from them, they likewise prove the probability that such\npassages are actually quoted from a different source.\n\nIf we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which differ\nmerely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion. Supposing the\nthird Gospel to be lost, what would be the source assigned to the\n\n{363}\n\nfollowing quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the work of one of the\nFathers? \"No servant [--Greek--] can serve two lords, for either he will\nhate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one\nand despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.\" Of course the\npassage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24,\nwith which it perfectly corresponds with the exception of the addition\nof the second word [--Greek--], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an\nevident and very natural amplification of the simple [--Greek--] of the\nfirst Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word from\nMatthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to Luke xvi.\n13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third Gospel to be lost,\nand the following passage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the\nFathers: \"Beware [--Greek--] of the Scribes which desire to walk in long\nrobes, and love [--Greek--] greetings in the markets, and chief seats in\nthe synagogues and uppermost places at feasts; which devour widows(1)\nhouses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive\ngreater damnation.\" This would without hesitation be declared a\nquotation from memory of Mark xii..38-40 \".... Beware [--Greek--] of the\nScribes which desire to walk in long robes and greetings in the markets,\nand chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts: which\ndevour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall\nreceive,\" &c. It is however a literal quotation of Luke xx. 46, 47;\nyet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that\npossibly, not to say probably, the passage was not derived from Mark but\nfrom a lost Gospel. To quote one more instance, let us\n\n{364}\n\nsuppose the \"Gospel according to Mark\" no longer extant, and that in\nsome early work there existed the following quotation: \"It is easier for\na camel to go through the eye [--Greek--] of a needle, than for a rich man\nto enter into the kingdom of God.\" This would of course be claimed as a\nquotation from memory of Matt. xix. 24,(1) with which it agrees with the\nexception of the substitution of [--Greek--] for the [--Greek--]. It would not\nthe less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25.(2)\n\nWe have repeatedly pointed out that the actual agreement of any saying\nof Jesus, quoted by one of the early Fathers from an unnamed source,\nwith a passage in our Gospels is by no means conclusive evidence that\nthe quotation was actually derived from that Gospel. It must be apparent\nthat literal agreement in reporting short and important sayings is not\nin itself so surprising as to constitute proof that, occurring in two\nhistories, the one must have copied from the other. The only thing which\nis surprising is that such frequent inaccuracy should occur. When we\nadd, however, the fact that most of the larger early evangelical works,\nincluding our Synoptic Gospels, must have been compiled out of the same\noriginal sources, and have been largely indebted to each other, the\ncommon possession of such sayings becomes\n\n{365}\n\na matter of natural occurrence. Moreover, it must be admitted even by\napologetic critics that, in a case of such vast importance as the\nreport of sayings of Jesus, upon the verbal accuracy of which the most\nessential doctrines of Christianity depend, it cannot be considered\nstrange if various Gospels report the same saying in the same words.\nPractically, the Synoptic Gospels differ in their reports a great deal\nmore than is right or desirable; but we may take them as an illustration\nof the fact, that identity of passages, where the source is unnamed, by\nno means proves that such passages in a work of the early Fathers were\nderived from one Gospel, and not from any other. Let us suppose our\nfirst Gospel to have been lost, and the following quotation from an\nunnamed source to be found in an early work: \"Every tree that bringeth\nnot forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.\" This being\nin literal agreement with Luke iii. 9, would certainly be declared by\nmodern apologists conclusive proof that the Father was acquainted with\nthat Gospel, and although the context in the work of the Father might\nfor instance be: \"Ye shall know them from their works, and every tree,\"\n&c, &c, and yet in the third Gospel, the context is: \"And now also, the\naxe is laid unto the root of the trees: and every tree,\" &c, that would\nby no means give them pause. The explanation of combination of texts,\nand quotation from memory, is sufficiently elastic for every emergency.\nNow the words in question might in reality be a quotation from the lost\nGospel according to Matthew, in which they twice occur, so that here is\na passage which is literally repeated three times, Matthew iii. 10, vii.\n19, and Luke iii 9. In Matthew iii. 10, and in the third Gospel, the\nwords are part of a saying of John the\n\n{366}\n\nBaptist; whilst in Matthew vii. 19, they are given as part of the Sermon\non the Mount, with a different context, This passage is actually quoted\nby Justin (k 8), with the context: \"Ye shall know them from their\nworks,\" which is different from that in any of the three places in which\nthe words occur in our synoptics and, on the grounds we have clearly\nestablished, it cannot be considered in any case as necessarily a\nquotation from our Gospels, but, on the contrary, there are good reasons\nfor the very opposite conclusion.\n\nAnother illustration of this may be given, by supposing the Gospel of\nLuke to be no longer extant, and the following sentence in one of the\nFathers: \"And ye shall be hated by all men, for my name's sake.\" These\nvery words occur both in Matthew x. 22, and Mark xiii. 13, in both of\nwhich places there follow the words: \"but he that endureth to the end,\nthe same shall be saved.\" There might here have been a doubt, as to\nwhether the Father derived the words from the first or second Gospel,\nbut they would have been ascribed either to the one or to the other,\nwhilst in reality they were taken from a different work altogether, Luke\nxxi. 17. Here again, we have the same words in three Gospels. In how\nmany more may not the same passage have been found? One more instance to\nconclude. The following passage might be quoted from an unnamed source\nby one of the Fathers: \"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words\nshall not pass away.\" If the Gospel according to Mark were no longer\nextant, this would be claimed as a quotation either from Matthew xxiv.\n35, or Luke xxi. 33, in both of which it occurs, but, notwithstanding,\nthe Father might not have been acquainted with either of them, and\nsimply have quoted from Mark\n\n{367}\n\nxiii. 31.1 And here again, the three Gospels contain the same passage\nwithout variation.\n\nNow in all these cases, not only is the selection of the Gospel from\nwhich the quotation was actually taken completely an open question,\nsince they all have it, but still more is the point uncertain, when\nit is considered that many other works may also have contained it,\nhistorical sayings being naturally common property. Does the agreement\nof the quotation with a passage which is equally found in the three\nGospels prove the existence of all of them? and if not, how is the\nGospel from which it was actually taken to be distinguished? If it be\ndifficult to do so, how much more when the possibility and probability,\ndemonstrated by the agreement of the three extant, that it might have\nformed part of a dozen other works is taken into account In the case\nof Justin, it is simply absurd and unreasonable, in the face of his\npersistent variation from our Gospels, to assert positively that his\nquotations are derived from them.\n\nIt must have been apparent to all that, throughout his quotation from\nthe \"Sermon on the Mount,\" Justin follows an order which is quite\ndifferent from that in our Synoptic Gospels, and as might have been\nexpected, the inference of a different source, which is naturally\nsuggested by this variation in order, is more than confirmed by\npersistent and continuous variation in language. If it be true, that\nexamples of confusion of quotation are to be found in the works of\nClement of Alexandria, Origen, and other Fathers, it must at the same\ntime be remembered, that these are quite exceptional, and we are\n\n{368}\n\nscarcely in a position to judge how far confusion of memory may not\nhave arisen from reminiscences of other forms of evangelical expressions\noccurring in apocryphal works, with which we know the Fathers to have\nbeen well acquainted. The most vehement asserter of the identity of\nthe Memoirs with our Gospels, however, must absolutely admit as a fact,\nexplain it as he may, that variation from our Gospel readings is the\ngeneral rule in Justin's quotations, and agreement with them the very\nrare exception.1 Now, such a phenomenon is elsewhere unparalleled in\nthose times, when memory was more cultivated than with us in these days\nof cheap printed books, and it is unreasonable to charge Justin with\nsuch universal want of memory and carelessness about matters which\nhe held so sacred, merely to support a foregone conclusion, when the\nrecognition of a difference of source, indicated in every direction,\nis so much more simple, natural, and justifiable. It is argued that\nJustin's quotations from the Old Testament likewise present constant\nvariation from the text. This is true to a considerable extent, but they\nare not so persistently inaccurate as the quotations we are examining,\nsupposing them to be derived from our Gospels. This pica, however, is of\nno avail, for it is obvious that the employment of the Old Testament\nis not established merely by inaccurate citations; and it is quite\nundeniable that the use of certain historical documents out of many of\nclosely similar, and in many parts probably identical, character cannot\nbe proved by anonymous quotations differing from anything actually in\nthese documents.\n\nThere are very many of the quotations of Justin which bear unmistakable\nmarks of exactness and verbal\n\n{369}\n\naccuracy, but which yet differ materially from our Gospels, and most\nof his quotations from the Sermon on the Mount are of this kind. For\ninstance, Justin introduces the passages which we have marked a, b, c,\nwith the words: \"He (Jesus) spoke thus of Chastity,\"(l) and after giving\nthe quotations, a, b, and c, the first two of which, although finding\na parallel in two consecutive verses, Matthew v. 28, 29, are divided by\nthe separating [--Greek--], and therefore do not appear to have been\nunited in his Gospel, Justin continues: \"Just as even those who with the\nsanction of human law contract a second marriage are sinners in the eye\nof our Master, so also are those who look upon a woman to lust after\nher. For not only he who actually commits adultery is rejected by him,\nbut also he who desires to commit adultery, since not our acts alone are\nopen before God, but also our thoughts.\"(2) Now it is perfectly clear\nthat Justin here professes to give the actual words of Jesus, and then\nmoralizes upon them; and both the quotation and his own subsequent\nparaphrase of it lose all their significance, if we suppose that Justin\ndid not correctly quote in the first instance, but actually commences\nby altering the text.(3) These passages a, b, and c, however, have all\nmarked and characteristic variations from the Gospel text, but as we\nhave already shown, there is no reason for asserting that they are not\naccurate verbal quotations from another Gospel.\n\n{370}\n\nThe passage 8 is likewise a professed quotation,(1) but not only does it\ndiffer in language, but it presents deliberate transpositions in order\nwhich clearly indicate that Justin's source was not our Gospels. The\nnearest parallels in our Gospels are found in Matthew v. 46, followed by\n44. The same remarks apply to the next passage Euro, which is introduced as\na distinct quotation,(2) but which, like the rest, differs materially,\nlinguistically and in order, from the canonical Gospels. The whole\nof the passage is consecutive, and excludes the explanation of a mere\npatchwork of passages loosely put together, and very imperfectly quoted\nfrom memory. Justin states that Jesus taught that we should communicate\nto those who need, and do nothing for vain glory, and he then gives the\nvery words of Jesus in an unbroken and clearly continuous discourse.\nChristians are to give to all who ask, and not merely to those from\nwhom they hope to receive again, which would be no new thing--even the\npublicans do that; but Christians must do more. They are not to lay up\nriches on earth, but in heaven, for it would not profit a man to gain\nthe whole world, and lose his soul; therefore, the Teacher a second\ntime repeats the injunction that Christians should lay up treasures\nin heaven. If the unity of thought which binds this passage so closely\ntogether were not sufficient to prove that it stood in Justin's Gospel\nin the form and order in which he quotes it, the requisite evidence\nwould be supplied by the repetition at its close of the injunction: \"Lay\nup, therefore, in the heavens,\" &c. It is impossible that Justin should,\nthrough defect of memory, quote a second time in so short a passage the\nsame injunction, if the passage were not thus appropriately terminated\nin\n\n{371}\n\nhis Gospel. The common sense of the reader must at once perceive that\nit is impossible that Justin, professedly quoting words of Jesus, should\nthus deliberately fabricate a discourse rounded off by the repetition\nof one of its opening admonitions, with the addition of an argumentative\n\"therefore.\" He must have found it so in the Gospel from which he\nquotes. Nothing indeed but the difficulty of explaining the marked\nvariations presented by this passage, on the supposition that Justin\nmust quote from our Gospels, could lead apologists to insinuate such a\nprocess of compilation, or question the consecutive character of\nthis passage. The nearest parallels to the dismembered parts of this\nquotation, presenting everywhere serious variations, however, can only\nbe found in the following passages in the order in which we cite\nthem, Matthew v. 42, Luke vi. 34, Matthew vi. 19, 20, xvi. 26, and a\nrepetition of part of vi. 20, with variations. Moreover, the expression:\n\"What new thing do ye?\" is quite peculiar to Justin. We have already\nmet with it in the preceding section 8. \"If ye love them which love you,\nwhat _new_ thing do ye? for even,\" &c. Here, in the same verse, we have:\n\"If ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive, what _new_ thing\ndo ye? for even,\" &c. It is evident, both from its repetition and its\ndistinct dogmatic view of Christianity as a new teaching in contrast to\nthe old, that this variation cannot have been the result of defective\nmemory, but must have been the reading of the Memoirs, and, in all\nprobability, it was the original form of the teaching. Such antithetical\ntreatment is clearly indicated in many parts of the Sermon on the Mount:\nfor instance, Matthew v. 21, \"Ye have heard that it hath been said _by\nthem of old_.... but _I_ say unto you,' &c, cf. v. 33, 38, 43. It is\ncertain that\n\n{372}\n\nthe whole of the quotation E differs very materially from our Gospels,\nand there is every reason to believe that not only was the passage\nnot derived from them, but that it was contained in the Memoirs of the\nApostles substantially in the form and order in which Justin quotes\nit.(1)\n\nThe next passage (f)(2) is separated from the preceding merely by the\nusual [--Greek--] and it moves on to its close with the same continuity of\nthought and the same peculiarities of construction which characterize\nthat which we have just considered. Christians are to be kind and\nmerciful [--Greek--] to all as their Father is, who makes his sun to shine\nalike on the good and evil, and they need not be anxious about their own\ntemporal necessities: what they shall eat and what put on; are they not\nbetter than the birds and beasts whom God feedeth? therefore, they are\nnot to be careful about what they are to eat and what put on, for their\nheavenly Father knows they have need of these things; but they are to\nseek the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added: for\nwhere the treasure is--the thing he seeks and is careful about--there\nwill also be the mind of the man. In fact, the passage is a suitable\ncontinuation of c, inculcating, like it, abstraction from worldly cares\nand thoughts in reliance on the heavenly Father, and the mere fact that\na separation is made where it is between the two passages c and L shows\nfurther that each of those passages was complete in itself. There is\nabsolutely no reason for the separating /cat, if these passages were a\nmere combination of scattered verses. This quotation, however, which is\nso consecutive in Justin, can only find distant parallels in passages\nwidely divided throughout the Synoptic\n\n{373}\n\nGospels, which have to be arranged in the following order: Luke vi. 36,\nMatt. v. 45, vi. 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, vi. 21, the whole of which present\nstriking differences from Justin's quotation. The repetition of the\ninjunction \"be not careful\" again with the illative \"therefore\" is quite\nin the spirit of E. This admonition: \"Therefore, be not careful,\" &c, is\nreiterated no less than three times in the first Gospel (vi 25, 31, 34),\nand confirms the characteristic repetition of Justin's Gospel, which\nseems to have held a middle course between Matthew and Luke, the latter\nof which does not repeat the phrase, although the injunction is made a\nsecond time in more direct terms. The repetition of the passage: \"Be\nye kind and merciful,\" &c, in Dial. 96, with the same context and\npeculiarities, is a remarkable confirmation of the natural conclusion\nthat Justin quotes the passage from a Gospel different from ours. The\nexpression [--Greek--] thrice repeated by Justin himself, and supported\nby a similar duplication in the Clementine Homilies (iii. 57)(1) cannot\npossibly be an accidental departure from our Gospels.(2) For the rest it\nis undeniable that the whole passage L differs materially both in\norder and language from our Gospels, from which it cannot without\nunwarrantable assumption be maintained to have been taken either\ncollectively or in detail, and strong internal reasons lead us to\nconclude that it is quoted substantially as it stands from Justin's\n\n{374}\n\nGospel, which must have been different from our Synoptics.(1)\n\nIn 6 again, we have an express quotation introduced by the words: \"And\nregarding our being patient under injuries and ready to help all, and\nfree from anger, this is what he said;\" and then he proceeds to give\nthe actual words.(2) At the close of the quotation he continues: \"For\nwe ought not to strive, neither would he have us be imitators of the\nwicked, but he has exhorted us by patience and gentleness to lead men\nfrom shame and the love of evil,\" &c., &c.(3) It is evident that these\nobservations, which are a mere paraphrase of the text, indicate that the\nquotation itself is deliberate and precise. Justin professes first to\nquote the actual teaching of Jesus, and then makes his own comments; but\nif it be assumed that he began by concocting out of stray texts, altered\nto suit his purpose, a continuous discourse, the subsequent observations\nseem singularly useless and out of place. Although the passage forms\na consecutive and harmonious discourse, the nearest parallels in our\nGospels can only be found by uniting parts of the following scattered\nverses: Matthew v. 39, 40, 22, 41, 16. The Christian who is struck on\none cheek is to turn the other, and not to resist those who would take\naway his cloak or coat; but if, on the contrary, he be angry, he is in\ndanger of fire; if, then, he be compelled to go one mile, let him show\nhis gentleness by going two, and thus let his good works shine before\nmen that, seeing them, they may adore his Father which is in heaven. It\nis evident that the last two sentences, which find their parallels in\nMatt by putting v. 16 after 41, the former verse having\n\n{375}\n\nquite a different context in the Gospel, must have so followed each\nother in Justin's text. His purpose is to quote the teaching of Jesus,\n\"regarding our being patient under injuries, and ready to help all and\nfree from anger,\" but his quotation of \"Let your good works shine\nbefore men,\" &c, has no direct reference to his subject, and it cannot\nreasonably be supposed that Justin would have selected it from a\nseparate part of the Gospel. Coming as it no doubt did in his Memoirs in\nthe order in which he quotes it, it is quite appropriate to his purpose.\nIt is difficult, for instance, to imagine why Justin further omitted the\ninjunction in the parallel passage, Matthew v. 39, \"that ye resist not\nevil,\" when supposed to quote the rest of the verse, since his express\nobject is to show that \"we ought not to strive,\" &c. The whole quotation\npresents the same characteristics as those which we have already\nexamined, and in its continuity of thought and wide variation from the\nparallels in our Gospels, both in order and language, we must recognize\na different and peculiar source.(1)\n\nThe passage i, again, is professedly a literal quotation, for Justin\nprefaces it with the words: \"And regarding our not swearing at all,\nbut ever speaking the truth, he taught thus;\" and having in these words\nactually stated what Jesus did teach, he proceeds to quote his very\nwords.(2) In the quotation there is a clear departure from our Gospel,\narising, not from accidental failure-of memory, but from difference of\nsource. The parallel passages in our Gospels, so far as they exist at\nall, can only be found by taking part of Matthew v. 34 and joining it to\nv. 37, omitting the intermediate verses. The quotation in the\n\n{376}\n\nEpistle of James v. 12, which is evidently derived from a source\ndifferent from Matthew, supports the reading of Justin. This, with the\npassage twice repeated in the Clementine Homilies in agreement with\nJustin, and, it may be added, the peculiar version found in early\necclesiastical writings,(1) all tend to confirm the belief that there\nexisted a more ancient form of the injunction which Justin no doubt\nfound in his Memoirs.(2) The precept, terse, simple, and direct, as it\nis here, is much more in accordance with Justin's own description of\nthe teaching of Jesus, as he evidently found it in his Gospel, than\nthe diffused version contained in the first Gospel, v. 33--37. Another\nremarkable and characteristic illustration of the peculiarity of\nJustin's Memoirs is presented by the long passage k, which is also\nthroughout consecutive and bound together by clear unity of thought.(3)\nIt is presented with the context: \"For not those who merely make\nprofessions but those who do the works, as he (Jesus) said, shall be\nsaved. For he spake thus.\" It does not, therefore, seem possible to\nindicate more clearly the deliberate intention to quote the exact\nexpressions of Jesus, and yet not only do we find material difference\nfrom the language in the parallel passages in our Gospels, but those\nparallels, such as they are, can only be made by patching together the\nfollowing verses in the order in\n\n{377}\n\nwhich we give them: Matt. vii. 21, Luke x. 16, Matt. vii. 22, 23, xiii.\n42, 43, vii. 15, part of 16, 19. It will be remarked that the passage (k\n2) Luke x. 16, is thrust in between two consecutive verses in Matthew,\nand taken from a totally different context as the nearest parallel to\nk 2 of Justin, although it is widely different from it, omitting\naltogether the most important words: \"and doeth what I say.\" The\nrepetition of the same phrase: \"He that heareth me heareth him that sent\nme,\" in Apol. I, 63,(1) makes it certain that Justin accurately quotes\nhis Gospel, whilst the omission of the words in that place: \"and\ndoeth what I say,\" evidently proceeds from the fact that they are an\ninterruption of the phrase for which Justin makes the quotation, namely,\nto prove that Jesus is sent forth to reveal the Father.(2) It may be\nwell to compare Justin's passage, k 1--4, with one occurring in the\nso-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, iv. \"Let us not,\ntherefore, only call him Lord, for that will not save us. For he saith:\n'Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that\nworketh righteousness.'... the Lord said: 'If ye be with me gathered\ntogether in my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you off\nand say to you: Depart from me; I know you not, whence you are, workers\nof iniquity.'\"(3) The expression [--Greek--] here strongly recalls the\nreading of Justin.(4) This passage, which is foreign to\n\n{378}\n\nour Gospels, at least shows the existence of others containing parallel\ndiscourses with distinct variations. Some of the quotations in this\nspurious Epistle are stated to be taken from the \"Gospel according to\nthe Egyptians,\"(1) which was in all probability a version of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews.(2) The variations which occur in Justin's\nrepetition, in Dial 76, of his quotation k 3 are not important, because\nthe more weighty departure from the Gospel in the words \"did we not eat\nand drink in thy name,\" [--Greek--] is deliberately repeated,(3) and if,\ntherefore, there be freedom of quotation it is free quotation not from\nthe canonical, but from a different Gospel.(4) Origen's quotation(5)\ndoes not affect this conclusion, for the repetition of the phrase\n[--Greek--] has the form of the Gospel, and besides, which is much more\nimportant, we know that Origen was well acquainted with the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews and other apocryphal works from which this may\nhave been a reminiscence.(6) We must add, moreover, that the passage\nin Dial 76 appears in connection with others widely differing from our\nGospels. The passage k 5 not only materially varies from the parallel in\nMatt. xiii. 42, 43 in language but in connection of ideas.(7) Here also,\nupon examination, we must conclude that Justin quotes from a source\ndifferent from our\n\n{379}\n\nGospels, and moreover, that his Gospel gives with greater correctness\nthe original form of the passage.(1) The weeping and gnashing of teeth\nare distinctly represented as the consequence when the wicked see the\nbliss of the righteous while they are sent into everlasting fire, and\nnot as the mere characteristics of hell. It will be observed that the\npreceding passages k 3 and 4, find parallels to a certain extent in\nMatt. vii. 22,23, although Luke xiii. 26, 27, is in some respects\ncloser to the reading of Justin k 5, however, finds no continuation\nof parallel in Matt, vii., from which the context comes, but we have to\nseek it in xiii. 42, 43. K 5, however, does find its continuing parallel\nin the next verse in Luke xiii. 28, where we have \"There shall be (the)\nweeping and (the) gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham,\" &c There\nis here, it is evident, the connection of ideas which is totally\nlacking in Matt. xiii. 42, 43, where the verses in question occur as the\nconclusion to the exposition of the Parable of the Tares. Now, although\nit is manifest that Luke xiii. 28, cannot possibly have been the source\nfrom which Justin quotes, still the opening words and the sequence of\nideas demonstrate the great probability that other Gospels must have\ngiven, after k 4, a continuation which is wanting after Matt. vii. 23,\nbut which is indicated in the parallel Luke xiii. (26, 27) 28, and is\nsomewhat closely followed in Matt. xiii. 42, 43. When such a sequence is\nfound in an avowed quotation from Justin's Gospel, it is certain that\nhe must have found it there substantially as he quotes it. The passage\nk 6,(2) \"For many shall arrive,\" &c, is a very important one, and it\ndeparts\n\n{380}\n\nemphatically from the parallel in our first Gospel. Instead of being,\nlike the latter, a warning against false prophets, it is merely the\nannouncement that many deceivers shall come. This passage is rendered\nmore weighty by the fact that Justin repeats it with little variation\nin Dial. 35, and immediately after quotes a saying of Jesus of only five\nwords which is not found in our Gospels, and then he repeats a\nquotation to the same effect in the shape of a warning: \"Beware of\nfalse prophets,\" &c, like that in Matt. vii. 15, but still distinctly\ndiffering from it.(1) It is perfectly clear that Justin quotes two separate\npassages.(2) It is impossible that he could intend to repeat the same\nquotation at an interval of only five words; it is equally impossible\nthat, having quoted it in the one form, he could so immediately quote\nit in the other through error of memory.(3) The simple and very natural\nconclusion is that he found both passages in his Gospel. The object for\nwhich he quotes would more than justify the quotation of both passages,\nthe one referring to the many false Christians and the other to the\nfalse prophets of whom he is speaking. That two passages so closely\nrelated should be found in the same Gospel is not in the least singular.\nThere are numerous instances of the same in our Synoptics.(4) The actual\nfacts of the case then are these: Justin quotes in the Dialogue, with\nthe same marked deviations from the\n\n{381}\n\nparallel in the Gospel, a passage quoted by him m the Apology, and after\nan interval of only five words he quotes a second passage to the same\neffect, though with very palpable difference in its character, which\nlikewise differs from the Gospel, in company with other texts which\nstill less find any parallels in the canonical Gospels. The two\npassages, by their differences, distinguish each other as separate,\nwhilst, by their agreement in common variations from the parallel in\nMatthew, they declare their common origin from a special Gospel, a\nresult still further made manifest by the agreement between the first\npassage in the Dialogue and the quotations in the Apology. In k 7,(1)\nJustin's Gospel substitutes [--Greek--] for [--Greek--], and is quite in the\nspirit of the passage O, \"Ye shall know them from their _works_\" is\nthe natural reading. The Gospel version clearly introduces \"fruit\"\nprematurely, and weakens the force of the contrast which follows. It\nwill be observed, moreover, that in order to find a parallel to Justin's\npassage k 7, 8, only the first part of Matt. vii. 16, is taken, and\nthe thread is only caught again at vii. 19, k 8 being one of the two\npassages indicated by de Wette which we are considering, and it agrees\nwith Matt. vii. 19, with the exception of the single word [--Greek--]. We\nmust again point out, however, that this passage in Matt. vii. 19, is\nrepeated no less than three times in our Gospels, a second time in Matt\niii. 10, and once in Luke iii. 19. Upon two occasions it is placed\nin the mouth of John the Baptist, and forms the second portion of a\nsentence the whole of which is found in literal agreement both in Matt.\niii. 10, and Luke iii. 9, \"But now the axe is laid unto the root of the\ntrees, therefore every tree,\" &c, &c.\n\n{382}\n\nThe passage pointed out by de Wette as the parallel to Justin's\nanonymous quotation, Matt. vii. 19--a selection which is of course\nobligatory from the context--is itself a mere quotation by Jesus of part\nof the saying of the Baptist, presenting, therefore, double probability\nof being well known; and as we have three instances of its literal\nreproduction in the Synoptics, it would indeed be arbitrary to affirm\nthat it was not likewise given literally in other Gospels.\n\nThe passage X(1) is very emphatically given as a literal quotation of\nthe words of Jesus, for Justin cites it directly to authenticate his own\nstatements of Christian belief He says: \"But if you disregard us both\nwhen we entreat, and when we set all things openly before you, we shall\nnot suffer loss, believing, or rather being fully persuaded, that every\none will be punished by eternal fire according to the desert of his\ndeeds, and in proportion to the faculties which he received from God\nwill his account be required, as Christ declared when he said: To whom\nGod gave more, of him shall more also be demanded again.\" This quotation\nhas no parallel in the first Gospel, but we add it here as part of the\nSermon on the Mount. The passage in Luke xii. 48, it will be perceived,\npresents distinct variation from it, and that Gospel cannot for a moment\nbe maintained as the source of Justin's quotation.\n\nThe last passage, ft,2 is one of those advanced by de Wette which led to\nthis examination.(3) It is likewise clearly a quotation, but as we have\nalready shown, its agreement with Matt v. 20, is no evidence that it\nwas actually derived from that Gospel. Occurring as it does as one\nof numerous quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, whose general\nvariation both in order and\n\n{383}\n\nlanguage from the parallels in our Gospel points to the inevitable\nconclusion that Justin derived them from a different source, there is no\nreason for supposing that this sentence also did not come from the same\nGospel.\n\nNo one who has attentively considered the whole of these passages from\nthe Sermon on the Mount, and still less those who are aware of the\ngeneral rule of variation in his mass of quotations as compared with\nparallels in our Gospels, can fail to be struck by the systematic\ndeparture from the order and language of the Synoptics. The hypothesis\nthat they are quotations from our Gospels involves the accusation\nagainst Justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is\nquite unparalleled in literature. Justin's character and training,\nhowever, by. no means warrant any such aspersion,(1) and there are no\ngrounds for it. Indeed, but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish\nthe identity of the \"Memoirs of the Apostles\" with our Gospels, such a\ncharge would never have been thought of. It is unreasonable to suppose\nthat avowed and deliberate quotations of sayings of Jesus, made for\nthe express purpose of furnishing authentic written proof of Justin's\nstatements regarding Christianity, can as an almost invariable rule\nbe so singularly incorrect, more especially when it is considered\nthat these quotations occur in an elaborate apology for Christianity\naddressed to the Roman emperors, and in a careful and studied\ncontroversy with a Jew in defence of the new faith. The simple and\nnatural conclusion, supported by many strong reasons, is that Justin\nderived his quotations from a Gospel which was different from ours,\nalthough naturally by subject and design it must have been related to\nthem. His\n\n{384}\n\nGospel, in fact, differs from our Synoptics as they differ from each\nother.\n\nWe now return to Tischendorf's statements with regard to Justin's\nacquaintance with our Gospels. Having examined the supposed references\nto the first Gospel, we find that Tischendorf speaks much less\npositively with regard to his knowledge of the other two Synoptics. He\nsays: \"There is the greatest probability that in several passages he\nalso follows Mark and Luke.\"(1) First taking Mark, we find that the only\nexample which Tischendorf gives is the following. He says: \"Twice (Dial.\n76 and 100) he quotes as an expression of the Lord: 'The Son of Man must\nsuffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees (Ch.\n100 by the 'Pharisees and Scribes'), and be crucified and the third day\nrise again.'(2) This agrees better with Mark viii. 31 and Luke ix. 22\nthan with Matt. xvi. 21, only in Justin the 'Pharisees' are put instead\nof the 'Elders and Chief Priests' (so Matthew, Mark, and Luke), likewise\n'be crucified' instead of 'be killed.\"'(3) This is the only instance of\nsimilarity with Mark that Tischendorf can produce, and we have given his\nown remarks to show how thoroughly weak his case is. The passage in Mark\nviii. 31, reads: \"And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must\nsuffer many things, and be rejected by the Elders and the Chief Priests\n[--Greek--], and the Scribes and be killed [--Greek--], and after three days\n[--Greek--]\n\n{385}\n\nrise again.\" And the following is the reading of Luke ix. 22: \"Saying\nthat the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the\nElders and Chief Priests [--Greek--] and Scribes and be killed [--Greek--],\nand the third day rise again.\" It will be perceived that, different\nas it also is, the passage in Luke is nearer than that of Mark,\nwhich cannot in any case have been the source of Justin's quotation.\nTischendorf, however, does not point out that Justin, elsewhere, a third\ntime refers to this very passage in the very same terms. He says: \"And\nChrist.... having come.... and himself also preached, saying.... that he\nmust suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees and be crucified,\nand the third day rise again.\"(l) Although this omits the words \"and be\nrejected,\" it gives the whole of the passage literally as before. And\nthus there is the very remarkable testimony of a quotation three times\nrepeated, with the same marked variations from our Gospels, to show\nthat Justin found those very words in his Memoirs.(2) The persistent\nvariation clearly indicates a different source from our Synoptics. We\nmay, in reference to this reading, compare Luke xxiv. 6: \"He is not\nhere, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in\nGalilee (v. 7), saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the\nhands of sinful men, _and be crucified_, and the third day rise again.\"\nThis reference to words of Jesus, in which the words [--Greek--]. occurred,\nas in Justin, indicates that although our Gospels do not contain it some\nothers may well have\n\n{386}\n\ndone so. In one place Justin introduces the saying with the following\nwords: \"For he exclaimed before the crucifixion, the Son of Man,\"\n&c.,(1) both indicating a time for the discourse, and also quoting a\ndistinct and definite saying in contradistinction to this report of the\nmatter of his teaching, which is the form in which the parallel passage\noccurs in the Gospels. In Justin's Memoirs it no doubt existed as an\nactual discourse of Jesus, which he verbally and accurately quoted.\n\nWith regard to the third Gospel, Tischendorf says: \"It is in reference\nto Luke (xxii. 44) that Justin recalls in the Dialogue (103) the falling\ndrops of the sweat of agony on the Mount of Olives, and certainly with\nan express appeal to the 'Memoirs composed by his Apostles and their\nfollowers,'\"(2) Now we have already seen(3) that Justin, in the passage\nreferred to, does not make use of the peculiar expression which gives\nthe whole of its character to the account in Luke, and that there is\nno ground for affirming that Justin derived his information from that\nGospel. The only other reference to passages proving the \"probability\"\nof Justin's use of Luke or Mark is that which we have just\ndiscussed--\"The Son of Man must,\" &c. From this the character of\nTischendorf's assumptions may be inferred. De Wette does not advance\nany instances of verbal agreement either with Mark or Luke.(4) He\nsays, moreover: \"The historical references are much freer still (than\nquotations), and combine in part\n\n{387}\n\nthe accounts of Matthew and Luke; some of the kind, however, are\nnot found at all in our Canonical Gospels.\"(1) This we have already\nsufficiently demonstrated.\n\nWe might now well terminate the examination of Justin's quotations,\nwhich has already taken up too much of our space, but before doing so it\nmay be well very briefly to refer to another point. In his work \"On the\nCanon,\" Dr. Westcott adopts a somewhat singular course. He evidently\nfeels the very great difficulty in which anyone who asserts the identity\nof the source of Justin's quotations with our Gospels is placed by the\nfact that, as a rule, these quotations differ from parallel passages in\nour Gospels; and whilst on the one hand maintaining that the quotations\ngenerally are from the Canonical Gospels, he on the other endeavours\nto reduce the number of those which profess to be quotations at all. He\nsays: \"To examine in detail the whole of Justin's quotations would be\ntedious and unnecessary. It will be enough to examine (1) those which\nare alleged by him as quotations, and (2) those also which, though\nanonymous, are yet found repeated with the same variations either in\nJustin's own writings, or (3) in heretical works. It is evidently\non these quotations that the decision hangs.\"(2) Now under the first\ncategory Dr. Westcott finds very few. He says: \"In seven passages only,\nas far as I can discover, does Justin profess to give the exact words\nrecorded in the Memoirs; and in these, if there be no reason to the\ncontrary, it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact\nlanguage of the Gospels which he used, just as in anonymous quotations\nwe may conclude that he is trusting to memory.\"(3)\n\n{388}\n\nBefore proceeding further, we may point out the straits to which an\napologist is reduced who starts with a foregone conclusion. We have\nalready seen a number of Justin's professed quotations; but here, after\nreducing the number to seven only, our critic prepares a way of escape\neven out of these. It is difficult to understand what \"reason to the\ncontrary\" can possibly justify a man \"who professes to give the exact\nwords recorded in the Memoirs\" for not doing what he professes; and\nfurther, it passes our comprehension to understand why, in anonymous\nquotations, \"we may conclude that he is trusting to memory.\" The\ncautious exception is as untenable as the gratuitous assumption.\nDr. Westcott continues as follows the passage which we have just\ninterrupted:--\"The result of a first view of the passages is striking.\nOf the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St.\nLuke, _exhibiting indeed three slight various readings not elsewhere\nfound, but such as are easily explicable_; the sixth is a _compound\nsummary_ of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone _presents\nan important variation in the text of a verse_, which is, however,\notherwise very uncertain.\"(1) The italics of course are ours. The \"first\nview\" of the passages and of the above statement is indeed striking.\nIt is remarkable how easily difficulties are overcome under such an\napologetic system. The striking result, to summarize Canon Westcott's\nown words, is this: out of seven professed quotations from the Memoirs,\nin which he admits we may expect to find the exact language preserved,\nfive present three variations; one is a compressed summary, and does not\nagree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an important variation.\nDr.\n\n{389}\n\nWestcott, on the same easy system, continues: \"Our inquiry is thus\nconfined to the two last instances; and it must be seen whether their\ndisagreement from the Synoptic Gospel is such as to outweigh the\nagreement of the remaining five.\"(l) Before proceeding to consider these\nseven passages admitted by Dr. Westcott, we must point out that, in a\nnote to the statement of the number, he mentions that he excludes\nother two passages as \"not merely quotations of words, but concise\nnarratives.\"(2) But surely this is a most extraordinary reason for\nomitting them, and one the validity of which cannot be admitted. As\nJustin introduces them deliberately as quotations, why should they be\nexcluded simply because they are combined with a historical statement?\nWe shall produce them. The first is in Apol. i. 66: \"For the Apostles,\nin the Memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,(3) handed\ndown that it was thus enjoined on them, that Jesus, having taken bread\nand given thanks, said: 'This do in remembrance of me. This is my body.'\nAnd similarly, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said: 'This is\nmy blood,' and delivered it to them alone.\"(4) This passage, it will be\nremembered, occurs in an elaborate apology for Christianity addressed to\nthe Roman emperors, and Justin is giving an account of the most solemn\nsacrament of his religion. Here, if ever, we might reasonably expect\naccuracy and care, and Justin, in fact, carefully\n\n{390}\n\nindicates the source of the quotation he is going to make. It is\ndifficult to understand any ground upon which so direct a quotation\nfrom the \"Memoirs of the Apostles\" could be set aside by Canon Westcott.\nJustin distinctly states that the Apostles in these Memoirs have \"thus\"\n[--Greek--] transmitted what was enjoined on us by Jesus, and then gives\nthe precise quotation. Had the quotation agreed with our Gospels, would\nit not have been claimed as a professedly accurate quotation from them?\nSurely no one can reasonably pretend, for instance, that when Justin,\nafter this preamble, states that having taken bread, &c., _Jesus said_:\n\"This do in remembrance of me: this is my body;\" or having taken the\ncup, &c, _he said_: \"This is my blood\"--Justin does not deliberately\nmean to quote what Jesus actually did say? Now the account of the\nepisode in Luke is as follows (xxii. 17): \"And he took a cup, gave\nthanks, and said: Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18. For\nI say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the\nkingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, gave thanks, brake it,\nand gave it unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you:\nthis do in remembrance of me. 20. And in like manner the cup after\nsupper, saying: This is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for\nyou.\"(l) Dr. Westcott of course only compares this passage of Justin\nwith Luke, to which\n\n{391}\n\nand the parallel in 1 Cor. xi. 24, wide as the difference is, it is\ncloser than to the accounts in the other two Gospels. That Justin\nprofessedly quoted literally from the Memoirs is evident, and is\nrendered still more clear by the serious context by which the quotation\nis introduced, the quotation in fact being made to authenticate by\nactual written testimony the explanations of Justin. His dogmatic views,\nmoreover, are distinctly drawn from a Gospel, which, in a more direct\nway than our Synoptics do, gave the expressions: \"This is my body,\" and\n\"This is my blood,\" and it must have been observed that Luke, with which\nJustin's reading alone is compared, not only has not: [--Greek--], at all,\nbut instead makes use of a totally different expression: \"This cup is\nthe new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.\"\n\nThe second quotation from the Memoirs which Dr. Westcott passes over is\nthat in Dial. 103, compared with Luke xxii. 42, 43,1 on the Agony in the\nGarden, which we have already examined,(2) and found at variance with\nour Gospel, and without the peculiar and distinctive expressions of the\nlatter.\n\nWe now come to the seven passages which Canon Westcott admits to be\nprofessed quotations from the Memoirs, and in which \"it is natural to\nexpect that he will preserve the exact words of the Gospels which he\nused.\" The first of these is a passage in the Dialogue, part of which\nhas already been discussed in connection with the fire in Jordan and the\nvoice at the Baptism, and found to be from a source different from our\nSynoptics.(3) Justin says: \"For even he, the devil, at the time when he\nalso (Jesus) went up from the river Jordan when the voice\n\n{392}\n\nsaid to Him: 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,' is\nrecorded in the Memoirs of the Apostles to have come to him and tempted\nhim even so far as saying to him: 'Worship me;' and Christ answered him\n[---Greek---], 'Get thee behind me, Satan' [---Greek---], 'thou shalt worship\nthe Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'\"(1) This passage is\ncompared with the account of the temptation in Matt iv. 9, 10: \"And he\nsaid unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall\ndown and worship me. 10. Then saith Jesus unto him [---Greek---],\nGet thee hence, Satan [--Greek--]: it is written, Thou shalt\nworship,\" &c All the oldest Codices, it should be stated, omit the\n[--Greek--], as we have done, but Cod. D. (Bezae) and a few others of infirm\nauthority, insert these two words. Canon Westcott, however, justly\nadmits them to be \"probably only a very early interpolation.\"(2) We have\nno reason whatever for supposing that they existed in Matthew during\nJustin's time. The oldest Codices omit the whole phrase from the\nparallel passage, Luke iv. 8, but Cod. A. is an exception, and reads:\n[--Greek--]. The best\n\nmodern editions, however, reject this as a mere recent addition to Luke.\nA comparison of the first and third Gospels with Justin clearly shows\nthat the Gospel which he used followed the former more closely than\nLuke. Matthew makes the climax of the temptation\n\n{393}\n\nthe view of all the kingdoms of the world, and the offer to give them\nto Jesus if he will fall down and worship Satan. Luke, on the contrary,\nmakes the final temptation the suggestion to throw himself down from the\npinnacle of the temple. Justin's Gospel, as the words, \"so far as saying\nto him\" [--Greek--], &c., clearly indicate, had the same climax as Matthew.\nNow the following points must be observed. Justin makes the words of\nSatan, \"Worship me\" [--Greek--], a distinct quotation; the Gospel makes\nSatan offer all that he has shown \"if thou wilt fall down and worship\nme\" [--Greek--]. Then Justin's quotation proceeds: \"And Christ answered\nhim\" [--Greek--]; whilst Matthew has, \"Then Jesus saith to him\" [---Greek---],\nwhich is a marked variation.(1) The[--Greek--] of Justin, as we have\nalready said, is not found in any of the older Codices of Matthew. Then\nthe words: \"it is written,\" which form part of the reply of Jesus in our\nGospels, are omitted in Justin's; but we must add that, in Dial 125, in\nagain referring to the temptation, he adds, \"it is written.\" Still,\nin that passage he also omits the whole phrase, \"Get thee behind me,\nSatan,\" and commences: \"For he answered him: It is written, Thou shalt\nworship,\" &c.\n\nWe must, however, again point out the most important fact, that this\naccount of the temptation is directly connected with another which is\nforeign to our Gospels. The Devil is said to come at the time Jesus went\nup out of the Jordan and the voice said to him: \"Thou art my son,\nthis day have I begotten thee\"--words which do not occur at all in our\nGospels, and which are again bound up with the incident of the fire in\nJordan. It is altogether\n\n{394}\n\nunreasonable to assert that Justin could have referred the fact which\nhe proceeds to quote from the Memoirs, to the time those words were\nuttered, if they were not to be found in the same Memoirs. The one\nincident was most certainly not derived from our Gospels, inasmuch as\nthey do not contain it, and there are the very strongest reasons for\nasserting that Justin derived the account of the temptation from a\nsource which contained the other. Under these circumstances, every\nvariation is an indication, and those which we have pointed out are not\naccidental, but clearly exclude the assertion that the quotation is from\nour Gospels.\n\nThe second of the seven passages of Canon Westcott is one of those from\nthe Sermon on the Mount, Dial. 105, compared with Matt v. 20, adduced by\nde Wette, which we have already considered.(1) With the exception of the\nopening words, [--Greek--], the two sentences agree, but this is no proof\nthat Justin derived the passage from Matthew; while on the contrary, the\npersistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the Sermon on\nthe Mount, both in order and language, forces upon us the conviction\nthat he derived the whole from a source different from our Gospels.\n\nThe third passage of Dr. Westcott is that regarding the sign of Jonas\nthe prophet, Matt, xii. 39, compared with Dial. 107, which was the second\ninstance adduced by Tischendorf We have already examined it,(2) and\nfound that it presents distinct variations from our first Synoptic,\nboth linguistically and otherwise, and that many reasons lead to the\nconclusion that it was quoted from a Gospel different from ours.\n\nThe fourth of Canon Westcott's quotations is the\n\n{395}\n\nfollowing, to part of which we have already had occasion to refer:(l)\n\"For which reason our Christ declared on earth to those who asserted\nthat Elias must come before Christ: Elias indeed shall come [--Greek--] and\nshall restore all things: but I say unto you that Elias is come already,\nand they knew him not, but did unto him [--Greek--] whatsoever they listed.\nAnd it is written that then the disciples understood that he spoke to\nthem of John the Baptist.\"(2) The express quotation\" in this passage,\nwhich is compared with Matt. xvii. 11--13, is limited by Canon \"Westcott\nto the last short sentence(3) corresponding with Matt xvii. 13, and\nhe points out that Credner admits that it must have been taken from\nMatthew. It is quite true that Credner considers that if any passage\nof Justin's quotations proves a necessary connection between Justin's\nGospels and the Gospel according to Matthew, it is this sentence: \"And\nit is written that then the disciples, &c.\" He explains his reason\nfor this opinion as follows: \"These words can only be derived from\nour Matthew, with which they literally agree; for it is thoroughly\nimprobable that a remark of so special a description could have\nbeen made by two different and independent individuals so completely\nalike.\"(4) We totally differ from this argument,\n\n{396}\n\nwhich is singularly opposed to Credner's usual clear and thoughtful\nmode of reasoning.(1) No doubt if such Gospels could be considered to\nbe absolutely distinct and independent works, deriving all their matter\nfrom individual and separate observation of the occurrences narrated by\ntheir authors and personal report of the discourses given, there might\nbe greater force in the argument, although even in that case it would\nhave been far from conclusive here, inasmuch as the observation we are\nconsidering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to complete\nthe episode, and it might well have been made in the same terms by\nseparate reporters. The fact is, however, that the numerous Gospels\ncurrent in the early Church cannot have been, and our synoptic Gospels\nmost certainly are not, independent works, but are based upon earlier\nevangelical writings no longer extant, and have borrowed from each\nother. The Gospels did not originate full fledged as we now have them,\nbut are the result of many revisions of previously existing materials.\nCritics may differ as to the relative ages and order of the Synoptics,\nbut almost all are agreed that in one order or another they are\ndependent on each other, and on older forms of the Gospel. Now such an\nexpression as Matt. xvii. 13 in some early record of the discourse might\nhave been transferred to a dozen of other Christian writings. Ewald\nassigns the passage to the oldest Gospel, Matthew in its present form\nbeing fifth in descent.(2)\n\nOur three canonical Gospels are filled with instances in which\nexpressions still more individual are repeated, and these show that such\nphrases cannot be limited to\n\n{397}\n\none Gospel, but, if confined in the first instance to one original\nsource, may have been transferred to many subsequent evangelical works.\nTake, for instance, a passage in Matt. vii. 28, 29: \".... the multitudes\nwere astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority,\nand not as their scribes.\"(1) Mark i. 22 has the very same passage,(2)\nwith the mere omission of \"the multitudes\" [--Greek--], which does not\nin the least affect the argument; and Luke iv. 32: \"And they were\nastonished at his teaching: for his word was power.\"(3) Although the\nauthor of the third Gospel somewhat alters the language, it is clear\nthat he follows the same original, and retains it in the same context as\nthe second Gospel. Now the occurrence of such a passage as this in one\nof the Fathers, if either the first or second Gospels were lost,\nwould, on Credner's grounds, be attributed undoubtedly to the survivor,\nalthough in reality derived from the Gospel no longer extant, which\nlikewise contained it. Another example may be pointed out in Matt. xiii.\n34: \"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and\n_without a parable spake he not unto them_,\" compared with Mark iv. 33,\n34, \"And with many such parables spake he the word unto them....\nand without a parable spake he not unto them.\" The part of this very\nindividual remark which we have italicised is literally the same in both\nGospels, as a personal comment at the end of the parable of the grain of\nmustard seed. Then, for instance, in the account\n\n{398}\n\nof the sleep of the three disciples during the agony in the Garden\n(Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 40), the expression \"and he found them\nasleep, _for their eyes were heavy_,\" which is equally individual, is\nliterally the same in the first two Gospels. Another special remark of a\nsimilar kind regarding the rich young man: \"he went away sorrowful, for\nhe had great possessions,\" is found both in Matt. xix. 22 and Mark\nx. 22. Such examples(1) might be multiplied, and they show that the\noccurrence of passages of the most individual character cannot, in\nJustin's time, be limited to any single Gospel. Now the verse we\nare discussing, Matt xvii. 13, in all probability, as Ewald supposes,\noccurred in one or more of the older forms of the Gospel from which our\nSynoptics and many other similar works derived their matter, and nothing\nis more likely than that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in\nmany respects was nearly related to Matthew, may have contained it.\nAt any rate we have shown that such sayings cannot, however apparently\nindividual, be considered evidence of the use of a particular Gospel\nsimply because it happens to be the only one now extant which contains\nit. Credner, however, whilst expressing the opinion which we have quoted\nlikewise adds his belief that by the expression [--Greek--], Justin seems\nexpressly to indicate that this sentence is taken from a different work\nfrom what precedes it, and he has proved that the preceding part of\nthe quotation was not derived from our Gospels.(2) We cannot, however,\ncoincide with this opinion either. It seems to us that the expression\n\"and\n\n{399}\n\nit is written\" simply was made use of by Justin to show that the\nidentification of Elias with John the Baptist is not his, but was the\nimpression conveyed at the time by Jesus to his disciples. Now the whole\nnarrative of the baptism of John in Justin bears characteristic marks\nof being from a Gospel different from ours,(1) and in the first part\nof this very quotation we find distinct variation. Justin first affirms\nthat Jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that Elias should also come\n[--Greek--], and then further on he gives the actual words of Jesus:\n[--Greek--], which we have before us, whilst in Matthew the words are:\n[--Greek--] and there is no MS. which reads [--Greek--] for [--Greek--], and\nyet, as Credner remarks, the whole force of the quotation rests upon\nthe word, and Justin is persistent in his variation from the text of our\nfirst Synoptic. It is unreasonable to say that Justin quotes loosely the\nimportant part of his passage, and then about a few words at the close\npretends to be so particularly careful. Considering all the facts of\nthe case, we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source\ndifferent from our Gospels.(2)\n\nAnother point, however, must be noted. Dr. Westcott claims this passage\nas an express quotation from the Memoirs, apparently for no other reason\nthan that the few words happen to agree with Matt. xvii. 13, and that he\nwishes to identify the Memoirs with our Gospels. Justin, however, does\nnot once mention the Memoirs in this chapter; it follows, therefore,\nthat Canon Westcott who is so exceedingly strict in his limitation of\nexpress quotations, assumes that all quotations of Christian history and\nwords of Jesus in Justin are to be considered\n\n{400}\n\nas derived from the Memoirs whether they be mentioned by name or not.\nWe have already seen that amongst these there are not only quotations\ndiffering from the Gospels, and contradicting them, but others which\nhave no parallels at all in them.\n\nThe fifth of Dr. Westcott's express quotations occurs in Dial. 105,\nwhere Justin says: \"For when he (Jesus) was giving up his spirit on the\ncross he said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have\nalso learned from the Memoirs.\" This short sentence agrees with Luke\nxxiii. 46, it is true, but as we have already shown,1 Justin's whole\naccount of the Crucifixion differs so materially from that in our\nGospels that it cannot have been derived from them.\n\nWe see this forcibly in examining the sixth of Canon Westcott's\nquotations, which is likewise connected with the Crucifixion. \"For they\nwho saw him crucified also wagged their heads each one of them, and\ndistorted their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated\namong themselves those words which are also written in the Memoirs of\nhis Apostles: He declared himself the son of God: (let him) come down,\nlet him walk about: let God save him.\"(2) We have ourselves already\nquoted and discussed this passage,(3) and need not further examine it\nhere. Canon Westcott has nothing better to say regarding this quotation,\nin an examination of the accuracy of parallel passages, than this:\n\"These exact words do not occur in our Gospels, but we do find there\nothers so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the\ndifference \"!(4) When criticism descends to language like this, the case\nis indeed desperate. It is clear that, as Canon Westcott admits, the\nwords are expressly declared to be a\n\n{401}\n\nquotation from the Memoirs of the Apostles, but they do not exist in\nour Gospels, and consequently our Gospels are not identical with the\nMemoirs. Canon Westcott refers to the taunts in Matthew, and then with\ncommendable candour he concludes his examination of the quotation with\nthe following words: \"No manuscript or Father (so far as we know) has\npreserved any reading of the passage more closely resembling Justin's\nquotation; and if it appear not to be deducible from our Gospels, due\nallowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source\nmust remain concealed.\"(1) We need only add that it is futile to talk\nof making \"due allowance\" for the object which Justin had in view. His\nimmediate object was accurate quotation, and no allowance can account\nfor such variation in language and thought as is presented in this\npassage. That this passage, though a professed quotation from the\nMemoirs, is not taken from our Gospels is certain both from its own\nvariations and the differences in other parts of Justin's account of\nthe Crucifixion, an event whose solemnity and importance might well be\nexpected to secure reverential accuracy. It is impossible to avoid the\nconclusion that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles were not identical\nwith our Gospels, and the systematic variation of his quotations thus\nreceives its natural and reasonable explanation.\n\nThe seventh and last of Dr. Westcott's express quotations is, as he\nstates, \"more remarkable.\" We subjoin the passage in contrast with the\nparallel texts of the first and third Gospels.\n\n{402}\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nIt is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very materially from our\nGospels in language, in construction, and in meaning. These variations,\nhowever, acquire very remarkable confirmation and significance from the\nfact that Justin in two other places(3) quotes the latter and larger\npart of the passage from [--Greek--] in precisely the same way, with the\nsole exception that, in both of these quotations, he uses the aorist\n[--Greek--] instead of [--Greek--]. This threefold repetition in the same\npeculiar form clearly stamps the passage as being a literal\n\n{403}\n\nquotation from his Gospel, and the one exception to the verbal agreement\nof the three passages, in the substitution of the present for the aorist\nin the Dialogue, does not in the least remove or lessen the fundamental\nvariation of the passage from our Gospel. As the [--Greek--] is twice\nrepeated it was probably the reading of his text. Now it is well known\nthat the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin occurred in what\ncame to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted the basis of\nimportant Gnostic doctrines.(1) Canon Westcott speaks of the use of\nthis passage by the Fathers in agreement with Justin in a manner which,\nunintentionally we have no doubt, absolutely misrepresents important\nfacts. He says: \"The transposition of the words still remains; and how\nlittle weight can be attached to that will appear upon an examination\nof the various forms in which the text is quoted by Fathers like Origen,\nIrenaeus and Epiphanius, who admitted our Gospels exclusively. It occurs\nin them as will be seen from the table of readings[--Greek--] with almost\nevery possible variation. Irenaeus in the course of one chapter quotes\nthe verse first as it stands in the canonical text; then in the same\norder, but with the last clause like Justin's; and once again altogether\nas he has given it. Epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times\nin the same order as Justin, and four times as it stands in the\nGospels.\"[--Greek--] Now in the chapter to which reference is made in this\nsentence Irenaeus commences by stating that the Lord had declared: \"Nemo\ncognoscit Filium nisi Pater; neque\n\n{404}\n\nPatrem quis cognoscit nisi Films, et cui voluerit Filius revelare,\"(1)\nas he says, \"Thus Matthew has set it down and Luke similarly, and Mark\nthe very same.\"(2) He goes on to state, however, that those who would\nbe wiser than the Apostles write this verse as follows: \"Nemo cognovit\nPatrem nisi Filius; nee Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius\nrevelare.\" And he explains: \"They interpret it as though the true God\nwas known to no man before the coming of our Lord; and that God who\nwas announced by the Prophets they affirm not to be the Father of\nChrist.\"(3) Now in this passage we have the [--Greek--] of Justin in the\n'cognovit,' in contradistinction to the 'cognoscit' of the Gospel,\nand his transposition of order as not by any possibility an accidental\nthing, but as the distinct basis of doctrines. Irenaeus goes on to argue\nthat no one can know the Father unless through the Word of God, that is\nthrough the Son, and this is why he said: \"'Nemo cognoscit Patrem nisi\nFilius; neque Filium nisi Pater, et quibuscunque Filius reve-laverit.'\nThus teaching that he himself also is the Father, as indeed he is,\nin order that we may not receive any other Father except him who is\nrevealed by the Son.\"(4) In this third quotation Irenseus alters the\n[--Greek--] into [--Greek--], but retains the form, for the rest, of the\nGnostics and of Justin, and his aim apparently is to show that adopting\nhis present tense instead of the aorist the transposition\n\n{405}\n\nof words is of no importance. A fourth time, however, in the same\nchapter, which in fact is wholly dedicated to this passage and to the\ndoctrines based upon it, Irenaeus quotes the saying: \"Nemo cognoscit\nFilium nisi Pater; neque Patrem nisi Filius, et quibuscunque Filius\nreve-laverit.\"(1) Here the language and order of the Gospel are followed\nwith the exception that 'cui voluerit revelare' is altered to the\n'quibuscunque revelaverit' of Justin; and that this is intentional is\nmade clear by the continuation: \"For _revelaverit_ was said not with\nreference to the future alone,\"(2( &c.\n\nNow in this chapter we learn very clearly that, although the canonical\nGospels by the express declaration of Irenaeus had their present reading\nof the passage before us, other Gospels of considerable authority even\nin his time had the form of Justin, for again in a fifth passage\nhe quotes the opening words: \"He who was known, therefore, was not\ndifferent from him who declared: 'No one knoweth the Father,' but one\nand the same.\"(3) With the usual alteration of the verb to the present\ntense, Irenaeus in this and in one of the other quotations of this\npassage just cited gives some authority to the transposition of the\nwords \"Father\" and \"Son,\" although the reading was opposed to the\nGospels, but he invariably adheres to [--Greek--] and condemns [--Greek--],\nthe reading maintained by those who in the estimation of Irenaeus \"would\nbe wiser than the Apostles.\" Elsewhere, descanting on\n\n{406}\n\nthe passages of Scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the\nFather was unknown before the advent of Christ, Irenseus, after accusing\nthem of garbling passages of Scripture,(1) goes on to say of the\nMarcosians and others: \"Besides these, they adduce a countless number of\napocryphal and spurious works which they themselves have forged to the\nbewilderment of the foolish, and of those who are not versed in the\nScriptures of truth.\"(2) He also points out passages occurring in our\nGospels to which they give a peculiar interpretation and, amongst\nthese, that quoted by Justin. He says: \"But they adduce as the highest\ntestimony, and as it were the crown of their system, the following\npassage.... 'All things were delivered to me by my Father, and no one\nknew [--Greek--] the Father but the Son, and the Son but the Father, and he\nto whomsoever [--Greek--] the Son shall reveal [--Greek--].'(3) In these words\nthey assert that he clearly demonstrated that the Father of truth whom\nthey have invented was known to no one before his coming; and they\ndesire to interpret the words as though the Maker and Creator had\nbeen known to all, and the Lord spoke these words regarding the Father\nunknown to all, whom they proclaim.\"(4) Here we have the exact quotation\ntwice made by Justin, with the [--Greek--] and the same order, set\n\n{407}\n\nforth as the reading of the Gospels of the Marcosians and other sects,\nand the highest testimony to their system. It is almost impossible that\nJustin could have altered the passage by an error of memory to this\nprecise form, and it must be regarded as the reading of his Memoirs.(1)\nThe evidence of Irenaeus is clear: The Gospels had the reading which\nwe now find in them, but apocryphal Gospels on the other hand had that\nwhich we find twice quoted by Justin, and the passage was as it were\nthe text upon which a large sect of the early Church based its most\nfundamental doctrine. The [--Greek--] is invariably repudiated, but the\ntransposition of the words \"Father\" and \"Son\" was apparently admitted to\na certain extent, although the authority for this was not derived from\nthe Gospels recognized by the Church which contained the contrary order.\n\nWe must briefly refer to the use of this passage by Clement of\nAlexandria. He quotes portions of the text eight times, and although\nwith some variation of terms he invariably follows the order of the\nGospels. Six times he makes use of the aorist [--Greek--],(2) once of\n[--Greek--],(3) and once of [--Greek--].(4) He only once quotes the whole\npassage,(5) but on this occasion, as well as six others in which he only\nquotes the latter part of the sentence,(6) he omits [--Greek--], and reads\n\"and he to whom the Son shall reveal,\" thus supporting the [--Greek--]\n\n{408}\n\nof Justin. Twice he has \"God\" instead of \"Father,\"(1) and once he\nsubstitutes [--Greek--] for [--Greek--].(2) It is evident from the loose and\nfragmentary way in which Clement interweaves the passage with his text,\nthat he is more concerned with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the\nquotation, but the result of his evidence is that he never departs from\nthe Gospel order of \"Father\" and \"Son,\" although he frequently makes\nuse of [--Greek--] and also employs [--Greek--] in agreement with Justin and,\ntherefore, he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to, though\nalways presenting material difference from, the reading of Justin.\n\nEpiphanius refers to this passage no less than ten times,(3) but he\nonly quotes it fully five times, and upon each of these occasions with\nvariations. Of the five times to which we refer, he thrice follows the\norder of the Gospels,(4) as he does likewise in another place where he\ndoes not complete the sentence.(5) On the remaining two occasions he\nadopts the same order as Justin, with variations from his reading,\nhowever, to which we shall presently refer;(6) and where he only\npartially quotes he follows the same order on other three occasions,(7)\nand in one other place the quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to\ndistinguish the order.(8) Now in all of these ten quotations, with\none exception, Epiphanius substitutes [--Greek--] for [--Greek--] at the\ncommencement of the\n\n{409}\n\npassage in Matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the\nsecond clause as in that Gospel, and on these occasions he twice makes\nuse of [--Greek--](1) and once of [--Greek--].(2) He once uses [--Greek--] with\nthe same order as Justin, but does not complete the sentence.(3) Each\ntime he completes the quotation, he uses [--Greek--] with the Gospel,\nand [--Greek--] with Justin,(4) but only once out of the five complete\nquotations does he insert [--Greek--] in the concluding phrase. It is\nevident from this examination, which we must not carry further, that\nEpiphanius never verbally agrees with the Gospel in his quotation\nof this passage and never verbally with Justin, but mainly follows a\nversion different from both. It must be remembered,\n\nhowever, that he is writing against various heresies, and it does not\nseem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the passage current\namongst those sects.\n\nIn his work against Marcion, Tertullian says: \"With regard to the\nFather, however, that he was never seen, the Gospel which is common to\nus will testify, as it was said by Christ: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi\nfilius,\"(5) but elsewhere he translates \"Nemo scit,\"(6) evidently\nnot fully appreciating the difference of [--Greek--].(7) The passage in\nMar-cion's Gospel reads like Justin's: [--Greek--].(8) The use of [--Greek--]\nas applied to the Father and [--Greek--] as regards the Son in this passage\nis suggestive. Origen\n\n{410}\n\nalmost invariably uses [--Greek--], sometimes adopting the order of the\nGospels and sometimes that of Justin, and always employing [--Greek--].(1)\nThe Clementine Homilies always read [--Greek--], and always follow the same\norder as Justin, presenting other and persistent variations from the\nform in the Gospels. [--Greek--] This reading occurs four times.\nThe Clementine Recognitions have the aorist with the order of the\nGospels.(4)\n\nThere only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to\ncomplete the whole of Dr. Westcott's argument regarding this passage. He\ncontinues and concludes thus: \"If, indeed, Justin's quotations were made\nfrom memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if we suppose\nthat he copied the passage directly from a manuscript, there is no\ndifficulty in believing that he found it so written in a manuscript\nof the Canonical St. Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no\ninternal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin is\neasily explicable.\"(5) It will be observed that Canon Westcott does not\nattempt any argument, but simply confines himself to suppositions.\nIf such explanations were only valid, there could be no difficulty in\nbelieving anything, and every embarrassing circumstance would indeed be\neasily explicable.\n\nThe facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows: Justin\ndeliberately and expressly quotes from his Gospel, himself calling it\n\"Gospel,\" be it observed, a\n\n{411}\n\npassage whose nearest parallel in our Gospels is Matt. xi. 27. This\nquotation presents material variations from our Canonical Gospel both in\nform and language. The larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a\ndifferent work, written years before, in precisely the same words as the\nthird quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist\ninstead of the present tense of the verb. No MS. of our Gospel extant\napproximates to the reading in Justin, and we are expressly told by\nIrenaeus that the present reading of our Matthew was that existing in\nhis day. On the other hand, Irenaeus states with equal distinctness that\nGospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin, and that the\npassage was \"the crown of their system,\" and one upon whose testimony\nthey based their leading doctrines. Here, then, is the clear statement\nthat Justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the Gospels, and\nagrees with that of other Gospels. The variations occurring in the\nnumerous quotations of the same passage by the Fathers, which we have\nanalysed, show that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that\nthere must have been various readings of considerable authority then\ncurrent. It has been conjectured with much probability that the form in\nwhich Justin quotes the passage twice in his Apology may have been\nthe reading of older Gospels, and that it was gradually altered by the\nChurch to the form in which we now have it, for dogmatic reasons, when\nGnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the\nprevailing interpretation.(1) Be this as it may, Justin's Gospel clearly\nhad a reading different from ours, but in unison with\n\n{412}\n\nthat known to exist in other Gospels, and this express quotation only\nadds additional proof to the mass of evidence already adduced that the\nMemoirs of the Apostles were not our Canonical Gospels.(1)\n\nWe have already occupied so much space even with this cursory\nexamination of Justin's quotations, that we must pass over in silence\npassages which he quotes from the Memoirs with variations from the\nparallels in our Gospels which are also found in the Clementine Homilies\nand other works emanating from circles in which other Gospels than ours\nwere used. We shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of Jesus\nexpressly quoted by Justin, which are altogether unknown to our Gospels.\nJustin says: \"For the things which he foretold would take place in his\nname, these we see actually coming to pass in our sight. For he\nsaid: 'Many shall come,' &c., &c.,(2) and 'There shall be schisms and\nheresies,'(3) and 'Beware of false prophets,'(4) &c, and 'Many false\nChrists and false Apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the\nfaithful.'\"(5) Neither of the two prophecies here quoted are to be found\nanywhere in our Gospels, and to the second of them Justin repeatedly\nrefers. He says in one place that Jesus \"foretold that in the interval\nof his coming, as I previously said,(6) heresies and false prophets\nwould arise in his name.\"(7) It is admitted that these\n\n{413}\n\nprophecies are foreign to our Gospels.(1) It is very probable that\nthe Apostle Paul refers to the prophecy, \"There shall be schisms and\nheresies\" in 1 Cor. xi. 18-19, where it is said, \".... I hear that\nschisms exist amongst you; and I partly believe it. For there must also\nbe heresies amongst you,\" &c. [--Greek--].(2) We find also, elsewhere,\ntraces both of this saying and that which accompanies it. In the\nClementine Homilies, Peter is represented as stating, \"For there shall\nbe, as the Lord said, _false apostles_, false prophets, _heresies_,\ndesires for supremacy,\" &c. [--Greek--].3 We are likewise reminded of the\npassage in the Epistle attributed to the Roman Clement, xliv.: \"Our\nApostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be\ncontention regarding the dignity of the episcopate.\"(4) In our Gospel\nthere is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false\nApostles once mentioned, the reference being solely to \"false Christs\"\nand \"false prophets.\" The recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar\nexpression \"false apostles\" is very striking,(5) and the evidence\nfor the passage as a saying of Jesus is important. Hegesippus, after\nenumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers, continues:\n\"From these sprang the false Christs, false prophets, _false apostles_,\nwho divided the\n\n{414}\n\nunion of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning God and\nconcerning his Christ.\"(1) It will be remembered that Hegesippus\nmade use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Clementine\nliterature points to the same source. In the Apostolic Constitutions\nwe read: \"For these are false Christs and false prophets, _and false\napostles_, deceivers, and corrupters,\" &c.,(2) and in the Clementine\nRecognitions the Apostle Peter is represented as saying that the Devil,\nafter the temptation, terrified by the final answer of Jesus, \"hastened\nimmediately to send forth into this world false prophets, and _false\napostles_, and false teachers, who should speak in the name of Christ\nindeed, but should perform the will of the demon.\"(3) Justin's whole\nsystem forbids our recognizing in these two passages mere tradition, and\nwe must hold that we have here quotations from a Gospel different from\nours.\n\nElsewhere, Justin says: \"Out of which (affliction and fiery trial of the\nDevil) again Jesus, the Son of God, promised to deliver us, and to put\non us prepared garments, if we do his commandments, and he is proclaimed\nas having provided an eternal kingdom for us.\"(4) This promise is\nnowhere found in our Gospel.(5)\n\nImmediately following the passage (k 3 and 4) which we have discussed(6)\nas repeated in the Dialogue: \"Many\n\n{415}\n\nshall say to me, &c, &c, and I will say to them, Depart from me,\" Justin\ncontinues: \"And in other words by which he will condemn those who are\nunworthy to be saved, he said that he will say: Begone into the darkness\nwithout, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels.\"(1)\nThe nearest parallel to this is in Matt. xxv. 41: \"Then shall he say\nalso unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into the\neternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels.\"\n\n[--Greek--]\n\nIt is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very widely from the\nreading of our Gospel. The same reading, with the exception of a single\nword, is found in the Clementine Homilies (xix. 2), that is to say, that\n\"Devil\" is substituted for \"Satan,\" and this variation is not important.\nThe agreement of the rest, on the other hand, seems to establish the\nconclusion that the quotation is from a written Gospel different from\nours,(2) and here we have further strong indications of Justin's use of\nthe Ebionite Gospel.\n\nAnother of the sayings of Jesus which are foreign to our Gospels is one\nin reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin,\nof whom Justin says: \"Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said: In\nwhatsoever things I may find you, in these I shall also judge you.\"(3)\n[--Greek--]\n\n{416}\n\n\"[--Greek--]\") A similar expression is used by some of the Fathers, and\nin some cases is ascribed to the prophets.(1) Clement of Alexandria has\nquoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source.\n[--Greek--].(2 ) Grabe was of opinion that Justin derived the passage from\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews,(3) an opinion shared by the greater\nnumber of modern critics, and which we are prepared to accept from\nmany previous instances of agreement. Even the warmest asserters of the\ntheory that the Memoirs are identical with our Gospels are obliged to\nadmit that this saying of Jesus is not contained in them, and that it\nmust have been derived from an extra-canonical source.(4)\n\nOther passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out, but we\nhave already devoted too much space to Justin's quotations, and must\nhasten to a conclusion. There is one point, however, to which we must\nrefer. We have more than once alluded to the fact that, unless in one\nplace, Justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the\nMemoirs of the Apostles. The exception to which we referred is the\nfollowing. Justin says: \"The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the\nname of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in\n_his_ Memoirs as having been done,\n\n{417}\n\ntogether with the fact that he also changed the name of other two\nbrothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, that is, sons of\nThunder,\" &c.(1) According to the usual language of Justin, and upon\nstrictly critical grounds, the [--Greek--] in this passage must be referred\nto Peter; and Justin, therefore, seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that\nApostle, and to speak of a Gospel of Peter. Some critics maintain that\nthe [--Greek--] does not refer to Peter, but to Jesus, or, more probably\nstill, that it should be amended to [--Greek--], and apply to the\nApostles.(3) The great majority, however, are forced to admit the\nreference of the Memoirs to Peter, although they explain it, as we shall\nsee, in different ways. It is argued by some that this expression is\nused when Justin is alluding to the change of name not only of Peter\nbut of the sons of Zebedee, the narrative of which is only found in the\nGospel according to Mark. Now Mark was held by many of the Fathers\nto have been the mere mouthpiece of Peter, and to have written at his\ndictation;(3) so that, in fact, in calling the second Gospel by the name\nof the Apostle Peter, they argue, Justin merely adopted the tradition\ncurrent in the early Church, and referred to the\n\n{418}\n\nGospel now known as the Gospel according to Mark.(1) It must be evident,\nhowever, that after admitting that Justin speaks of the Memoirs of\nPeter,\" it is indeed hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact\nthat the mention of the sons of Zebedee being surnamed Boanerges is only\nrecorded in Mark iii. 17, and not in the other canonical Gospels, that\ntherefore the \"Memoirs of Peter\" and our Gospel according to Mark are\none and the same. We shall, hereafter, in examining the testimony of\nPapias, see that the Gospel according to Mark, of which the Bishop of\nHierapolis speaks, was not our canonical Mark at all. It would be very\nsingular indeed on this hypothesis that Justin should not have quoted\na single passage from the only Gospel whose author he names, and the\nnumber of times he seems to quote from a Petrine Gospel, which was quite\ndifferent from Mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here\nrefer to our second Gospel. It is maintained, therefore, by numerous\nother critics that Justin refers to a Gospel according to Peter, or\naccording to the Hebrews, and not to Mark.(3)\n\nWe learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of Antioch about\na.d. 190, composed a book on\n\n{419}\n\nthe \"Gospel according to Peter\" [--Greek--], which he found in circulation\nin his diocese. At first Serapion had permitted the use of this Gospel,\nas it evidently was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a\nwork favouring Docetic views, and containing many things superadded to\nthe doctrine of the Saviour.(1) Origen likewise makes mention of the\nGospel according to Peter [--Greek--] as agreeing with the tradition of the\nHebrews.(3) But its relationship to the Gospel according to the Hebrews\nbecomes more clear when Theodoret states that the Nazarenes made use of\nthe Gospel according to Peter,(3) for we know by the testimony of the\nFathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the\nGospel according to the Hebrews [--Greek--].\n\nThe same Gospel was in use amongst the Ebionites, and in fact, as almost\nall critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under\nvarious names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the\nApostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, &c, with modifications\ncertainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely\nthroughout the early Church.(4) A quotation occurs in the\n\n{420}\n\nso-called Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, to which we have\nalready referred, which is said by Origen to be in the work called the\ndoctrine of Peter(l) [--Greek--], but\n\nJerome states that it is taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the\nNazarenes.(2) Delitzsch finds traces of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews before a.d. 130 in the Talmud.(3) Eusebius(4) informs us that\nPapias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the Lord of\nmany sins which was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(5)\nThe same writer likewise states that Hegesippus, who came to Rome\nand commenced his public career under Anicetus, quoted from the same\nGospel.(6) The evidence of this \"ancient and apostolic man is very\nimportant, for although he evidently attaches great value to tradition,\ndoes not seem to know of any canonical Scriptures of the New Testament\n\n{421}\n\nand, like Justin, apparently rejected the Apostle Paul,(1) he still\nregarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect, and probably\nmade exclusive use of it. The best critics consider that this Gospel was\nthe evangelical work used by the author of the Clementine Homilies.(2)\nCerinthus and Carpocrates made use of a form of it,(3) and there is good\nreason to suppose that Tatian, like his master Justin, used the same\nGospel: indeed his \"Diatessaron,\" we are told, was by some called the\nGospel according to the Hebrews.(4) Clement of Alexandria quotes it as\nan authority, with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. He says:\n\"So also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: 'He who wonders shall\nreign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'\"(5) A form of\nthis Gospel, \"according to the Egyptians,\" is quoted in the second\nEpistle of pseudo-Clement of Rome, as we are informed by the Alexandrian\n\n{422}\n\nClement, who likewise quotes the same passage.(1) Origen frequently made\nuse of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(2) and that it long enjoyed\ngreat consideration in the Church is proved by the fact that Theodoret\nfound it in circulation not only among heretics, but also amongst\northodox Christian communities;(3) and even in the fourth century\nEusebius records doubts as to the rank of this Gospel amongst Christian\nbooks, speaking of it under the second class in which some reckoned\nthe Apocalypse of John.(4) Later still Jerome translated it;(5) whilst\nNicephorus inserts it, in his Stichometry, not amongst the Apocrypha,\nbut amongst the Antilegomena, or merely doubtful books of the New\nTestament, along with the Apocalypse of John.(6) Eusebius bears\ntestimony to the value attached to it by the Jewish Christians,(7) and\nindeed he says of the Ebionites that, \"making use only of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, they took little account of the rest.\"(8) In\nsuch repute was this Gospel amongst the earliest Christian communities,\nthat it was generally believed to be the original of the Greek Gospel\nof Matthew. Irenaeus states that the Ebionites used solely the Gospel\naccording to Matthew and reject the Apostle Paul, asserting that he was\nan apostate from the law.(9) We know from statements\n\n{423}\n\nregarding the Ebionites(1) that this Gospel could not have been our\nGospel according to Matthew, and besides, both Clement(2) of Alexandria\nand Origen(3) call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius,\nhowever, still more clearly identifies it, as we have seen above.\nRepeating the statements of Irenaeus, he says: \"These indeed (the\nEbionites) thought that all the Epistles of the Apostle (Paul) should be\nrejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only of\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the\nrest.\"(4) Epiphanius calls both the single Gospel of the Ebionites and\nof the Nazarenes the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews,\" and also\nthe Gospel according to Matthew,(5) as does also Theodoret(6) Jerome\ntranslated the Gospel according to the Hebrews both into Greek and\nLatin,(7) and it is clear that his belief was that this Gospel, a copy\nof which he found in the library collected at Caesarea by the Martyr\nPamphilus (f 309), was the Hebrew original of Matthew; and in support of\nthis view he points out that it did not follow the version of the LXX.\nin its quotations from the Old Testament, but quoted directly from the\nHebrew.(8 ) An attempt has been made to argue\n\n{424}\n\nthat, later, Jerome became doubtful of this view, but it seems to\nus that this is not the case, and certainly Jerome in his subsequent\nwritings states that it was generally held to be the original of\nMatthew.(1) That this Gospel was not identical with the Greek Matthew is\nevident both from the quotations of Jerome and others, and also from the\nfact that Jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice. If\nthe Greek Gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of course there\ncould not have been inducement to make another.(2) As we shall hereafter\nsee, the belief was universal in the early Church that Matthew wrote\nhis Gospel in Hebrew. Attempts have been made to argue that the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews was first written in Greek and then translated\ninto Hebrew,(3) but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and\narbitrary,(4) and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the\nFathers.\n\n{425}\n\nIt is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the\nquestion of the exact relation of our canonical Gospel according to\nMatthew to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is sufficient for us\nto point out that we meet with the latter before Matthew's Gospel,\nand that the general opinion of the early church was that it was the\noriginal of the canonical Gospel This opinion, as Schwegler(1) remarks,\nis supported by the fact that tradition assigns the origin of both\nGospels to Palestine, and that both were intended for Jewish Christians\nand exclusively used by them. That the two works, however originally\nrelated, had by subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still\namidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be\ndoubted, and in addition to evidence already cited we may point out that\nin the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Gospel according to Matthew is\nsaid to have 2500 [--Greek--], whilst that according to the Hebrews has\nonly 2200.(2)\n\nWhether this Gospel formed one of the writings of the [--Greek--] of Luke\nit is not our purpose to inquire, but enough has been said to prove that\nit was one of the most ancient(3)\n\n{426}\n\nand most valued evangelical works, and to show the probability that\nJustin Martyr, a Jewish Christian living amongst those who are known to\nhave made exclusive use of this Gospel, may well, like his contemporary\nHegesippus, have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and this\nprobability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by the fact that\nmany of his quotations agree with passages which we know to have been\ncontained in it; whilst, on the other hand, almost all differ from our\nGospels, presenting generally, however, a greater affinity to the Gospel\naccording to Matthew, as we might expect, than to the other two. It is\nclear that the title \"Gospel according to the Hebrews\" cannot have been\nits actual superscription, but merely was a name descriptive of the\nreaders for whom it was prepared or amongst whom it chiefly circulated,\nand it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than \"The\nGospel\" [--Greek--], to which were added the different designations under\nwhich we find it known amongst different communities.(1) We have already\nseen that Justin speaks of \"The Gospel\" and seems to refer to the\n\"Memoirs of Peter,\" both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel,\nbut there is another of the names borne by the \"Gospel according to the\nHebrews,\" which singularly recalls the \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" by\nwhich Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the\n\"Gospel according to the Apostles\"(2)\n\n{427}\n\n[--Greek--], and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs with this Gospel, we\nfind at once similarity of contents and even of name.(1)\n\nIt is not necessary, however, for) the purposes of this examination to\ndwell more fully upon the question as to what specific Gospel now no\nlonger extant Justin employed. We have shown that there is no evidence\nthat he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore,\nbe cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the\nauthenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once\nname. On the other hand it has been made evident that there were other\nGospels, now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from\nwhich his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have\nseen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel\nhistory unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works\nand notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further\ncontained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus\nnot contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous,\nsystematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels. No theory of\nquotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena,\nand the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our\nGospels, but quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony\nof Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of\nmiracles and of a Divine Revelation.\n\n{429}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.\n\nWe now turn to Hegesippus, one of the contemporaries of Justin, and,\nlike him, a Palestinian Jewish Christian. Most of our information\nregarding him is derived from Eusebius, who fortunately gives rather\ncopious extracts from his writings. Hegesippus was born in Palestine,\nof Jewish parents,(l) and in all probability belonged to the primitive\ncommunity of Jerusalem.(2) In order to make himself thoroughly\nacquainted with the state of the Church, he travelled widely and came\nto Rome when Anicetus was Bishop. Subsequently he wrote a work of\nhistorical Memoirs, [--Greek--], in five books, and thus became the\nfirst ecclesiastical historian of Christianity. This work is lost, but\nportions have been preserved to us by Eusebius, and one other fragment\nis also extant. It must have been, in part at least, written after the\nsuccession of Eleutherus to the Roman bishopric (a.d. 177-193), as that\nevent is mentioned in the book itself, and his testimony is allowed by\nall critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the\nsecond century.(3)\n\n{430}\n\nThe testimony of Hegesippus is of great value, not only as that of a\nman born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of\nan intelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities. Eusebius\nevidently held him in high estimation as recording the unerring\ntradition of the Apostolic preaching in the most simple style of\ncomposition,(1) and as a writer of authority who was \"contemporary with\nthe first successors of the Apostles\"(2) [--Greek--]. Any indications,\ntherefore, which we may derive from information regarding him, and\nfrom the fragments of his writings which survive, must be of peculiar\nimportance for our inquiry.\n\nAs might have been expected from a convert from Judaism(3) [--Greek--], we\nfind in Hegesippus manifest evidences of general tendency to the Jewish\nside of Christianity. For him, \"James, the brother of the Lord,\" was the\nchief of the Apostles, and he states that he had received the government\nof the Church after the death of Jesus.(4) The account which he gives of\nhim is remarkable. \"He was holy from his mothers womb. He drank neither\nwine nor strong drink, nor ate he any living thing. A razor never went\nupon his head, he anointed not himself with\n\n{431}\n\noil, and did not use a bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the\nHolies. For he did not wear woollen garments, but linen. And he alone\nentered into the Sanctuary and was wont to be found upon his knees\nseeking forgiveness on behalf of the people; so that his knees became\nhard like a camel's, through his constant kneeling in supplication to\nGod, and asking for forgiveness for the people. In consequence of his\nexceeding great righteousness he was called Righteous and 'Oblias,' that\nis, Protector of the people and Righteousness, as the prophets declare\nconcerning him,\"(1) and so on. Throughout the whole of his account of\nJames, Hegesippus describes him as a mere Jew, and as frequenting the\ntemple, and even entering the Holy of Holies as a Jewish High Priest.\nWhether the account be apocryphal or not is of little consequence here;\nit is clear that Hegesippus sees no incongruity in it, and that the\ndifference between the Jew and the Christian was extremely small. The\nhead of the Christian community could assume all the duties of the\nJewish High-Priest,(2) and his Christian doctrines did not offend more\nthan a small party amongst the Jews.(3)\n\nWe are not, therefore, surprised to find that his rule [--Greek--] of\northodoxy in the Christian communities\n\n{432}\n\nwhich he visited, was \"the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.\" Speaking of\nthe result of his observations during his travels, and of the succession\nof Bishops in Rome, he says: \"The Corinthian Church has continued in the\ntrue faith until Primus, now Bishop of Corinth. I conversed with him\non my voyage to Rome, and stayed many days with the Corinthians, during\nwhich time we were refreshed together with true doctrine. Arrived\nin Rome I composed the succession until Anicetus, whose deacon was\nEleutherus. After Anicetus succeeded Soter, and afterwards Eleutherus.\nBut with every succession, and in every city, that prevails which\nthe Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord enjoin.\"(1) The test of true\ndoctrine [--Greek--] with Hegesippus as with Justin, therefore, is no\nNew Testament Canon, which does not yet exist for him, but the Old\nTestament, the only Holy Scriptures which he acknowledges, and the words\nof the Lord himself,(3) which, as in the case of Jewish Christians like\nJustin, were held to be established by, and in direct conformity with,\nthe Old Testament. He carefully transmits the unerring tradition of\napostolic preaching [--Greek--], but he apparently knows nothing of any\ncanonical series even of apostolic epistles.\n\nThe care with which Eusebius searches for information regarding the\nbooks of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety to produce\nany evidence concerning their composition and authenticity, render his\nsilence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct\n\n{433}\n\nutterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.(1) Now, while\nEusebius does not mention that Hegesippus refers to any of our Canonical\nGospels or Epistles, he very distinctly states that he made use in his\nwritings of the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews\" [--Greek--]. It may be\nwell, however, to give his remarks in a consecutive form. \"He sets forth\nsome matters from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Syriac,\nand particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he was a convert\nfrom among the Hebrews, and other things he records as from unwritten\nJewish tradition. And not only he, but also Irenaeus, and the whole body\nof the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom.\nAnd regarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had\nbeen forged in his own time by certain heretics.\"(2)\n\nIt is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the testimony\nof Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, regarding the\ncomposition of the first two Gospels, would not have neglected to have\navailed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus, for whom he has so much\nrespect, had that writer furnished him with any opportunity, and\nthere can be no doubt that he found no facts concerning the origin and\nauthorship of our Gospels in his writings. It is, on the other hand,\nreasonable to infer that Hegesippus exclusively made use of the\n\n{434}\n\nGospel according to the Hebrews, together with unwritten tradition.(1)\nIn the passage regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as even\nLardner(2) conjectures, the text of Eusebius is in all probability\nconfused, and he doubtless said what Jerome later found to be the fact,\nthat \"the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic and\nSyriac (or Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew characters.\"(3) It\nis in this sense that Rufinus translates it. It may not be inappropriate\nto point out that fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,\nwhich have been preserved, show the same tendency to give some\npre-eminence to James amongst the Apostles which we observe in\nHegesippus.(4) It has been argued by a few that the words, \"and\nregarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been\nforged in his own times by certain heretics,\" are contradictory to his\nattributing authority to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or at\nleast that they indicate some distinction amongst Christians between\nrecognized and apocryphal works. The apocryphal works referred\nto, however, are clearly Old Testament Apocrypha.(5) The words are\nintroduced by the statement that Hegesippus records matters \"as from\nunwritten Jewish tradition,\" and then proceeds, \"and\n\n{435}\n\nnot only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole body of the ancients, called\nthe Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom.\" Then follow the words,\n\"And with regard to the _so-called_ Apocrypha,\" &c, &c, evidently\npassing from the work just mentioned to the Old Testament Apocrypha,\nseveral of which stand also in the name of Solomon, and it is not\nimprobable that amongst these were included the _Ascensio Esaiae_ and the\n_Apocalypsis Eliae_, to which is referred a passage which Hegesippus, in\na fragment preserved by Photius,(1) strongly repudiates. As Hegesippus\ndoes not, so far as we know, mention any canonical work of the New\nTestament, but takes as his rule of faith the Law, the Prophets, and the\nwords of the Lord, probably as he finds them in the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, quotes also Jewish tradition and discusses the Proverbs of\nSolomon, the only possible conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive\nis that he spoke of Old Testament Apocrypha. There cannot be a doubt\nthat Eusebius would have recorded his repudiation of New Testament\n\"Apocrypha,\" regarding which he so carefully collects information, and\nhis consequent recognition of New Testament Canonical works implied in\nsuch a distinction.\n\nWe must now see how far in the fragments of the works of Hegesippus\nwhich have been preserved to us there are references to assist our\ninquiry. In his account of certain surviving members of the family of\nJesus, who were brought before Domitian, Hegesippus says: \"For Domitian\nfeared the appearing of the Christ as much as Herod.\"(2) It has been\nargued that this\n\n{436}\n\nmay be an allusion to the massacre of the children by Herod related in\nMatt ii., more especially as it is doubtful that the parallel account to\nthat contained in the first two chapters of the first Gospel existed\nin the oldest forms of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1) But the\ntradition which has been preserved in our first Synoptic may have formed\npart of many other evangelical works, in one shape or another, and\ncertainly cannot be claimed with reason exclusively for that Gospel.\nThis argument, therefore, has no weight whatever, and it obviously rests\nupon the vaguest conjecture. The principal passages which apologists(2)\nadduce as references to our Gospels occur in the account which\nHegesippus gives of the martyrdom of James the Just. The first of\nthese is the reply which James is said to have given to the Scribes and\nPharisees: \"Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He sits\nin heaven on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on the\nclouds of heaven.\"(3) This is compared with Matt. xxvi. 64: \"From this\ntime ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and\ncoming on the clouds of heaven.\"(4) It is not necessary to point out the\nvariations between these two passages, which are obvious. If we had not\nthe direct intimation that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according\nto the Hebrews, which no doubt contained this passage, it would be\napparent that a man who valued tradition\n\n{437}\n\nso highly might well have derived this and other passages from that\nsource. This is precisely one of those sayings which were most current\nin the early Church, whose hope and courage were sustained amid\npersecution and suffering by such Chiliastic expectations, with which\naccording to the apostolic injunction they comforted each other.(1) In\nany case the words do not agree with the passage in the first Gospel,\nand as we have already established, even perfect agreement would not\nunder the circumstances be sufficient evidence that the quotation is\nfrom that Gospel, and not from another; but with such discrepancy,\nwithout any evidence whatever that Hegesippus knew anything of our\nGospels, but, on the contrary, with the knowledge that he made use\nof the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we must decide that any such\npassages must rather be derived from it than from our Gospels.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase: \"for\nwe and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou\nrespectest not persons.\"(2) Canon Westcott points out that [--Greek--] only\noccurs in Luke xx. 21, and Galatians ii. 6;(3) but the similarity\nof this single phrase, which is not given as a quotation, but in a\nhistorical form put into the mouth of those who are addressing James,\ncannot for a moment be accepted as evidence of a knowledge of Luke. The\nepisode of the tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form\nof the Gospel history, and although the other two Synoptics(4) read\n[--Greek--] for [--Greek--], there is\n\n{438}\n\nno ground for asserting that some of the [--Greek--] who preceded Luke did\nnot use the latter form, and as little for asserting that it did not\nso stand, for instance, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The\nemployment of the same expression in the Epistle, moreover, at once\ndeprives the Gospel of any individuality in its use.\n\nHegesippus represents the dying James as kneeling down and praying for\nthose who were stoning him: \"I beseech (thee), Lord God Father, forgive\nthem, for they know not what they do\" [--Greek--].(1) This is compared\nwith the prayer which Luke(2) puts into the mouth of Jesus on the cross:\n\"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do\" [--Greek--], and it\nis assumed from this partial coincidence that Hegesippus was acquainted\nwith the third of our canonical Gospels. We are surprised to see an\nable and accomplished critic like Hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion\nwithout either examination or argument of any kind.(3) Such a deduction\nis totally unwarranted by the facts of the case, and if the partial\nagreement of a passage in such a Father with a historical expression in\na Gospel which, alone out of many previously existent, has come down\nto us can be considered evidence of the acquaintance of the Father with\nthat particular Gospel, the function of criticism is at an end.\n\nIt may here be observed that the above passage of Luke xxiii. 34 is\nomitted altogether from the Vatican MS. and Codex D (Bezse), and in the\nCodex Sinaiticus\n\n{439}\n\nits position is of a very doubtful character.(1) The Codex Alexandrinus\nwhich contains it omits the word [--Greek--].(2) Luke's Gospel was avowedly\ncomposed after many other similar works were already in existence, and\nwe know from our Synoptics how closely such writings often followed each\nother, and drew from the same sources.(3) If any historical character is\nconceded to this prayer of Jesus it is natural to suppose that it must\nhave been given in at least some of these numerous Gospels which have\nunfortunately perished. No one could reasonably assert that our third\nGospel is the only one which ever contained the passage. It would be\npreposterous to affirm, for instance, that it did not exist in the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, which Hegesippus employed. On the\nsupposition that the passage is historical, which apologists at least\nwill not dispute, what could be more natural or probable than that such\na prayer, \"emanating from the innermost soul of Jesus,\"(4) should\nhave been adopted under similar circumstances by James his brother\nand successor, who certainly could not have derived it from Luke. The\ntradition of such words, expressing so much of the original spirit of\nChristianity, setting aside for the moment written\n\n{440}\n\nGospels, could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the mind of the\nearly Church, and more especially in the primitive community amongst\nwhom they were uttered, and of which Hegesippus was himself a later\nmember; and they would certainly have been treasured by one who was so\ncareful a collector and transmitter of \"the unerring tradition of the\napostolic preaching.\" No saying is more likely to have been preserved\nby tradition, both from its own character, brevity, and origin, and from\nthe circumstances under which it was uttered, and there can be no reason\nfor limiting it amongst written records to Luke's Gospel. The omission\nof the prayer from very important codices of Luke further weakens\nthe claim of that Gospel to the passage. Beyond these general\nconsiderations, however, there is the important and undoubted fact\nthat the prayer which Hegesippus represents James as uttering does not\nactually agree with the prayer of Jesus in the third Gospel. So far from\nproving the use of Luke, therefore, this merely fragmentary and partial\nagreement, on the contrary, rather proves that he did not know that\nGospel, for on the supposition of his making use of the third Synoptic\nat all for such a purpose, and not simply giving the prayer which James\nmay in reality have uttered, why did he not quote the prayer as he\nactually found it in Luke?\n\nWe have still to consider a fragment of Hegesippus preserved to us by\nStephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite\n\nof the sixth century, which reads as follows: \"That the good things\nprepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered\nthey into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and\napostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of his\nMemoirs that these words are vainly\n\n{441}\n\nspoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine\nwritings and to the Lord saying: 'Blessed are your eyes that see, and\nyour cars that hear,'\" &c. [--Greek--].(1) We believe that we have here\nan expression of the strong prejudice against the Apostle Paul and\nhis teaching which continued for so long to prevail amongst Jewish\nChristians, and which is apparent in many writings of that period.(2)\nThe quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians ii. 9, differs materially from the\nSeptuagint version of the passage in Isaiah lxiv. 4, and, as we have\nseen, the same passage quoted by \"Clement of Rome,\"(3) differs both from\nthe version of the LXX'. and from the Epistle, although closer to the\nformer. Jerome however found the passage in the apocryphal work called\n\"Ascensio Isaiae,\"(4) and Origen, Jerome, and others likewise ascribe it\nto the \"Apocalypsis Eliae.\"(5) This, however, does not concern us here,\nand we have merely to examine the \"saying of the Lord,\" which Hegesippus\nopposes to the passage: \"Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears\nthat hear.\" This is compared with Matt. xiii. 16, \"But blessed are your\neyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear\" [--Greek--], and also\nwith Luke x. 23, \"Blessed are the eyes which see the things that\nye see,\" &c. We need not point out that the saying referred to by\nHegesippus, whilst conveying the\n\n{442}\n\nsame sense as that in the two Gospels, differs as materially from them\nboth as they do from each other, and as we might expect a quotation\ntaken from a different though kindred source, like the Gospel according\nto the Hebrews, to do. The whole of the passages which we have examined,\nindeed, exhibit the same natural variation.\n\nWe have already referred to the expressions of Hegesippus regarding the\nheresies in the early Church: \"From these sprang the false Christs, and\nfalse prophets, and _false apostles_ who divided the unity of the Church\nby corrupting doctrines concerning God and his Christ.\"(1) We have shown\nhow this recalls quotations in Justin of sayings of Jesus foreign to\nour Gospels, in common with similar expressions in the Clementine\nHomilies,(2) Apostolic Constitutions,(3) and Clementine Recognitions,(4)\nand we need not discuss the matter further. This community of reference,\nin a circle known to have made use of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, to matters foreign to our Synoptics, furnishes collateral\nillustration of the influence of that Gospel.\n\nTischendorf, who so eagerly searches for every trace, real or imaginary,\nof the use of our Gospels and of the existence of a New Testament Canon,\npasses over in silence, with the exception of a short note(5) devoted\nto the denial that Hegesippus was opposed to Paul, this first writer of\nChristian Church history, whose evidence, could it have been adduced,\nwould have been so valuable. He does not pretend that Hegesippus made\nuse of the Canonical Gospels, or knew of any other Holy Scriptures\n\n{443}\n\nthan those of the Old Testament, but, on the other hand, he does not\nmention that he possessed, and quoted from, the Gospel according to the\nHebrews. There is no reason for supposing that Hegesippus found a New\nTestament Canon in any of the Christian communities which he visited,\nand such a rule of faith certainly did not yet exist in Rome in a.d.\n160-170.(1) There is no evidence whatever to show that Hegesippus\nrecognized any other evangelical work than the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, as the written source of his knowledge of the words of the\nLord.(2)\n\n2.\n\nThe testimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in\nconnection with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical\nwriter who mentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written\nrecords of the life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been more\ncontinuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which\nhe refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of\nHierapolis, in Phrygia,(3) in the first half of the second century,\nand is said to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about a.d.\n164-167.(4) About the middle of the second century(5)5 he wrote a work\nin five books, entitled\n\n{444}\n\n\"Exposition of the Lord's Oracles \"(l) [--Greek--], which, with the\nexception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and\nIrenaeus, is unfortunately, no longer extant. In the preface to his\nbook he stated: \"But I shall not hesitate also to set beside my\ninterpretations all that I rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and\nrightly remembered, earnestly testifying to their truth. For I was not,\nlike the multitude, taking pleasure in those who speak much, but in\nthose who teach the truth, nor in those who relate alien commandments,\nbut in those who record those delivered by the Lord to the faith, and\nwhich come from the truth itself. If it happened that any one came who\nhad followed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after the words of\nthe Presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what\nThomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the\ndisciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the\ndisciples of the Lord, say, for I held that what was to be derived\nfrom books did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding\nvoice\"(2). [--Greek--]\n\nIt is clear from this that Papias preferred tradition to any written\nworks with which he was acquainted, that he attached little or\n\n{445}\n\nno value to any Gospels with which he had met,(1) and that he knew\nabsolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament.(2) His\nwork was evidently intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of\nJesus completed from oral tradition, with his own expositions, and this\nis plainly indicated both by his own words, and by the statements of\nEusebius who, amongst other things, mentions that Papias sets forth\nstrange parables of the Saviour and teachings of his from unwritten\ntradition [--Greek--].(3) It is not, however, necessary to discuss more\nclosely the nature of the work, for there is no doubt that written\ncollections of discourses of Jesus existed before it was composed of\nwhich it is probable he made use.\n\nThe most interesting part of the work of Papias which is preserved to us\nis that relating to Matthew and\n\n     1 With reference to the last sentence of Papias, Teschendorf\n     asks: \"What books does he refer to here, perhaps our Gospels\n ? According to the expression this is not impossible, but\n     from the whole character of the book in the highest degree\n     improbable.\" (Wann wurden, u. s. w.t p. 109.) We know little\n     or nothing of the \"whole character\" of the book, and what we\n     do know is contradictory to our Gospels. The natural and\n     only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration\n     of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance,\n     as a prefatory statement of his belief.\n\n{446}\n\nMark. After stating that Papias had inserted in his book accounts of\nJesus given by Aristion, of whom nothing is known, and by the\nPresbyter John, Eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding Mark\ncommunicated by the latter. There has been much controversy as to the\nidentity of the Presbyter John, some affirming him to have been the\nApostle,(1) but the great majority of critics deciding that he was\na totally different person.(2) Irenseus, who, sharing the Chiliastic\nopinions of Papias, held him in high respect, boldly calls him \"the\nhearer of John\" (meaning the Apostle) \"and a companion of Polycarp\"\n[--Greek--](3) but this is expressly contradicted by Eusebius, who points\nout that, in the preface to his book, Papias by no means asserts that he\nwas himself a hearer of the Apostles, but merely that he received their\ndoctrines from those who had personally known them;(3) and after making\nthe quotation from Papias which we have given\n\n{447}\n\nabove, he goes on to point out that the name of John is twice mentioned,\nonce together with Peter, James, and Matthew, and the other Apostles,\n\"evidently the Evangelist,\" and the other John he mentions separately,\nranking him amongst those who are not Apostles, and placing Aristion\nbefore him, distinguishing him clearly by the name of Presbyter.(1)\nHe further refers to the statement of the great Bishop of Alexandria,\nDionysius,(2) that at Ephesus there were two tombs, each bearing the\nname of John, thereby leading to the inference that there were two men\nof the name.(3) There can be no doubt that Papias himself in the passage\nquoted mentions two persons of the name of John, distinguishing the one\nfrom the other, and classing the one amongst the Apostles and the other\nafter Aristion, an unknown \"disciple of the Lord,\" and, but for the\nphrase of Irenaeus, so characteristically uncritical and assumptive,\nthere probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning\nof the passage. The question is not of importance to us, and we may\nleave it, with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom under\nMarcus Aurelius, c. a.d. 165, can scarcely have been a hearer of the\nApostles.(4)\n\nThe account which the Presbyter John is said to have\n\n{448}\n\ngiven of Mark's Gospel is as follows: \"'This also the Presbyter said:\nMark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever\nhe remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which\nwere either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord,\nnor followed him; but afterwards, as I said,(1) accompanied Peter, who\nadapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive\nrecord of the Lord's oracles. Mark, therefore, committed no error in\nthus writing down some things as he remembered them. For of one point\nhe was careful, to omit none of the things which he heard, and not to\nnarrate any of them falsely.' These facts Papias relates concerning\nMark.\"(2) The question to decide is, whether the work here described is\nour Canonical Gospel or not.\n\nThe first point in this account is the statement that Mark was the\ninterpreter of Peter [--Greek--]. Was he merely the secretary of the\nApostle writing in a manner from his dictation, or does the passage mean\nthat he translated the Aramaic narrative of Peter into\n\n     1 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Bev., 1875, p. 842), in the course\n     of a highly fanciful argument says, in reference to this \"as\n     I said\": \"It is quite clear that Papias had already said\n     something of the relations existing between St. Peter and St\n     Mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the\n     Second Gospel, for he there refers back to a preceding\n     notice.\" It is quite clear that he refers back, but only to\n     the preceding sentence in which he \"had already said\n     something of the relations\" in stating the fact that: \"Mark,\n     having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote, &c.\"\n\n{449}\n\nGreek?(1) The former is the more probable supposition and that which\nis most generally adopted, but the question is not material here. The\nconnection of Peter with the Gospel according to Mark was generally\naffirmed in the early Church, as was also that of Paul with the third\nGospel,{2} with the evident purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all\nthe Canonical Gospels.(3) Irenaeus says: \"After their decease (Peter and\nPaul), Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter delivered to, us in\nwriting that which had been preached by Peter.\"(4) Eusebius quotes a\nsimilar tradition from Clement of Alexandria, embellished however\nwith further particulars. He says: \"... The cause for which the Gospel\naccording to Mark was written was this: When Peter had publicly preached\nthe word at Rome, and proclaimed the Gospel by the Spirit, those who\nwere present being many, requested Mark, as he had followed him from\nafar and remembered what he had said, to write down what he had spoken;\nand when he had composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had asked\nit of him; which when Peter knew he neither absolutely hindered nor\nencouraged it*\"(5) Tertullian repeats the same tradition. He says:\n\n{450}\n\n\"And the Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's,\nwhose interpreter Mark was.... for it may rightly appear that works\nwhich disciples publish are of their masters.\"(l) We have it again from\nOrigen: \"The second (Gospel) is according to Mark, written as Peter\ndirected him.\"(2) Eusebius gives a more detailed and advanced version\nof the same tradition. \"So much, however, did the effulgence of piety\nilluminate the minds of those (Romans) who heard Peter, that it did\nnot content them to hear but once, nor to receive only the unwritten\ndoctrine of the divine teaching, but with reiterated entreaties they\nbesought Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, as the companion of\nPeter, that he should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus\norally conveyed. Nor did they cease their entreaties until they had\npersuaded the man, and thus became the cause of the writing of the\nGospel called according to Mark. They say, moreover, that the Apostle\n(Peter) having become aware, through revelation to him of the Spirit,\nof what had been done, was delighted with the ardour of the men, and\nratified the work in order that it might be read in the churches. This\nnarrative is given by Clement in the sixth book of his Institutions,\nwhose testimony is supported by that of Papias, the Bishop of\nHierapolis.\"(3)\n\n{451}\n\nThe account given by Clement, however, by no means contained these\ndetails, as we have seen. In his \"Demonstration of the Gospel\" Eusebius,\nreferring to the same tradition, affirms that it was the modesty of\nPeter which prevented his writing a Gospel himself.(1) Jerome almost\nrepeats the preceding account of Eusebius: \"Mark, the disciple and\ninterpreter of Peter, being entreated by the brethren of Rome, wrote a\nshort Gospel according to what he had received from Peter, which when\nPeter heard, he approved, and gave his authority for its being read\nin the Churches, as Clement writes in the sixth book of his\nInstitutions,\"(3) &c. Jerome moreover says that Peter had Mark for an\ninterpreter, \"whose Gospel was composed: Peter narrating and he writing\"\n(cujus evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est).(3)\nIt is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations\nthe tradition regarding the first two Gospels which Papias originated.\nIrenaeus dates the writing of Mark after the death of Peter and Paul in\nRome. Clement describes Mark as writing during Peter's life, the Apostle\npreserving absolute neutrality. By the time of Eusebius, however, the\ntradition has acquired new and miraculous elements and a more decided\ncharacter--Peter is made aware of the undertaking of Mark through a\nrevelation of the Spirit, and instead of being neutral is delighted and\nlends the work the weight of his authority. Eusebius refers to Clement\nand Papias as giving the same account, which they do\n\n{452}\n\nnot, however, and Jerome merely repeats the story of Eusebius without\nnaming him, and the tradition which he had embellished thus becomes\nendorsed and perpetuated. Such is the growth of tradition;(l) it is\nimpossible to overlook the mythical character of the information we\npossess as to the origin of the second Canonical Gospel.(2)\n\nIn a Gospel so completely inspired by Peter as the tradition of Papias\nand of the early Church indicates, we may reasonably expect to find\nunmistakable traces of Petrine influence, but on examination it will be\nseen that these are totally wanting.(3) Some of the early Church did\nnot fail to remark this singular discrepancy between the Gospel and the\ntradition of its dependence on Peter, and in reply Eusebius adopts an\napologetic tone.(4) For instance, in the brief account of the calling of\nSimon in\n\n     1  A similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as\n     to the place in which the Gospel was written, Irenaeus and\n     others dating it from Rome, and others (as Chrysostom, in\n     Matth. Homil., i.), assigning it to Egypt. Indeed some MSS.\n     of the second Gospel have the words [--Greek--] in accordance\n     with this tradition as to its origin. Cf. Scholz, Einl. N.\n     T., i. p. 201. Various critics have argued for its\n     composition at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. We do not go\n     into the discussion as to whether Peter ever was in Rome.\n\n{453}\n\nMark, the distinguishing addition: \"called Peter,\" of the first Gospel\nis omitted,(1) and still more notably the whole narrative of the\nmiraculous draught of fishes, which gives the event such prominence in\nthe third Gospel.(2) In Matthew, Jesus goes into the house of \"Peter\" to\ncure his wife's mother of a fever, whilst in Mark it is \"into the house\nof Simon and Andrew,\" the less honourable name being still continued.(3)\nMatthew commences the catalogue of the twelve by the pointed indication:\n\"The first, Simon, who is called Peter,\"(4) thus giving him precedence,\nwhilst Mark merely says: \"And Simon he surnamed Peter.\"(5) The important\nepisode of Peter's walking on the sea, of the first Gospel,(6) is\naltogether ignored by Mark. The enthusiastic declaration of Peter: \"Thou\nart the Christ,\"(7) is only followed by the chilling injunction to tell\nno one, in the second Gospel,(8) whilst Matthew not only gives greater\nprominence to the declaration of Peter, but gives the reply of Jesus:\n\"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona,\" &c,--of which Mark apparently knows\nnothing,--and then proceeds to the most important episode in the history\nof the Apostle, the celebrated words by which the surname of Peter was\nconferred upon him: \"And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon\nthis rock will I build my Church,\" &c.(9) The Gospel supposed to be\ninspired by Peter, however, totally omits this most important passage;\nas it also does the miracle of the finding the tribute money in the\nfish's mouth, narrated by the first Gospel.(10) Luke states that \"Peter\n\n{454}\n\nand John \"are sent to prepare the Passover, whilst Mark has only \"two\ndisciples;\"(1) and in the account of the last Supper, Luke gives the\naddress of Jesus to Peter: \"Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to\nhave you (all) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee\nthat thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy\nbrethren.\"(2) Of this Mark does not say a word. Again, after the denial,\nLuke reads: \"And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter\nremembered the word of the Lord, &c, and Peter went out and wept\nbitterly;\"(3) whereas Mark omits the reproachful look of Jesus, and\nmakes the penitence of Peter depend merely on the second crowing of the\ncock, and further modifies the penitence by the omission of \"bitterl\"--\"\nAnd when he thought thereon he wept.\"(4) There are other instances\nto which we need not refer. Not only are some of the most important\nepisodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels as a\nprincipal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there\nis the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of\nPetrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions\nare due to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does\nIrenaeus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel\nwas only written after the death of Peter,(5) but also there is no\nmodesty in omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus,\nsimply because Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for\ninstance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial\n\n{455}\n\nof his master, which could not but have filled a sad place in the\nApostle's memory. On the other hand, there is no adequate record of\nspecial matter, which the intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings\nof Jesus possessed by Peter might have supplied, to counterbalance the\nsingular omissions. There is infinitely more of the spirit of Peter\nin the first Gospel than there is in the second. The whole internal\nevidence, therefore, shows that this part of the tradition of the\nPresbyter John transmitted by Papias does not apply to our Gospel.\n\nThe discrepancy, however, is still more marked when we compare with\nour actual second Gospel the account of the work of Mark which Papias\nreceived from the Presbyter. Mark wrote down from memory some parts\n[--Greek--] of the teaching of Peter regarding the life of Jesus, but as\nPeter adapted his instructions to the actual circumstances [--Greek--], and\ndid not give a consecutive report [--Greek--] of the sayings or doings of\nJesus, Mark was only careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself\nto arrange in historical order [--Greek--] his narrative of the things\nwhich were said and done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as\nhe remembered them. This description would lead us to expect a work\ncomposed of fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without\nregular sequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is\nthe most prominent feature in the description, and forms the burden\nof the whole. Mark writes \"what he remembered;\" \"he did not arrange\nin order the things that were either said or done by Christ;\" and then\nfollow the apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a\nhearer or follower of the Lord, but derived his\n\n{456}\n\ninformation from the occasional preaching of Peter, who did not attempt\nto give a consecutive narrative. Now it is impossible in the work of\nMark here described to recognize our present second Gospel, which does\nnot depart in any important degree from the order of the other two\nSynoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident character of\norderly arrangement Each of the Synoptics compared with the other two\nwould present a similar degree of variation, but none of them\ncould justly be described as not arranged in order or as not being\nconsecutive. The second Gospel opens formally, and after presenting\nJohn the Baptist as the messenger sent to prepare the way of the Lord,\nproceeds to the baptism of Jesus, his temptation, his entry upon public\nlife, and his calling of the disciples. Then, after a consecutive\nnarrative of his teaching and works, the history ends with a full and\nconsecutive account of the last events in the life of Jesus, his\ntrial, crucifixion, and resurrection, There is in the Gospel every\ncharacteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement, from the striking\nintroduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the\nsolemn close of the marvellous history.(1) The great majority of\ncritics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the\nPresbyter John recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical\nGospel at all.(2) Many\n\n{457}\n\nof those who affirm that the description of Papias may apply to our\nsecond Gospel(1) do so with hesitation, and few maintain that we now\npossess the original work without considerable subsequent alteration.\nSome of these critics, however, feeling the difficulty of identifying\nour second Gospel with the work here described, endeavour\n\n{458}\n\nto reconcile the discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the\naccount of Papias. They suggest that the first part, in which the want\nof chronological order is pointed out, refers to the rough notes which\nMark made during the actual preaching and lifetime of Peter, and that\nthe latter part applies to our present Gospel, which he later remodelled\ninto its present shape.(1) This most unreasonable and arbitrary\napplication of the words of Papias is denounced even by apologists.(2)\n\nIt has been well argued that the work here described as produced by Mark\nin the character of [--Greek--] is much more one of the same family as the\nClementine Homilies than of our Gospels.(3) The work was no systematic\nnarrative of the history of Jesus, nor report of his teaching, but the\ndogmatic preaching of the Apostle, illustrated and interspersed with\npassages from the discourses of Jesus or facts from his life.(4) Of this\ncharacter seems actually to have been that ancient work \"The Preaching\nof Peter\" [--Greek--], which was used by Heracleon,(5) and by Clement(6) of\nAlexandria as an authentic canonical work,(7) denounced by Origen(8)\n\n{459}\n\non account of the consideration in which it was held by-many, but still\nquoted with respect by Gregory of Nazianzum.(1)\n\nThere can be no doubt that the [--Greek--] although it failed to obtain a\npermanent place in the canon, was one of the most ancient works of the\nChristian Church, dating probably from the first century, from which\nindeed the Clementine Homilies themselves were in all likelihood\nproduced,(2) and, like the work described by Papias, it also was held\nto have been composed in Rome in connection with the preaching there of\nPeter and Paul.3 It must be noted, moreover, that Papias does not call\nthe work ascribed to Mark a Gospel, but merely a record of the preaching\nof Peter.\n\nIt is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work\nreferred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the present Gospel\naccording to Mark became substituted for it. The merely negative\nevidence that our actual Gospel is not the work described by Papias\nis sufficient for our purpose. Any one acquainted with the thoroughly\nuncritical character of the Fathers, and with the literary history of\nthe early Christian Church, will readily conceive the facility with\nwhich this can have been accomplished. The great mass of intelligent\ncritics are agreed that our Synoptic Gospels have assumed their present\nform only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier\nevangelical works. These changes have not been effected without traces\n\n{460}\n\nbeing left by which the various materials may be separated and\ndistinguished, but the more primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared,\nnaturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. The critic,\nhowever, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not\nbound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals,\nor accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the\nprimitive Gospel.\n\nTeschendorf asks: \"How then has neither Eusebius nor any other\ntheologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions of\nPapias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. and Mk.)?\"(1) The\nabsolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction,\nhowever childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous\ncharacter of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their\nunquestioning application of the tradition of Papias to our Gospels\nanything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent\nacquiescence elevated into an argument. We have already in the course\nof these pages seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical\ncharacter of the Fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances\nof the absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could\nbe too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious\nacceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No\nperiod in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious\nworks as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every\nApostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master\nhimself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery.\nFalse gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously\n\n{461}\n\ncirculated, and such pious falsification was not even intended or\nregarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. It was\nonly slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once,\nas we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the\ncanon; and that genuine works shared this fate, whilst spurious ones\nusurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism. The\nFathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have\nbeen of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted\nis of no critical value.(1) In an age-when the multiplication of copies\nof any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of\ndifficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility\nthe more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place of the\noriginal notes as the work of Mark.\n\nThe account given by Papias of the work ascribed to Matthew is as\nfollows: \"Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every\none interpreted them as he was able.\"(2) Critics are divided in opinion\nas to whether this tradition was, like that regarding Mark, derived from\nthe Presbyter John,(3) or is given merely on\n\n     1 Canon Westcott himself admits that \"the proof of the Canon\n     is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of\n     the first two centuries.\" He says: \"The spirit of the\n     ancient world was essentially uncritical.\" On the Canon, p.\n     7 f.\n\n{462}\n\nthe authority of Papias himself.(1) Eusebius joins the account of Mark\nto that given by Matthew merely by the following words: \"These facts\nPapias relates concerning Mark; but regarding Matthew he has said as\nfollows:\"(2) Eusebius distinctly states that the account regarding Mark\nis derived from the Presbyter, and the only reason for ascribing to\nhim also that concerning Matthew is that it is not excluded by the\nphraseology of Eusebius, and the two passages being given by him\nconsecutively--however they may have stood in the work of Papias--it is\nreasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived from the\nsame source. The point is not of much importance, but it is clear that\nthere is no absolute right to trace this statement to the Presbyter\nJohn, as there is in the case of the tradition about Mark.\n\nThis passage has excited even more controversy than that regarding Mark,\nand its interpretation and application are still keenly debated. The\nintricacy and difficulty of the questions which it raises are freely\nadmitted by some of the most earnest defenders of the Canonical Gospels,\nbut the problem, so far as our examination is concerned, can be solved\nwithout much trouble. The dilemma in which apologists find themselves\nwhen they attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by\nPapias to our Canonical Gospel is the great difficulty which complicates\nthe matter and prevents a\n\n{463}\n\nclear and distinct solution of the question. We shall avoid minute\ndiscussion of details, contenting ourselves with the broader features of\nthe argument, and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the\nbearing of the evidence of Papias upon the claim to authenticity of our\nCanonical Gospel.\n\nThe first point which we have to consider is the nature of the work\nwhich is here described. Matthew is said to have composed the [--Greek--]\nor Oracles, and there can be little doubt from the title of his own\nbook: \"Exposition of the Lord's Oracles\" [--Greek--], that these oracles\nreferred to by Papias were the Discourses of Jesus. Does the word Xoyta,\nhowever, mean strictly Oracles or discourses alone, or does it include\nwithin its fair signification also historical narrative? \"Were the\n\"Xoyta\" here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of Jesus,\nor a complete Gospel like that in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew?\nThat the natural interpretation of the word is merely \"Oracles\" is\nindirectly admitted, even by the most thorough apologists, when they\nconfess the obscurity of the expression--obscurity, however, which\nsimply appears to exist from the difficulty of straining the word to\nmake it apply to the Gospel. \"In these sentences,\" says Tischendorf,\nreferring to the passage about Matthew, \"there is much obscurity; for\ninstance, it is doubtful whether we have rightly translated 'Discourses\nof the Lord,'\" and he can only extend the meaning to include historical\nnarrative by leaving the real meaning of the word and interpreting it by\nsupposed analogy.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word Xoyta\nanciently and at the time of Papias was\n\n{464}\n\nsimply: words or oracles of a sacred character, and however much the\nsignification became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all\napplied to doings as well as sayings. There are many instances of this\noriginal and limited signification in the New Testament;(1) and there\nis no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that\nperiod, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which\nwere estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any reason for\nthinking that [--Greek--] was here used in any other sense.(2) It is argued\n\n{465}\n\non the other hand, that in the preceding passage upon Mark, a more\nextended meaning of the word is indicated. The Presbyter John says that\nMark, as the interpreter of Peter, wrote without order \"the things which\nwere either said or done by Christ\" ([--Greek--]), and then, apologizing\nfor him, he goes on to say that Peter, whom he followed, adapted his\nteaching to the occasion, \"and not as making a consecutive record of the\noracles [--Greek--] of the Lord.\" Here, it is said, the word [--Greek--]\nis used in reference both to sayings and doings, and therefore in\nthe passage on Matthew [--Greek--] must not be understood to mean only\n[--Greek--], but also includes, as in the former case, the [--Greek--]. For\nthese and similar reasons,--in very many cases largely influenced by\nthe desire to see in these Xoyta our actual Gospel according to\nMatthew--many critics have maintained that [--Greek--] in this place may be\nunderstood to include historical narrative as well as discourses.(1) The\narguments by which they arrive at this\n\n{466}\n\nconclusion, however, seem to us to be based upon thorough misconception\nof the direct meaning of the passage. Few or none of these critics would\ndeny that the simple interpretation of [--Greek--], at that period, was\noracular sayings.(1) Papias shows his preference for discourses in the\nvery title of his lost book, \"Exposition of the [--Greek--] of the Lord,\"\nand in the account which he gives of the works attributed to Mark and\nMatthew, the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest. Now,\nin the passage regarding Mark, instead of [--Greek--] being made the\nequivalent of [--Greek--] and [--Greek--], the very reverse is the fact. The\nPresbyter says Mark wrote what he remembered of the things which were\nsaid or done by Christ, although not in order, and he apologizes for his\ndoing this on the ground that he had not himself been a _hearer_ of the\nLord, but merely reported what he had heard from Peter, who adapted his\nteaching to the occasion, and did _not_ attempt to give a consecutive\nrecord of the oracles [--Greek--] of the Lord. Mark, therefore, could\nnot do so either. Matthew, on the contrary, he states, did compose the\noracles [--Greek--]. There is an evident contrast made: Mark\n\n{467}\n\nwrote [--Greek--] because he had not the means of writing the oracles, but\nMatthew composed the [--Greek--].(1) Papias clearly distinguishes the work\nof Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done,\nfrom that of Matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses.(2)\n\nIt is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds, and from a foregone\nconclusion, to maintain that a work commencing with a detailed history\nof the birth and infancy of Jesus, his genealogy, and the preaching of\nJohn the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute history of his\nbetrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, and which relates all\nthe miracles and has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration\nthat Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled\n[--Greek--]: the oracles or discourses of the Lord.(3)\n\nPartly for these, but also for other important reasons, some of which\nshall presently be referred to, the great majority of critics deny that\nthe work described by Papias can be the same as the Gospel in our canon\nbearing the name of Matthew.(4) Whilst of those who\n\n{468}\n\nsuppose that the (Aramaic) original of which Papias speaks may have been\nsubstantially similar to it in construction, very few affirm that\nthe work did not receive much subsequent manipulation, addition, and\nalteration, necessarily including translation, before it assumed the\nform in which the Gospel now lies before us, and many of them altogether\ndeny its actual apostolic origin.(1)\n\nThe next most important and obvious point is that the work described in\nthis passage was written by Matthew\n\n{469}\n\nin the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect, and each one who did not understand\nthat dialect was obliged to translate as best he could. Our Gospel\naccording to Matthew, however, is in Greek. Tischendorf, who is obliged\nto acknowledge the Greek originality of our actual Gospel, and that it\nis not a translation from another language, recognizes the inevitable\ndilemma in which this fact places apologists, and has, with a few\nother critics, no better argument with which to meet it than the simple\nsuggestion that Papias must have been mistaken in saying that Matthew\nwrote in Hebrew.(1) Just as much of the testimony as is convenient or\nfavourable is eagerly claimed by such apologists, and the rest, which\ndestroys its applicability to our Gospel, is set aside as a mistake.\nTischendorf perceives the difficulty, but not having arguments to meet\nit, he takes refuge in feeling. \"In this,\" he says, \"there lies before\nus one of the most complicated questions, whose detailed treatment would\nhere not be in place. For our part, we are fully at rest concerning it,\nin the conviction that the assumption by Papias of a Hebrew original\ntext of Matthew, which already in his time cannot have been limited\nto himself and was soon repeated by other men, arises only from a\nmisunderstanding.\"(3) It is difficult to comprehend why it should be\nconsidered out of place in a work specially written to establish the\nauthenticity of the Gospels to discuss fully so vital a point, and its\ndeliberate evasion in such a manner alone can be deemed out of place on\nsuch an occasion.(3)\n\n{470}\n\nWe may here briefly remark that Teschendorf and others(1) repeat with\napproval the disparaging expressions against Papias which Eusebius,\nfor dogmatic reasons, did not scruple to use, and in this way they seek\nsomewhat to depreciate his testimony, or at least indirectly to warrant\ntheir free handling of it. It is true that Eusebius says that Papias\nwas a man of very limited comprehension(2) [--Greek--], but this is\nacknowledged to be on account of his Millenarian opinions,(3) to which\nEusebius was vehemently opposed. It must be borne in mind, however, that\nthe Chiliastic passage from Papias quoted by Irenaeus, and in which\nhe certainly saw nothing foolish, is given on the authority of the\nPresbyter John, to whom, and not to Papias, any criticism upon it must\nbe referred. If the passage be not of a very elevated character, it is\nquite in the spirit of that age. The main point, however, is that in\nregard to the testimony of Papias we have little to\n\n{471}\n\ndo with his general ability, for all that was requisite was the power\nto see, hear, and accurately state very simple facts. He repeats what\nis told him by the Presbyter, and in such matters we presume that the\nBishop of Hierapolis must be admitted to have been competent.(1)\n\nThere is no point, however, on which the testimony of the Fathers is\nmore invariable and complete than that the work of Matthew was written\nin Hebrew or Aramaic. The first mention of any work ascribed to Matthew\noccurs in the account communicated by Papias, in which, as we have\nseen, it is distinctly said that Matthew wrote \"in the Hebrew dialect.\"\nIrenaeus, the next writer who refers to the point, says: \"Matthew also\nproduced a written Gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own dialect,\"\nand that he did not derive his information solely from Papias may be\ninferred from his going on to state the epoch of Matthew's writings:\n\"when Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome.\"(2)\nThe evidence furnished by Pantaenus is certainly independent of Papias.\nEusebius states with regard to him: \"Of these Pantaenus is said to have\nbeen one, and to have penetrated as far as India (Southern Arabia),\nwhere it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew,\nwhich had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the\nknowledge of Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, as it\nis said, had preached, and left them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew\nletters\" [--Greek--]\n\n{472}\n\n[--Greek--].(1) Jerome gives a still more circumstantial account of this.\n\"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had there\n(in India) preached the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the\nGospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters (quod Hebraicis\nUteris scriptum), and which on returning to Alexandria he brought with\nhim.\"(2) It is quite clear that this was no version specially made by\nBartholomew, for had he translated the Gospel according to Matthew from\nthe Greek, for the use of persons in Arabia, he certainly would not have\ndone so into Hebrew.(3) Origen, according to Eusebius, \"following the\necclesiastical canon,\" states what he has understood from tradition\n[--Greek--]\n\nof the Gospels, and says: \"The first written was that according to\nMatthew, once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ,\nwho delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew\nlanguage.\"(4) Eusebius in another place makes a similar statement in\nhis own name: \"Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews when he\nwas about to go also to others, delivered to them his Gospel written\nin their native language, and thus compensated those from whom he was\ndeparting for the want of his presence by the writing.\"(5) Cyril of\nJerusalem says: \"Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew\nlanguage.\"(6) Epiphanius, referring to the fact that the Nazarenes\ncalled the only Gospel which they\n\n{473}\n\nrecognized the \"Gospel according to the Hebrews,\" continues: \"As in very\ntruth we can affirm that Matthew alone in the New Testament set\nforth and proclaimed the Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew\ncharacters;\"(1) and elsewhere he states that \"Matthew wrote the\nGospel in Hebrew.\"(2) The same tradition is repeated by Chrysostom,(3)\nAugustine,(4) and others.\n\nWhilst the testimony of the Fathers was thus unanimous as to the fact\nthat the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, no\nquestion ever seems to have arisen in their minds as to the character of\nthe Greek version; much less was any examination made with the view of\ntesting the accuracy of the translation. \"Such inquiries were not in\nthe spirit of Christian learned men generally of that time,\"(5) as\nTischendorf remarks in connection with the belief current in the early\nChurch, and afterwards shared by Jerome, that the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews was the original of the Greek Gospel according to Matthew.\nThe first who directly refers to the point, frankly confessing the total\nignorance which generally prevailed, was Jerome. He states: \"Matthew,\nwho was also called Levi, who from a publican became an Apostle, was\nthe first who wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in Hebrew language\nand letters, on account of those from amongst the circumcision who had\nbelieved; but who afterwards translated it into Greek is not\n\n{474}\n\nsufficiently certain.\"(1) It was only at a much later period, when doubt\nbegan to arise, that the translation was wildly ascribed to the Apostles\nJohn, James, and others.(3)\n\nThe expression in Papias that \"everyone interpreted them (the [--Greek--])\nas he was able\" [--Greek--] has been variously interpreted by different\ncritics, like the rest of the account. Schleier-macher explained the\n[--Greek--] as translation by enlargement: Matthew merely collected the\nXoyta ([--Greek--]), and everyone added the explanatory circumstances of\ntime and occasion as best he could.(3) This view, however, has not\nbeen largely adopted. Others consider that the expression refers to the\ninterpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings of\nChristians for worship,(4) but there can be no doubt that, coming after\nthe statement that the work was written in the Hebrew dialect, [--Greek--]\ncan only mean simple translation.(5) Some maintain that the passage\ninfers the existence of many written translations, amongst which very\nprobably was ours;(6) whilst others affirm that the phrase merely\nsignifies that as there was no recognized\n\n{475}\n\ntranslation, each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the\nlanguage, yet wished to read the work, translated the Hebrew for himself\norally as best he could.(1) Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter\nuse the verb in the past tense, [--Greek--], as contrasting the time when\nit was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period\nwhen, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer\nnecessary for them to do so;(2) whilst others deny that any written\ntranslation of an authentic character was known to Papias at all.(3)\nNow the words in Papias are merely: \"Matthew composed the Xoyta in the\nHebrew dialect,(4) and everyone interpreted them as he was able.\" The\nstatement is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear\nthat it conveys the fact that when the work was composed, translation\nwas requisite, and as each one translated \"as he was able,\" that no\nrecognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. There\nis no contrast either necessarily or, we think, probably implied in\nthe use of the past tense. The composition of the Xoyta being of course\nreferred to in the\n\n     4  In connection with this it may be of interest to remember\n     that, in the account of his conversion and the vision which\n     he saw on his way to Damascus which Paul gives to King\n     Agrippa in the Acts of the Apostles, he states that Jesus\n     spoke to him \"in the Hebrew dialect\" [--Greek--], Acts xxvi.\n     14.\n\n{476}\n\npast tense, the same tense is simply continued in completing the\nsentence. The purpose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was\ncomposed in the Hebrew language. But even if it be taken that Papias\nintentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when\ntranslations did not exist, nothing is gained, Papias may have known of\nmany translations, but there is absolutely not a syllable which warrants\nthe conclusion that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek\nversion, although it is possible that he may have known of the existence\nof some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,\nimply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them.\n\nThus the account of Papias, supported by the perfectly unanimous\ntestimony of the Fathers, declares that the work composed by Matthew\nwas written in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect. The only evidence which\nasserts that Matthew wrote any work at all, distinctly asserts that he\nwrote it in Hebrew. It is quite impossible to separate the statement\nof the authorship from the language. The two points are so indissolubly\nunited that they stand or fall together. If it be denied that Matthew\nwrote in Hebrew, it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all. It is\ntherefore perfectly certain from this testimony that Matthew cannot be\ndeclared the direct author of the Greek canonical Gospel bearing his\nname.(1) At the very best it can only be a translation, by an unknown\nhand, of a work the original of which was early lost. None of the\nearlier Fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how, when, or by\nwhom the translation was effected. Jerome explicitly states that the\ntranslator of the work was unknown. The\n\n{477}\n\ndeduction is clear: our Greek Gospel, in so far as it is associated with\nMatthew at all, cannot at the utmost be more than a translation, but as\nthe work of an unknown translator, there cannot, in the absence of the\noriginal, or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy, bo any assurance\nthat the translation faithfully renders the work of Matthew, or\naccurately conveys the sense of the original. All its Apostolical\nauthority is gone. Even Michaelis long ago recognized this: \"If the\noriginal text of Matthew be lost, and we have nothing but a Greek\ntranslation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to\nthe words: yea, it is possible that in various places the true meaning\nof the Apostle has been missed by the translator.\"(1) This was felt\nand argued by the Manicheans in the fourth century,(2) and by the\nAnabaptists at the time of the Reformation.(3) A wide argument might\nbe opened out as to the dependence of the other two Gospels on this\nunauthenticated work.\n\nThe dilemma, however, is not yet complete. It was early remarked that\nour first Canonical Gospel bore no real marks of being a translation at\nall, but is evidently an original independent Greek work. Even men like\nErasmus, Calvin, Cajctan, and Oecolampadius, began to deny the statement\nthat our Gospels showed any traces of Hebrew origin, and the researches\nof later scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now\nmaintain the primitive belief in a translation. We do not propose here\nto enter fully into this argument. It is sufficient to say that the\ngreat majority of competent critics declare that our first Canonical\nGospel is no translation, but an\n\n{478}\n\noriginal Greek text;(1) whilst of those who consider that they find\ntraces of translation and of Hebrew origin,\n\n{479}\n\nsome barely deny the independent originality of the Greek Gospel, and\nfew assert more than substantial agreement with the original, with more\nor less variation and addition often of a very decided character.(1) The\ncase, therefore, stands thus: The whole of the evidence which warrants\nour believing that Matthew wrote any\n\n{480}\n\nwork at all, distinctly, invariably, and emphatically asserts that he\nwrote that work in Hebrew or Aramaic; a Greek Gospel, therefore, as\nconnected with Matthew, can only be a translation by an unknown hand,\nwhose accuracy we have not, and never have had, the means of verifying.\nOur Greek Gospel, however, being an independent original Greek text,\nthere is no ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to Matthew\nat all, the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed, and\nthe Gospel itself laying no claim, to such authorship.\n\nOne or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first Gospel,\nand either is absolutely fatal to its direct Apostolic origin. Neither\nas a translation from the Hebrew nor as an original Greek text can it\nclaim Apostolic authority. This has been so well recognized, if not\nadmitted, that some writers, with greater zeal than discretion, have\ndevised fanciful theories to obviate the difficulty. These maintain that\nMatthew himself wrote both in Hebrew and in Greek,(1) or at least that\nthe translation was made during his own lifetime and under his own\neye,(2) and so on. There is not, however, a particle of evidence for any\nof these assertions, which\n\n{481}\n\nare merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of embarrassed\napologists.\n\nIt is manifest that upon this evidence both those who assert the Hebrew\noriginal of Matthew's work and those who maintain that our Gospel is not\na translation but an original Greek composition, should logically deny\nits apostolicity. We need not say that this is not done, and that for\ndogmatic and other foregone conclusions many profess belief in the\nApostolic authorship of the Gospel, although in doing so they wilfully\nignore the facts, and in many cases merely claim a substantial but not\nabsolute Apostolic origin for the work.(1) A much greater number of the\nmost able and learned critics, however, both from external and internal\nevidence deny the Apostolic origin of our first Canonical Gospel.(3)\n\n{482}\n\nThere is another fact to which we may briefly refer, which from another\nside shows that the work of Matthew\n\n{483}\n\nwith which Papias was acquainted was different from our Gospel. In a\nfragment from the fourth book of his lost work which is preserved to us\nby Oecumenius and Theophylact, Papias relates the circumstances of the\ndeath of Judas Iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction to the\naccount in the first Gospel. In Matthew xxvii. 5, the death of the\ntraitor is thus related: \"And he cast down the pieces of silver in the\ntemple and departed and went and hanged himself.\"(1) The narrative in\nPapias is as follows: \"Judas walked about in this world a great example\nof impiety; for his body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when\na waggon was moving on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed\nby the waggon and his bowels gushed out.\"(2) Theophylact, in connection\nwith this passage, adds other details also apparently taken from the\nwork of Papias, as for instance that, from his excessive corpulency, the\neyes of Judas were so swollen that they could not see, and so sunk in\nhis head that they could not be perceived even by the aid of the optical\ninstruments of physicians; and that the rest of his body was covered\nwith running sores and maggots, and so on in the manner of the early\nChristian ages, whose imagination conjured up the wildest \"special\n\n{484}\n\nprovidences\" to punish the enemies of the faith.(1) As Papias expressly\nstates that he eagerly inquired what the Apostles, and amongst them\nwhat Matthew, said, we may conclude that he would not have deliberately\ncontradicted the account given by that Apostle had he been acquainted\nwith any work attributed to him which contained it.(2)\n\nIt has been argued, from some very remote and imaginary resemblance\nbetween the passage from the preface to the work of Papias quoted by\nEusebius with the prologue to Luke, that Papias was acquainted with that\nGospel;(3) but nothing could be more groundless than such a conclusion\nbased upon such evidence, and there is not a word in our fragments of\nPapias which warrants such an assertion.(4) Eusebius, who never fails\nto state what the Fathers say about the works of the New Testament, does\nnot mention that Papias knew either the third or fourth Gospels. Is\nit possible to suppose that if Papias had been acquainted with those\nGospels he would not have asked for information about them from the\nPresbyters, or that Eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that\nregarding the works ascribed to Matthew and Mark? Eusebius states,\nhowever, that Papias \"made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of\nJohn and, likewise, from that of Peter.\"(5) As Eusebius,\n\n{485}\n\nhowever, does not quote the passages from Papias, we must remain in\ndoubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from some similarity of\nwording that the passages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst\nin reality they might not be. Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth\ncentury, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered\nthe Apocalypse inspired.(1) No reference is made to this by Eusebius,\nbut although from his Millenarian tendencies it is very probable that\nPapias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic\nbook, this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value.\n\nWe find, however, that Papias, like Hegesippus and others of the\nFathers, was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(2)\nEusebius says: \"He (Papias) has likewise related another history of a\nwoman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the\nGospel according to the Hebrews.\"(3) This is generally believed to\nbe the episode inserted in the later MSS. of the fourth Gospel, viii.\n1--11.\n\nWhatever books Papias knew, however, it is certain, from his own express\ndeclaration, that he ascribed little importance to them, and preferred\ntradition as a more beneficial source of information regarding\nevangelical history. \"For I held that what was to be derived from\n\n{486}\n\nbooks,\" he says, \"did not so profit me as that from the living and\nabiding voice.\"(1) If, therefore, it could even have been shown that\nPapias was acquainted with any of our Canonical Gospels, it must at\nthe same time have been admitted that he did not recognize them as\nauthoritative documents. It is manifest from the evidence adduced,\nhowever, that Papias did not know our Gospels. It is not possible that\nhe could have found it better to inquire \"what John or Matthew, or\nwhat any other of the disciples of the Lord... say\" if he had known of\nGospels such as ours, and believed them to have been actually written by\nthose Apostles, deliberately telling him what they had to say. The\nwork of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere collection\nof discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle(2)\nhimself said of the history and teaching of the Master. The evidence of\nPapias is in every respect most important. He is the first writer who\nmentions that Matthew and Mark were believed to have written any works\nat all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord any canonical\nauthority even to the works attributed to them, his description of those\nworks and his general testimony comes with crushing force against\nthe pretensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic origin and\nauthenticity.\n\n     2  We may merely remark that Papias does not call the\n     Matthew who wrote the[--Greek--] an Apostle. In this passage he\n     speaks of the Apostle, but he does not distinctly identify\n     him with the Matthew of the other passage.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. I.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Supernatural Religion, Vol. 1 (of 3): An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":139994}