{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_41174/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_41174","id":"gutenberg_41174","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41174","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. New Testament -- Evidences, authority, etc.","Cassels, Walter Richard, 1826-1907. Supernatural religion","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained\nexcept in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nIn this book the transcriber has made the changes listed in the\ncorrections list.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n  _THE WAVE OF SCEPTICISM\n  AND\n  THE ROCK OF TRUTH._\n\n\n\n\n  THE WAVE OF SCEPTICISM\n\n  THE ROCK OF TRUTH:\n\n  _A REPLY TO_\n\n  \"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION: AN INQUIRY INTO THE\n  REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.\"\n\n  MATTHEW HENRY HABERSHON.\n\n  \"_Animus ad amplitudinem mysteriorum pro modulo suo dilatetur, non\n  mysteria ad angustias animi constringantur._\"--LORD BACON.\n\n  London:\n  HODDER AND STOUGHTON,\n  27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n  MDCCCLXXV.\n\n\n\n\nCORRECTIONS.\n\n\n  Title-page. _For_ anima, _read_ animi.\n\n     Page iv. _For_ Wann Warden, _read_ Wann Wurden.\n\n         xii. _For_ one allowed, _read_ one version allowed.\n\n           28 line 3. _For_ and that Paul, _read_ and that as for Paul.\n\n           52 line 3. _For_ first century, _read_ second century.\n\n           77 _For_ He suffered martyrdom on, _read_ He suffered martyrdom,\n               it is said, on.\n\n           77 _For_ in the amphitheatre at Antioch, _read_ in the\n               amphitheatre, not at Rome, but at Antioch.\n\n           78 line 4. _For_ letters, _read_ versions.\n\n          109 line 8 from bottom. _For_ whoever, _read_ whomsoever.\n\n          123 line 7. _For_ dead, _read_ read.\n\n          177 line 7. _For_ at the name of Jesus, _read_ in the name of\n               Jesus.\n\n\n\n\n\"_Every wave which beats against the rock of eternal truth seems to\nrise out of the trough caused by some receding wave, and raises its\nthreatening crest as if it would wash away the rock._\n\n\"_It is of the nature of truth, that the more it is tested the more\nsure it becomes under the trial. These attacks of opponents are among\nthe means whereby fresh evidences of the certitude of the Gospels are\ncalled out._\"\n\nTranslator of Tischendorf's\nWann Wurden Unsere Evangelien Verfasst.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis volume is an amplified and expanded essay read before the members\nof the Young Men's Society in connection with Park Church, Highbury,\non the evening of the 2nd of November, 1874. The original purpose of\nthe author was to indicate to the associates of that Christian\ninstitution how the influence of German anti-Christian literature,\nmade plain to English readers by such books as the one under review,\nmight be withstood and neutralised, and to supply an antidote to the\npoisonous insinuations respecting Christianity which many of the\nperiodicals of the day disseminate in noticing works of this\ncharacter. Those that are not professedly hostile to religion have a\nway of treating Truth and Error as if nothing had been proved, and as\nif the question were quite an open one whether Divine Revelation is,\nor is not, a reality. The present design of the author has a wider\nrange than he first intended. He desires to induce, not only young\nmen, but those nearer his own age, and placed, much as himself, in the\ngreat centres of business, who have not much time for research into\nsuch matters, to bring their intelligence fairly alongside the bold\npretensions of the cavillers and quibblers who presume to _know_ that\nthere is no God, or that He has not spoken. He desires to remind those\nwho are doubting that \"there is a knowledge that creates doubts which\nnothing but a larger knowledge can satisfy,\" and that he who stops in\nthe difficulty \"will be perplexed and uncomfortable for life.\" Having\ninvestigated for himself, the author indicates the result, and would\nlike, if he can, to facilitate the inquiry which it is,\nunquestionably, the duty and interest of every one to make. If to rest\non a foregone conclusion on a matter of such momentous importance is\nnot altogether justifiable on the Christian side of the question, how\nmuch less so on the other! For it should be remembered that, on the\none side, looking at the question from a _prim\u00e2 facie_ point of view,\nwe have a faith which has the endorsement of the highest civilisation,\nthe best morality, the truest culture, the noblest aspirations, and\nthe greatest happiness which humanity has ever experienced; in\ncontrast with a negation which has nothing to offer as a substitute,\ntaking away the light that illumines the path of life, and leaving it\nin utter darkness.\n\nAs to the book under review, the anonymous author seems to regard the\nevidences of Supernatural Religion as a region of swamp or sand, in\nwhich solid rock is nowhere to be found upon which faith may obtain a\nfirm footing. He takes us in his survey here and there, and says that\nwhat seems to be solid stone is only slightly congealed sand, which,\nat the touch of his criticism, dissolves and falls away. We fix our\nattention on one of these masses, and the result is, that it is not\nwhat he alleges, but, verily, granite. If the reader who is not\nprejudiced against Christianity will attentively peruse this volume to\nthe end, he will probably incline to this opinion. If any whose views\nin regard to Christianity are hostile should be at the trouble to read\nit, it is the hope of the author that the result will be to stimulate\ninquiry and research, for \"that which is true in religion cannot be\nshaken, and that which is false, no one can desire to preserve.\" In so\nfar as the writer of \"Supernatural Religion\" and others have, by their\nreference to early Patristic literature, shown how certain it is that\nJesus lived and taught, they have done service to the cause of\nChristianity; for the writings, the traditions, and the history of\nthe Church are too closely identified with the Sermon on the Mount to\nadmit of the probability that He who could thus teach was less than\n\"He believed Himself to be.\" On such a foundation the superstructure\nis so appropriate, that the \"possibility\" which John Stuart Mill\nconceived is near to _probability_, and _probability_ to a _full\nassurance of faith_.\n\n  82, ST. MARK'S SQUARE,\n  WEST HACKNEY, LONDON.\n  _11th December, 1874._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                     PAGE\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                                          1\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  _MIRACLES._\n\n  Miracles the vital point in the investigation--Their modification to\n  suit scientific theologians--Antecedent credibility--Miracles not\n  super-Satanic--Profane oaths--Counterfeits--Christianity\n  misrepresented--J. S. Mill--Appeal to reason--The Fourth Gospel\n  ignored--Intellectual condition of the age when miracles\n  occurred--Royal College of Physicians--French Academy--Priests\n  ordained to forgive sins--Paul the only educated man of his\n  generation--Perfection and invariability of the order of Nature in\n  contrast with the wickedness of mankind--Abstract question as to the\n  credibility of miracles--Matthew Arnold and J. S. Mill reject Hume's\n  argument--Recent German criticisms in favour of Christianity--Dr.\n  Christlieb's \"Modern Doubt and Christian Belief\"--Baur and the\n  T\u00fcbingen School                                                     11\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS._\n\n  The argument from the silence of early writers--Limits of the\n  inquiry--Quotations from unknown sources and tradition--The summary of\n  what the author of \"Supernatural Religion\" alleges his investigation\n  produces--His plausibility, special pleading, and boldness of\n  assertion--His line across history--Verbal testimony in the first two\n  generations--Inscription over the cross--Clement of Rome--Verbatim\n  quotations--Tischendorf and early translations of the New Testament\n  into Latin and Syriac--Pretensions on behalf of the Synoptics--R\u00e9nan's\n  views of the Gospels--Uniform plenary and verbal inspiration--\n  Perversion of Scripture--Epistle of Barnabas--The ninth chapter of\n  Matthew dissected and the miraculous eliminated--Tischendorf's\n  opinion ridiculed--Quoting unfairly--The Pauline and Petrine\n  contention--The Second Epistle of Peter--The Pastor of Hermas       41\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--continued._\n\n  The Epistles of Ignatius--One Version allowed to be genuine--The Epistle\n  of Polycarp to the Philippians: its acceptance as genuine by\n  Iren\u00e6us--Hegesippus--Fragments only preserved of his writings--The\n  impossibility of knowing what was in the portions notextant--\n  Papias--His evidence respecting Mark's Gospel--His assertion\n  that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and Tischendorf's opinion that he wrote\n  in Greek--Justin Martyr--His reference to the Memoirs called\n  Gospels--The Clementine Homilies--Important quotation from\n  Matthew--Paul's Epistle to the Church at Laodicea--Construction of\n  Matthew's Gospel--The Epistle to Diognetus                          75\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--continued._\n\n  Basilides--The Gospel to the Hebrews--Special pleading in regard to\n  Hippolytus and the pronouns HE and THEY--Coincidence resorted\n  to--Events HAPPEN to occur as predicted--Valentinus--Marcion, a critic\n  of the modern sceptical sort--J. S. Mill--Tatian: his harmony of the\n  four Gospels--Dionysius of Corinth--The word Scripture applied to the\n  New Testament writings--The Gospel of Peter--Serapion's explanation\n  why it was read at Rhossus--Melito of Sardis--The word _old_ applied\n  to the Old Testament implying the existence of a New Testament--\n  Claudius Apollinaris and his reference to the four Gospels--\n  Athenagoras--Opposite opinions as to his quotation from Matthew--The\n  Epistle of Vienne and Lyons--Ptolem\u00e6us and Heracleon--Celsus--The\n  Canon of Muratori                                                   99\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._\n\n  The evidence of Iren\u00e6us--Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians\n  genuine--\"The Refutation of all Heresies\" by Hippolytus--Justin\n  Martyr--The internal evidence--Philo's philosophy--The doctrine of the\n  triune nature of Jehovah--The Divinity of Christ--The Holy Spirit--The\n  nameless, unknown author--R\u00e9nan's views in favour of the Johannine\n  authorship--Linguistic difficulties--William Penn--The raising of\n  Lazarus from the dead--John's memory--The Duke of Wellington--Mode of\n  authorship--Men separated from their writings, and books without\n  authors--The second century non-classical compared with the\n  first--Facts make history, not history facts--The living voice rather\n  than books the instrument for proclaiming the Gospel in the first\n  century--The folly of ignoring Divine Revelation                   135\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._\n\n  The Apostle John the author of the Apocalypse--Importance of the\n  admission--The precise date of its composition--Its allegorical\n  character--\"Pilgrim's Progress\" and \"Paradise Lost and Regained\"--The\n  doctrines indicated in the Apocalypse--Rome the mystical Babylon--\n  Nero C\u00e6sar--The number of the beast--The Lord's day--Prominence\n  of the allusion to the Lamb slain to take away sin--Paul's epistles\n  identical in doctrine with the Apocalypse--Professor Owen--Quotation\n  from \"The Merchant of Venice\"                                      163\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_CONCLUSION._\n\n  An eloquent sentence analysed--Henry Rogers--John Stuart Mill--\n  Priestley--Paul's admonition to Timothy--The death of apostles\n  not recorded in writings alleged to have been written long after their\n  decease--Verdict pronounced before the case is complete--Authority of\n  Church Councils--The religion of the Bible a spiritual matter,\n  requiring spiritual discernment--Summary--Peroration               183\n\n\n\n\n_INTRODUCTION_.\n\n\n\n\n\"_There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt\nof in your philosophy._\"\n\n  Shakespeare.\n\n\n\"_When we consider further that a gift, extremely precious, came to\nus, which, though facilitated, was not necessitated, by what had gone\nbefore, but was due, as far as appearances go, to the peculiar mental\nand moral endowments of one man, and that man openly proclaimed that\nit did not come from himself, but from God through him, then we are\nentitled to say there is nothing so inherently or absolutely\nincredible in this supposition as to preclude any one from hoping that\nit may perhaps be true._\"\n\n  John Stuart Mill.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nNothing in these days is taken for granted. In science, philosophy,\npolitics, and religion, the foundations of belief are fearlessly\nexamined, and the facilities for the process are unprecedented.\nCriticism has new and improved instruments, and they are extensively\nused--often misused. It concerns us especially to know how far our\nreligious institutions are being affected.\n\nHave devout men, during the three thousand years which history\nchronicles, been under a delusion in believing that \"there is a spirit\nin man, and the Almighty giveth him understanding\"?\n\nIs popular Christianity \"wide of the truth, and a disfigurement of the\ntruth,\" as an eminent writer the other day asserted? Such questions\nfloat in our literature and find their way into our homes and our\nsanctuaries.\n\nAlthough no importance is to be attached to the reckless assertion\nthat the outworks of Evangelical Religion are in danger, and that the\nvery citadel itself is not impregnable, it is undoubtedly true that\nits modern adversaries--reputable and otherwise--are bold, active, and\nskilful, and there is need that its defenders should be alert and\nvigilant. It will not do to rely altogether on the defensive lines and\ntactics of our predecessors. Each generation has the stronghold\nentrusted to its care, and new appliances are, from time to time,\nrequired to resist novel as well as resuscitated modes of assault.\n\nHowever certain be the ultimate triumph of His cause whose right it is\nto reign, the rate of its progress depends upon the faithfulness and\nheroism of His servants at their various posts of labour and conflict.\n\nTo change the figure. The mirror which reflects Divine truth has to be\npreserved and kept bright by human instrumentality. Superstition, in\nthe murky atmosphere of sacerdotalism, clouds it; by false philosophy\nit is liable to be dimmed; while crude science or unsound criticism,\nremoving the silver lining to make the glass more transparent, makes\nit useless. He does well who is able to act as its conservator, and\nin some measure cleanse the surface, that obscurity may be removed and\neternal truth discerned.\n\nI am aware that, as a rule, it is not desirable that hostile\nliterature should be helped into notoriety, and that believers should\nbe troubled with exploded fallacies and disturbed by arguments against\nthe truth as it is in Jesus a hundred times answered.\n\nAs Robert Hall justly remarks:--\"It is degrading to the dignity of a\nrevelation, established through a succession of ages by indubitable\nproofs, to be adverting every moment to the hypothesis of its being an\nimposture, and to be inviting every ignorant sophist to wrangle about\nthe title, when we should be cultivating the possession.\"\n\nBut there are exceptions to every rule, and as I am not addressing a\npromiscuous audience, but the members of a society whose rule is to\ndiscuss all subjects without limitation, I venture to think I am\njustified in bringing under your notice a recent heterodox book which\nis so well written as to be likely to mislead if it be not\nneutralized. And the more so, if I can make the author not only answer\nhimself, but other writers whose anti-Christian arguments are not put\nforth anonymously, but with the authority of well-known names and much\nreputation in the world of letters and science.\n\nLet me further premise that the Christian is occupying an exceptional\nposition when he descends to the neutral level of the sceptic to\ndiscuss the internal evidences of Evangelical truth. His usual\nprivileged abode is more favourable for the survey than the lower\nground, for the light is brighter and the air clearer on the mountain\nheights where he is wont to contemplate religious matters, than on the\nplain where faith has no temple, and reason, ignoring Divine\ninfluence, operates with the carnal instruments of a negative creed.\nTo appeal to the spiritual discernment of a disbeliever in Divine\nillumination would be like expecting a man who is not of the mystical\ncraft of the Masonic brotherhood to use the signs (if such there be)\nof a Freemason. Yet the argument in defence of the reality of Divine\nrevelation is not complete without a reference to that \"Spirit of\nTruth\" which Jesus Christ promised to send \"to testify of him,\" and to\n\"bring all things to the remembrance\" of those disciples who were to\n\"bear witness, because they had been with him from the beginning.\"[1]\n\n  [1] John xv. 26, 27.\n\nA good cause may be injured by injudicious and feeble advocacy, but I\ntrust I am not presumptuously meddling with a theme which only an\nerudite scholar and theologian should deal with. I beg you to bear in\nmind, however, that if I or others fail in the contest for truth,\nthere still will remain the indubitable proofs of Divine revelation in\nall their variety and superabundance.\n\nAlthough the ability, scholarship, and research displayed in this\nanti-Christian work are considerable, I doubt if it has really much in\nit that is original. The author has only cleverly reproduced and\nrearranged the anti-Christian arguments, chiefly German,[2] which are\nto be found in the library of the British Museum.\n\n  [2] \"The works of Strauss, Baur, Schenkel, and R\u00e9nan are the great\n  authorities for the negative criticism of the present day.\"--_Dr.\n  Christlieb._\n\nThe \"Examiner\" says, in regard to three-fourths of the work, \"It is\nneither more nor less than a digest of recent German speculation on\nthe date and authorship of the Gospels; devoid of originality, and\ninfected with the verbosity and repetition of the authorities on which\nit is based.\"\n\nIn the other notices of the work which have appeared so far, it has, I\nthink, been somewhat over-estimated.\n\nThe \"Fortnightly Review\" writes of it: \"It is not too much to say of\nthe two volumes before us that they are by far the most decisive,\ntrenchant, and far-reaching of the direct contributions to theological\ncontroversy that have been made in this generation.\"\n\nThe \"Athen\u00e6um\" says: \"The book proceeds from a man of ability, a\nscholar, and reasoner, who writes like an earnest seeker after truth,\nand knows well all the German and Dutch books relating to the\ncriticism of the New Testament, as well as the English ones.\"\n\nThe \"Westminster Review\" asserts that \"no more formidable assailant of\northodoxy could well be imagined.\"\n\nThe \"Spectator\" designates it a \"masterly but prejudiced examination\nof the evidences for the antiquity of the Christian Scriptures.\"\n\n\"The Literary World\" says: \"This is, beyond all question, an important\nbook. The one grand pervading fault we find with it is its\npartisanship. The writer plays the part of special pleader against\nwhat he calls Ecclesiastical Christianity, and fails to represent\nwhat could be said on the other side. It is a partisan production, a\npiece of clever, ingenious, plausible, special pleading. The author\nhas got up his case with marvellous exclusiveness. He makes it an\nabsolute rule, so far as we perceive, to regard his opponents as\nhaving no case at all.\"\n\nThe quarterly reviews, \"Edinburgh,\" \"Quarterly,\" and \"British\nQuarterly,\" have not yet pronounced an opinion on its merits.\n\nMy purpose is to show that the author of this anonymous work has not\nbeen successful in accomplishing the two things he has attempted,\nviz., to prove the _in_credibility of miracles by--\n\n_First_, a recast of the often-exploded syllogistic fallacies of Hume;\nand, _secondly_, by an elimination of the miraculous from the Gospels;\nbut that he has been successful, without intending it, in showing that\nSupernatural Religion rests upon substantial contemporary evidence.\n\nThe work consists of three parts. The first is upon miracles, treating\nthe subject as an abstract question. The second, upon the Synoptic\nGospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The third, upon the Fourth Gospel.\nAnd there is a summary of the supposed results of the reasoning and\nthe investigation. The inference arrived at is premature, for as the\nNew Testament does not consist only of the four Gospels, but contains\nother writings of equal importance, the argument is incomplete, and\nthe latter will have to be dealt with before our author can reasonably\nexpect any reader to entertain his anti-miraculous hypothesis. Another\nvolume is promised, but we may safely venture to anticipate that it\nwill prove no more formidable than the other great waves of scepticism\nwhich have surged against, but have not undermined, the rock upon\nwhich our faith is built.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_MIRACLES._\n\n\n_\"Seriously to raise this question, whether God can perform miracles,\nwould be impious if it were not absurd.\"_\n\n  Rousseau.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\nIn the first part of the work the following topics are discussed by\nthe author:--\"Miracles in relation to Christianity and the order of\nnature--Reason in relation to the order of nature--The age of\nmiracles--The permanent stream of miraculous pretension--Miracles in\nrelation to ignorance and superstition.\"\n\nIn stating the main purpose of his inquiry, he says (p. 8):--\"It is\nobvious 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.\"\n\nHe might have dispensed with his arguments against the views of those\nwho endeavour to bring the miracles of the Bible within the scope of\nthe laws of nature, and to modify them by explanatory interpretations\nso as to satisfy the demands of scientific and philosophical\ntheologians.\n\nChristianity admits of no such treatment. In its essence it is\nsuperhuman, abnormal, phenomenal, supernatural, though not unnatural.\nA series of facts divinely attested, a proclamation of mercy divinely\ncommissioned, a system of means divinely blessed, is the true\ndefinition of the gospel.\n\nDiscussing the antecedent credibility of miracles, our author makes\nmuch of the references in the Bible to the working of miracles by\nSatanic as well as Divine agency. \"If,\" says he, \"miracles are\nsuperhuman they are not super-Satanic.\" The answer to this obviously\nis, that what was merely a superstitious notion of the Jews, and that\nwhich is taught by Divine authority, are two very different things.\nWhere in the Bible do we find that God reveals His will by miracles\nwhich are not the manifestations of His own power? Christ points to\nthe superhuman works that He was doing in His Father's name as\nevidence of His mission; and when the Jews suggested that He cast out\ndevils by Beelzebub, He said, \"If Satan cast out Satan he is divided\nagainst himself: how shall his kingdom stand?\"[3] The man born blind,\nto whom sight was given, said, \"If this man were not of God he could\ndo nothing;\"[4] and he said it was \"a marvellous thing\" that the Jews\ndid not know _he_ was from God who had wrought the miracle.\n\n  [3] Matt. xii. 26.\n\n  [4] John ix. 33.\n\n\"Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, said to Jesus, Rabbi, we know that\nthou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles\nthat thou doest except God be with him.\"[5] \"Some of the Pharisees\nsaid, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.\nOthers said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?\"[6]\n\"Some of the Jews said, Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?\"[7]\n\n  [5] Ibid. iii. 2.\n\n  [6] Ibid. ix. 16.\n\n  [7] Ibid. x. 21.\n\nOur author's statement is certainly not supported by the passage\nquoted from Deuteronomy xiii. 3, of which he says, \"The false miracle\nis here attributed to God Himself.\" The words of that passage are: \"If\nthere arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth\nthee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,\nwhereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which\nthou hast not known, and let us serve them: thou shalt not hearken\nunto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the\nLord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God\nwith all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the\nLord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his\nvoice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet,\nor that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath\nspoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out\nof the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to\nthrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to\nwalk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.\" I\ntranscribe the whole passage, that its plain meaning may be seen, and\nyou may understand how much reliance is to be placed on our author\nwhen he appears as a Bible commentator. Of course the prophet referred\nto is one \"pretending to the Divine inspiration and authority of the\nprophetic office,\" and \"the dreamer of dreams\" one who pretends that\nsome deity has spoken to him in a dream.\n\nIf our author be a Biblical scholar, his scholarship is greatly at\nfault in the passage he refers to in Ezekiel xiv. 9: \"And if the\nprophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have\ndeceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and\nwill destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.\" According to the\nHebrew language, God is often said to _do_ a thing which He only\nsuffers or permits. How can God be understood to harden Pharaoh's\nheart in any other sense? The character of God is too plainly\ndescribed in the Bible to leave any uncertainty on this point.\n\nThe passages quoted from the New Testament only _apparently_ support\nhis statement. He quotes Dr. Mansel in reference to them, and no doubt\nhis words truly apply where he says, \"The supposed miracles are not\ntrue miracles at all, _i.e._, are not the effects of Divine power, but\nof human deception or some other agency.\" The existence and powers of\nangels, good and bad, we know little about, because little is\nrevealed; but it is not the Bible but superstition which teaches that\nthe fallen spirits have more power than the faithful ones in the\naffairs of this world, that Satan is more potent than Gabriel. If we\nknew more about the origin of evil, this matter would probably be less\nmysterious to our finite intelligence.\n\nOur author describes (vol. i. page 47) what he supposes orthodox\nChristianity includes; and among other strange assertions he says that\nman was tempted into sin by Satan, \"an all-powerful and persistent\nenemy of God,\" thus making the fallen angel an _Almighty_ being.\n\nThis matter has an important bearing on the proper exhibition of\nreligious truth, for the more superstition is intermingled with it,\nthe more will unbelief be likely to be prevalent. On the one hand,\ninfidelity engenders superstition, and on the other, superstition\ncreates aversion to religion. I cannot but think that there is\nsomething wrong in the way in which Christian men, in the pulpit and\nelsewhere, often allude to the spirit of evil. He is represented in\nScripture as the \"god of this world,\" but surely that is not to be\nunderstood literally.\n\nJesus told the Jews that the devil was their father, as their deeds\nbeing evil indicated, who was \"a murderer from the beginning, and\nabode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he\nspeaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the\nfather of it.\"[8] As, therefore, the devil is the father of lies, so\nare we to understand he is the God of this world. Not in any other\nsense. He is potent, but not omnipotent; knowing, but not omniscient;\nhas his representatives distributed among the scenes of sin and death\nin our world, and himself goeth \"to and fro in the earth,\"[9] but he\nis not omnipresent. It is Oriental demonology which teaches that two\nequal principles--good and evil--are alike dominant, not \"the truth as\nit is in Jesus;\" Persian superstition, Gnostical heresy, not Divine\nrevelation.\n\n  [8] John viii. 44.\n\n  [9] Job i. 7.\n\nThe frivolous use of words and matters connected with the spiritual\nworld and our eternal interests is greatly to be disapproved and\ncondemned; but surely the mention of Satan is not to be designated as\nprofane, as if God's holy name were taken in vain. To comment on what\nare called profane oaths in such a way is not to enlighten the minds\nof the vulgar, but to mystify and conceal the truth of Christianity.\nIt is one thing to believe that there is in existence the spiritual\nbeing whose evil doings our Saviour's coming into our world\nfrustrates, whose power is great, whose emissaries are innumerable,\nand whose baneful suggestions and influence the Holy Spirit alone can\nwithstand, and quite another thing to believe that Satan could give\nmiraculous attestation to a lie, as God did to the truth. If there are\nsome passages of Scripture that seem to favour this false view, it\nbehoves us to suspect, having regard to the whole tenour of Scripture\naffecting the doctrine, that the correct interpretation has not been\narrived at.\n\nThe existence of Satan, and his influence, personal, and by the\nlegions who fell with him, are of course superhuman ideas, and in the\ncategory of the miraculous; but there is a wide difference between the\nmost striking sign of his spiritual power and the Divine miracles\nwrought to attest the truth. It is God \"who alone doeth great\nwonders.\"[10]\n\n  [10] Psa. cxxxvi. 14.\n\n\"If this man were not of God he could do nothing.\"[11] \"If I do not\nthe works of my Father, believe me not.\"[12]\n\n  [11] John ix. 33.\n\n  [12] Ibid x. 37.\n\n\"A miracle is a sign for our faith, to be apprehended in its Divine\nintention, though it cannot be comprehended, because it is God's\nespecial work.\" When the magicians in the Court of Pharaoh saw the\nmiracles which Moses wrought, they said, \"This is the finger of\nGod,\"[13] which is, and intended to be, the inevitable inference.\nThey knew that all they could do was a sham, a pretence.\n\n  [13] Exod. viii. 19.\n\nCounterfeits are as prominent in the history of our race as any\nfeature that could be specified, and an imaginary devil is conspicuous\nin the category of the spurious. If there had been no real one, the\ncounterfeit could scarcely have been conceived. He is the father of\nlies, and how numerous his progeny! While all else is misrepresented,\nparodied, travestied, burlesqued, falsified, belied, it would be\nstrange if he had escaped. From the Eternal Himself down to the most\ninsignificant thing that is worth a forgery, what a catalogue may in\nan instant be specified! The Divine law with its ceremonial rites, and\nthe Church with its ordinances; prophets and apostles; gospels and\nepistles; science and philosophy; history and biography; and,\nassuredly, miracles; in short, all truth--stem, branch, twig, and\nleaf--is more or less, and at one time or another, got up\nartificially, and the spurious or adulterated article offered, in\ncompetition with the genuine one, to human credulity. This, if it\nmakes absolute truth difficult to buy, renders the injunction to \"sell\nit not,\" when bought, true wisdom. It seems to be, and of course is,\nabsurd to doubt the genuineness of the currency of a nation because\nspurious coins are met with, but I believe that more scepticism is\nproduced by the consideration of the many religious impostures in the\nworld than by any other influence. The inference is childish in the\nignorant and unphilosophical in the scholar, but it is often\nunconsciously arrived at in many minds as a plain and easy solution of\nthe question which cannot be evaded--Is Divine revelation a reality?\n\nOur author misrepresents Christianity, and uses the misrepresentation\nas an argument against it, as, alas! is only too common. John Stuart\nMill actually says in his essay on Theism (p. 240) that \"Christ is\nnever said to have declared any evidence of His mission (unless His\nown interpretations of the prophecies be so considered) except\ninternal conviction.\" If Mr. Mill ever read the New Testament through,\nhe would have found where it is written, \"Jesus answered and said unto\nthem, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see:\nthe blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed,\nthe deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel\npreached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever is not offended in\nme.\" And also the words, \"But I have greater witness than that of\nJohn: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same\nworks that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent\nme.\"[14] \"The Jews came round about him and said, How long dost thou\nmake us to doubt? If thou be the Messiah, tell us plainly. Jesus\nanswered, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my\nFather's name, they bear witness of me.\"[15] \"Believe me for the very\nworks' sake.\"[16]\n\n  [14] John v. 36.\n\n  [15] Ibid x. 25.\n\n  [16] Ibid xiv. 11.\n\nHow, in the face of such an authoritative statement why miracles were\nwrought by Jesus, can our author assume that they were not intended to\nbe an appeal to reason, and to be tested by the intelligence and\ncommon sense they appealed to? The miracles were wrought to convince\nmen that Jesus was the Messiah, and were adapted to that end. Our\nauthor's picture of Divine revelation is very much a conception of his\nown, fashioned from isolated portions of Scripture, pseudo-Judaism,\nand ecclesiastical representations of Christianity.\n\nHe quotes Archbishop Trench, who, in defining the function of a\nmiracle, says,--\"A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine or\nthe divine mission of him that brings it to pass;\" and Dr. Arnold, who\nsays,--\"It has always seemed to me that its substance is a most\nessential part of its evidence, and that miracles wrought in favour of\nwhat was foolish or wicked would only prove Manicheism:\" which\npassages of fallible commentators fail to express the distinction\nbetween real miracles and spurious ones. But I ask, Why does he appeal\nto what Dr. Trench and Dr. Arnold, or any other commentator says, when\nhe has before him our Saviour's own words? In arguing against\nmiracles, it is not competent for him to put his own construction upon\nthem in violation of the highest authority as to their purpose and\ndesign. I understand his conclusions to be against Christianity--not\nagainst what he is pleased to put in its place. It is in the Fourth\nGospel we find Christ's words, but that book is too important a part\nof Divine revelation for any apologist to remain in the field of\ndiscussion and continue the argument if his opponent,--whether he be\nMr. Mill or our author,--insists on assuming that on the Christian\nside the question is an open one whether the Fourth Gospel is to be\naccepted. The whole of the four Gospels as we have them were read in\nall the Christian Churches on the three continents in the middle of\nthe second century, as our author well knows. He acknowledges that\nIren\u00e6us, who wrote about A.D. 180, compared the four Gospels to the\n\"four columns of the Church over the whole world;\" and that in\nwritings of his which we have, and the genuineness of which no one\nquestions, there are hundreds of references to the Gospels, the fourth\nincluded. There is no question as to this being the fact at that date.\nIt is the earlier date that the argument bears upon. The four Gospels\nare held together by an inseparable bond in the archives of the\nChurch, and believers in them assert they will all four stand or fall\ntogether. I can only suppose that it was because Mr. Mill ignored the\nFourth Gospel that he ignored the verses I have quoted.\n\nIf an advocate has a weak case in hand, to damage the character of the\nwitnesses is a well-known mode of proceeding; so our author asks who\nare the men who, it is asserted, saw these amazing performances? What\nwere the intellectual conditions of the age when they occurred? \"Did\nthe Jews at the time of Jesus possess such calmness of judgment and\nsobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in\naccounts of marvellous occurrences unwitnessed except by them, and\nlimited to their time, which contradict all knowledge and all\nexperience? Were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free from\nsuperstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of events\nof such an astounding nature?\" (Vol. i. p. 98.)\n\nThe reading of this sentence suggests a comparison between the age he\nrefers to and the century succeeding Harvey's discovery of the\ncirculation of the blood, during which our Royal College of Physicians\nrepudiated the discovery, some of the most eminent of the faculty\nwriting against it, and creating a prejudice against Harvey by which\nhis practice suffered considerably; and the scientific period when the\nFrench Academy for a long time rejected the use of quinine,\nvaccination, lightning-conductors, the steam-engine, &c.\n\nTo weaken the apostolic testimony, there is presented an elaborate\nexhibition of the wide-spread belief among the Jews in sorcery,\ndreams, portents, and numerous forms of superstition. In what age have\nnot these been prevalent? Are we free from them in this? If the Divine\ncommunication had been postponed until now, and civilisation could\nhave attained to its present stage without its influence, would its\nreception have been any different? Would the vested interests in\nestablished usages and beliefs have raised no opposition? If there are\nin this country, and in this day, thousands who believe, or pretend to\nbelieve, that the priests who are ordained to forgive sins can really\ndo so, are we in a position to assume any great superiority over the\nJews, Greeks, and Romans of eighteen centuries ago? If the most\nmanifest and stupendous miracle were wrought to show men the folly of\ndrunkenness, lying, and other sins, would not the results be just the\nsame? Some would believe and testify, and others say that the sign,\nnot being of the precise sort to suit them, was not conclusive. There\nmust be a coming down from the cross, or something else, to satisfy\nthem. \"If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither would they\nbelieve though one rose from the dead.\" The testimony of the first\ndisciples, it is said, is not satisfactory, because they were\nuneducated, unscientific, uncritical. Mr. Mill says Paul was the only\nexception in the first generation of Christians. I remark that\nMatthew, in the position of a receiver of taxes for the Roman\ngovernment, though not learned, might be shrewd to detect imposture;\nthat Thomas was not too credulous; and that as for Paul, if he could not\njudge of the value of the testimony of the hundreds of men and women\nwho told him, or could have told him, what they were eye-witnesses of,\nwhat was his education worth, and what about the miracle in his own\ncase? Why should it be doubted that the vision to which he refers in\nhis unquestioned letter to the Galatians really occurred? He therein\ntells them (with an asseveration that, in the presence of God, he was\nnot lying)[17] that he was taught the gospel he preached by the\nrevelation of Jesus Christ. Whatever may be said about the authority\nof the Acts of the Apostles, which relates the particulars of Paul's\nmiraculous conversion so minutely, we have the evidence of it in\nPaul's own letter. Of course he would compare what was revealed to him\nwith what the eye-witnesses could tell him; and if he could mistake a\nsunstroke, a trance, or a state of ecstatic dreaming for a Divine\nrevelation, his character, judged of by his own writings, is verily\nincomprehensible. There is no such other enigma in all history. In his\nequally unquestioned letter to the Corinthians he tells them that he\nreceived from the Lord the particulars of the institution of the\nLord's Supper. Of this memorable event Paul had ample opportunities of\ncomparing what was revealed to him with what the disciples who were\npresent could tell him; and he was in such intercourse with them, that\nthe circumstances were highly favourable for an educated man, such as\nhe was, arriving at the exact and absolute truth of the matter.\n\n  [17] 1 Gal. i. 20.\n\nOur author's view of the question is narrowed by his refusing to\nacknowledge that mankind is morally depraved by sin.\n\nHow a man, with the wickedness of such a city as London daily forced\non his notice, and a knowledge of the history of the race in his\nmemory, could have penned such a sentence as the following, it is\ndifficult to conceive. \"The whole theory of this abortive design of\ncreation, with such important efforts to amend it, is emphatically\ncontradicted by the _glorious perfection and invariability_ of the\norder of nature.\" Can he not see that the degradation and wickedness\nof humanity are in striking _contrast_ to the \"glorious perfection and\ninvariability of the order of nature\"? He is bound to give some reason\nfor this anomaly if he will not accept what revelation makes known to\nus as the cause.\n\nThe abstract question as to the credibility of miracles Paul discussed\nin the year 58 at C\u00e6sarea, in the presence of Festus and Agrippa, when\nhe said, \"Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that\nGod should raise the dead?\" and it has been dealt with so exhaustively\nby Newton, Locke, Butler, Paley, Whateley, Olinthus Gregory, Wardlaw,\nAlexander, and a host of other writers, that there is really little\nmore to be said. The \"Fortnightly Review\" remarks that the arguments\non both sides are so familiar, that it is not necessary to reproduce\nthe present author's mode of dealing with this part of the subject.\nMatthew Arnold describes it as an attempt to refute Dr. Mozley's\nBampton Lecture on Miracles--\"a solid reply to a solid treatise;\" but\nthat to engage in an _\u00e0 priori_ argument to prove that miracles are\nimpossible, against an adversary who argues, _\u00e0 priori_, that they are\npossible, is the vainest labour in the world. Now, as Mr. Arnold is as\nmuch a disbeliever in miracles as our author, the worth of his\nabstract argument may be taken at Mr. Arnold's estimate, and he says:\n\"The author of 'Supernatural Religion' asserts again and again that\nmiracles are contrary to complete induction, but no such law of nature\nhas been, or can be, established against the Christian miracles,\ntherefore _a complete induction there is not_.\"\n\nIf the miracle-disbelieving Matthew Arnold does not accept our\nauthor's abstract argument, and since we find Mr. Mill designating\n\"_two points_\" in Hume's celebrated attack as \"weak\" and \"vulnerable,\"\nI need not linger over this part of the work. I may assume that it is\nsufficiently neutralised by men on his own side of the question as\nable and learned as himself.\n\nBut it is not only Mr. Mill and Mr. Arnold who have recently shown\nthat Hume's celebrated argument, which our author reproduces and\ndefends, is not sound. It is satisfactory to know that from Germany,\nwhere so much sceptical criticism has been promulgated, comes now the\nmost complete and conclusive exposure of the whole anti-Christian\nargument. For the proof of this assertion I refer to a work which has\njust been translated into English, and issued by Messrs. T. and T.\nClark of Edinburgh, entitled \"Modern Doubt and Christian Belief,\"[18]\nby Theodore Christlieb, D.D., University Preacher and Professor of\nTheology at Bonn; a most able, learned, and exhaustive argument on the\nwhole question, equal to the demands of those who desire to know all\nabout it, and to whom I earnestly commend the book. He mentions that\nthe great majority of the representatives of the present scientific\nGerman theology are considered to have essentially decided in favour\nof the faith, not only on dogmatical, but also on exegetical and\nspeculative grounds (p. 289).\n\n  [18] A series of apologetic lectures addressed to earnest seekers\n  after truth.\n\nThis is in strong contrast to the assertion of our author (vol. i. p.\n27), that \"it may broadly be said that English divines alone, at the\npresent day, maintain the reality and supernatural character of such\nphenomena;\" and that \"the great majority of modern German critics\nreject the miraculous altogether, and consider the question as no\nlonger worthy of discussion.\"\n\nFor the benefit of those who may not have time to read Dr.\nChristlieb's work, I will transcribe a few passages bearing on the\nabstract argument we are discussing.\n\n\"Things moral and spiritual cannot be mathematically demonstrated. He\nwho said, 'My thoughts are not as your thoughts,' has introduced in\nHis words and actions a far higher logic than that whose principles\nAristotle laid down.\" (Preface, p. xi.)\n\n\"However much, in other respects, our opponents may differ, they all\nagree in the denial of miracles, and unitedly storm this bulwark of\nthe Christian faith; and in its defence we have to combat them all at\nonce. But whence this unanimity? Because, with the truth of miracles,\nthe entire citadel of Christianity stands or falls. For its beginning\nis a miracle, its Author is a miracle, its progress depends upon\nmiracles, and miracles will hereafter be its consummation\" (p. 285).\n\n\"If the principle of miracles be set aside, then all the heights of\nChristianity will be levelled with one stroke, and nought will remain\nbut a heap of ruins. If we banish the supernatural from the Bible,\nthere is nothing left us but the covers\" (p. 286).\n\n\"The negation of miracles leads to the annihilation of all religion\"\n(p. 286).\n\n\"Many are averse to the miraculous through fear of superstition, and\nthey overlook the sharp discrimination of Scripture between belief and\nsuperstition, between miraculous power and witchcraft. Whereas the\nsorcerer pretends to make supernatural powers subservient to _his_\nperson, the prophet or apostle accounts himself only the instrument of\nGod. It is God who alone works. The Son Himself seeks through His\nworks not His own honour, but that of His Father.[19] Notice the\nunobtrusiveness of miracles in the holy Scriptures, how Christ sharply\nrepels the vain curiosity and vulgar thirst of His age for wonders,\nand His prohibition of their publication. Compare with these features\nthe sensational miracles of the Roman and Oriental Churches--images of\nsaints who sweat blood, nod the head, roll the eyes--or the\nWhitsuntide marvels among the Greeks and Armenians at Jerusalem, when\nthe Holy Ghost lights up candles (but not hearts), and you will\nconfess that such feats of legerdemain jugglery betray, in their\nexternal pomp and straining after effect, anything but a Divine\norigin. A glance at the internal evidences of the truth in miracles,\nat their moral and religious character, which reflects and serves not\nonly the power of God, but also His truth and holiness, and must prove\npre-eminently their Divine origin, will show that it is not a very\ndifficult task for any one to defend his belief in the biblical\nmiracles against the charge of superstition\" (p. 297).\n\n  [19] John viii. 50-54.\n\n\"Those foundation-stones for the denial of all miracles which were\nlaid by Spinoza and Hume, and on which the critics of the present day\nstill take a defiant stand, have crumbled away piecemeal before our\neyes. Spinoza's axiom, that the 'laws of nature are the only\nrealisation of the Divine will,' stands or falls with the pantheistic\nconception of the Deity--a conception which is not only unworthy of\nGod and of man, but also contrary to reason. The Source of all freedom\nis supposed to have no freedom, but to be immured in His own laws! And\nto this Spinoza adds the conclusion: 'If anything could take place in\nnature contrary to its laws, God would thereby contradict Himself.' We\nhave seen that just the converse is true, namely, that if God\nperformed no miracles, and left the world to itself, He would\ncontradict Himself; that He must perform miracles in order to maintain\nthe end for which the world was created, and to bring it to the\ndestiny which was originally intended. His miraculous action\ncontradicts not nature and its laws, but the unnatural, which has\nentered the world through sin, and counteracts its destructive\nconsequences in order to restore the life of the world to holy order.\nOnly those who, like Spinoza, deny the reality of sin and its\ndestructive power, can question the necessity of the miraculous. The\npresent condition, not only of the human world, but also of nature,\ngives such opinions the lie at every step\" (p. 327).\n\n\"Hume, in like manner, bases his attack against the miraculous on a\nseries of false assumptions. First: 'Miracles are violations of the\nlaws of nature.' This is false, since miracles, far from violating,\nserve to re-establish the already violated order of the world, and do\nnot injure the laws of nature. Second: 'But we learn from experience\nthat the laws of nature are never violated.' This is false, because we\nourselves immediately interfere with our higher will in the laws of\nnature, and interrupt them without their being violated. Third: 'For\nmiracles we have the questionable testimony of a few persons.' This is\nfalse, because the entire Scriptures are full of miracles, and the\nhistorical testimony for them is unquestionable, since the appearance\nof Israel and of the Christian Church is perfectly incomprehensible\nwithout miracles. 'But,' he goes on, 'against them we have universal\nexperience; therefore this stronger testimony nullifies the weaker and\nmore questionable.' The pith of Hume's argument, then, is simply this:\nBecause, according to universal experience, no miracles now take\nplace, therefore none can ever have occurred. This proposition, in the\nfirst place, involves a begging of the question, since it is not at\nall certain that no miracles are performed now-a-days; and, second, it\nignores the fact that different periods are subject to different laws,\nand with their varied wants may demand varied kinds of revelatory\naction on the part of God. Certainly, the negro who should affirm that\nthere is no snow, because in his country, according to 'universal\nexperience,' it never snows, would be committing an absurdity. And no\nless illegitimate is it to measure all time by the universal (?)\nexperience or non-experience of some particular period. Finally, Hume\ngoes on to demand, as a condition for the credibility of miracles,\nthat they must be attested by an adequate number of sufficiently\neducated and honest persons, who could not be suspected of intentional\ndeception, and that they should be done in so frequented a spot that\nthe detection of the illusion would be inevitable. We shall see\nfurther (in Lectures vi. and vii.) that these conditions were all\nessentially fulfilled in the case of the New Testament miracles. And\nyet, in spite of the evident weakness of Hume's argument, Strauss\nwould have us believe that Hume's 'Essay on Miracles' is so\nuniversally convincing, that it may be said to have settled the\nquestion ('Leben Jesu,' page 148). The author of the 'Life of Christ'\nforgets to mention that Hume has long since been refuted in detail by\nthe earlier and later English apologists (_e. g._, by Campbell, Adams,\nHay, Price, Douglass, Paley, Whateley, Dwight, Alexander, Wardlaw, and\nPearson), to say nothing of the Germans; but then he knows that only a\nvery small proportion of his readers is aware of this fact\" (p. 328).\n\n\"To these objections not even our most modern philosophers have been\nable to add really new ones; and as against them all we may\nconfidently maintain the following truths as the result of our\ninvestigation:--\n\n\"The possibility of the miraculous rests upon the uninterrupted\nactivity of a living God in the world.\n\n\"Its necessity arises, on the one hand, from the Divine end and aim\nof the world; and on the other, from the disturbance introduced into\nits development through sin.\n\n\"Therefore, although miracles are supernatural, they are not\nunnatural. Far from violating the conditions of life, of nature, or of\nhumanity, they re-establish the life of the world which has already\nbeen deranged, and initiate the higher order of things for which the\nuniverse was created\" (p. 328).\n\nOf Baur, Dr. Christlieb writes:--\n\n\"Of all modern opponents of our old faith, the greatest is Dr.\nFerdinand Christian von Baur, Professor of Theology at T\u00fcbingen (died\nDecember 2, 1860), one of the greatest, if not the greatest\ntheological scholar of this century; after Neander, the most notable\nhistorian of the Church, not only in Germany but in the world; the\nmost indefatigable of investigators, especially as regards the history\nof Primitive Christianity, in the elucidation of which he has deserved\nwell of theology. He stands a head and shoulders above all our modern\nopponents of the miraculous.... If human power, human diligence, and\nacuteness, could ever bring about the overthrow of our faith, this man\nwould have accomplished it. But our present theology is daily\nbecoming more convinced that he was incompetent to this task, and\nthat, in spite of all his unutterable exertions, he did not succeed in\nproving the merely natural origin of Christianity. This is one of the\nsurest signs that the rock upon which our faith is founded is\nabsolutely indestructible\"[20] (p. 505).\n\n  [20] \"The T\u00fcbingen school, which has somewhat modified the views of\n  Baur, its founder, has at present its chief seats in Switzerland,\n  France, and Holland.\"--_Dr. C._, p. 516.\n\nI must not attempt to give the points of Dr. Christlieb's critique and\nrefutation of the T\u00fcbingen theory, but refer the reader to his\ninvaluable work.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS._\n\n\n_\"I consider the Gospels decidedly genuine, for they are penetrated by\nthe reflection of a majesty which proceeded from the Person of Christ;\nand this is Divine, if ever Divinity appeared upon earth.\"_\n\n  Goethe.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS_.\n\nCLEMENT OF ROME--THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS--THE PASTOR OF HERMAS.\n\n\nThe argument based on the investigation which is carried on in the\nseven hundred pages of the second and third parts of our author's\nwork, is chiefly the negative one from \"silence.\" He examines with\ngreat minuteness the date, character, and authorship of all the four\nGospels, and refers to all the writings of the early Church for traces\nof them; insisting upon the silence of those early writings as being\nof as much importance as any \"supposed allusions\" to the Gospels found\nin such authors as Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, and others who\nlived soon after the apostolic age; the result being, in our author's\nopinion, unfavourable to the view entertained by orthodox believers.\n\nI demur to his conclusions. I notice a want of fairness in some of his\nquotations and in some of his translations, and a want of accuracy in\nsome of his statements, as well as defects in his reasoning, which I\nhave no doubt others will comment upon who may review the book. Some\nof these defects will appear as I proceed.\n\nWhen I find him saying, as he does, vol. ii. page 387, \"We must,\nhowever, carefully restrict ourselves to the limits of our inquiry,\nand resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive discussion of\nthe problem presented by the Fourth Gospel from a more _general_\nliterary point of view,\" I expect to find difficulties, which of\ncourse there are and must be, brought into prominence and carped at,\nwhile the general evidence upon which Divine revelation is immovably\nbased is \"carefully\" avoided.\n\nThe second part, on the Synoptic Gospels, is a long investigation,\nextending over five hundred pages, and dealing with three and twenty\nworks by separate non-biblical authors of the first and second\ncenturies; and its object is to disprove that they were written solely\nby Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and to support the hypothesis that those\nGospels were not in existence until long after the times of the\napostles, and, therefore, that they furnish no evidence from\neye-witnesses of the miracles they record.\n\nThe third part deals with the Fourth Gospel in a similar manner, and\noccupies more than two hundred pages. Our author's inquiry into the\nreality of Divine revelation seems, at this point, to involve the\nfollowing questions: Does the extant literature of the close of the\nfirst and the beginning of the second century quote from, or allude\nto, the three Synoptic Gospels? And if this cannot be answered in the\naffirmative, does such silence prove they were not then written; and,\nif so, is the conclusion deducible that the miracles recorded are not\ncredible?\n\nIn the preliminary remarks with which he opens the second part, he\nsays: \"When such writers, quoting largely from the Old Testament and\nother sources, deal with subjects which would naturally be assisted by\nreferences to our Gospels, and still more so by quoting such works as\nauthoritative, and yet we find that not only _they do not show any\nknowledge of those Gospels_, but actually quote passages from unknown\nsources, or sayings of Jesus derived from tradition, the inference\nmust be that our Gospels were either unknown, or not recognised as\nworks of any authority at the time.\" In reference to this sentence I\nremark that many of the passages he specifies and examines are _not_\nfrom _unknown sources_, but from the Gospels, because, if not strictly\nverbatim, they are in the _sense_ identical, and almost identical in\nthe language; therefore such quotations are evidence that the Gospels\nexisted at the time. The insinuation that they are from tradition is\npurely conjecture, and altogether improbable, because our Gospels\ncontain the passages. There is not the slightest reason for looking\naway from our gospels, and imagining the quotations to be either from\nunknown sources or tradition. This will appear as we proceed. I will\ngive in his own words the results of his examination of what he\ndesignates \"evidence for the Synoptic Gospels,\" and then follow him\nstep by step through the journey he takes into early Patristic Church\nhistory.\n\nHe says (vol. ii. page 248): \"We may now briefly sum up the results of\nour examination of the evidence for the Synoptic Gospels. After having\nexhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we\n_have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during\nthe first century and a half after the death of Jesus_. Only once\nduring the whole of that period do we find any tradition even that any\none of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition,\nso far from favouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the\nfirst and second. Papias, about the middle of the second century, on\nthe occasion to which we refer, records that Matthew composed the\nDiscourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a statement which\n_totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin_.\nMark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of Peter the\nsayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he\nwas not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what\nfell from the apostle. This description likewise shows that our actual\nSecond Gospel could not in its present form have been the work of\nMark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of\nMatthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke.\nIf it be considered that there is any connection between Marcion's\nGospel and our Third Synoptic, any evidence so derived is of an\nunfavourable character for that Gospel, as it involves a charge\nagainst it of being interpolated and debased by Jewish elements. Any\nargument for the mere existence of our Synoptics, based upon their\nsupposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects, has the evitable\ndisadvantage that the very testimony which would show their existence\nwould oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by\nheretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any\nwriter, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. We need scarcely\nadd that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony\nof these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of miracles\nand of a direct Divine revelation.\" (Here he says, in a foot-note: \"A\ncomparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have confirmed\nthe conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must\nhasten on.\") \"It is not pretended that more than one of the Synoptic\nGospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences\nreported; and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of\nthe historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the\ncorrectness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists or is\nnow even conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence\nrequired and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under\nthe circumstances could have been thought possible.\"\n\nThere is a plausibility, combined with an assumed conclusiveness, in\nthis summary, which may impose for a moment on those readers of his\nbook who are not conversant with the question under discussion. They\nwill be likely to have glanced at the foot-notes indicating the great\nnumber of books referred to, and take it for granted that an author so\nlearned and painstaking would scarcely have asserted conclusions so\nboldly without having found good reasons for them, which, before he\nhas done, he will adduce and make plain. It is evident, however, that\nwhatever his reasons may be as a whole, when his promised further\nvolume has been published, it is quite certain that, so far, his\nargument from the silence of early writings, supposing he had\nconducted it successfully, combined with his logic on the abstract\nquestion of the credibility of miracles, is not sufficient to justify\nhis assertion that the testimony of the Gospels is insufficient to\nestablish the reality of miracles; because the Gospels might have\nexisted, although no trace of them can be found in the fragments\nextant of books written during the few years between the composition\nof the Gospels and the period when they were generally acknowledged as\nauthoritative, and read everywhere in the Christian assemblies on the\nLord's Day, that is, from about A.D. 100 to 150.\n\nThe reader will be unwise if he allow himself to be impressed by the\nmultiplicity of selected witnesses from a selected period, other\nevidence being unappealed to. If a hundred of witnesses are, in a\ncourt of justice, produced to swear to the identity of a man, the\nimpression is created that it cannot but be established. We have\nlately seen how from being inevitable is such an outside verdict. The\nspecial pleading of authorship, like that of the Queen's Bench,\nstartles and impresses for a moment; but after the investigation of\nall the facts and circumstances of the case is complete, and the judge\nhas dissected the evidence, the sophistry is found not to have helped\nthe side which used it, but has tended to strengthen the other. I\nremark, before following our author in his references to the witnesses\nhe has selected for cross-examination, it is not conceded to him the\nright to draw a line where it best suits him in Church history, and\ndecide the case in the absence of the evidence of witnesses on the\noutside of it. He draws such a line in specifying \"_the first century\nand a half after the death of Christ_.\" If the probable date of\nChrist's birth be the third year before the commencement of the\nChristian era, we have this line drawn at A.D. 180, at which point the\nsecond generation of Christians had only just passed away, when direct\ntradition had not lost its freshness. While men and women were living\nwho had heard from eye-witnesses of the events of Christ's life on\nearth, the story of His advent, death, resurrection, and ascension,\nthe books recording the facts for future ages were in a less prominent\nposition in the Church than immediately afterwards. They were then\nread in all the Churches, but commentaries on them and written\nreferences to them were not very numerous; therefore what we can trace\nof such before that time is comparatively scanty. But, immediately\nafterwards, in the third and fourth generation of Christians, when\nthere were no men living who could say, My grandfather or my venerable\nteacher told me so and so of Christ, and he saw Christ in Galilee\nafter His resurrection, when there were not less than five hundred of\nHis disciples assembled, and he was present when He ascended in a\ncloud--while such persons were living, the testimony of a book was to\nthem of lesser weight and importance, for they could say that they had\nthe truth, not from the written words of a disciple, but from his own\nlips. As Iren\u00e6us well remembered Polycarp, so might persons living\nabout the middle of the second century remember the teaching of the\nApostle John. The argument from \"silence,\" applied to the early period\nrestricted to the year 180, is for this and other reasons far from\nbeing conclusive, while the evidence furnished by such writings as\nthose of Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of\nAntioch, Tatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, who belong to the subsequent\nyears of the first and the opening of the second century, is much more\nimportant than is indicated by our author. His investigation ignores\nto a great extent the circumstantial evidence of this later period. He\nsays (vol. ii. p. 387) he \"must be careful to restrict himself to the\nlimits of his inquiry,\" and to avoid the \"more general literary point\nof view,\" and he does so restrict himself. If a person really desires\nto decipher an obscure antiquarian manuscript or inscription, he does\nnot say, I must carefully keep to this imperfectly-lighted room, and\nnot step into broad daylight.\n\nHere is a specimen of the way he draws an inference. In arguing\nagainst the authority of the four Gospels, he says, vol. ii. p. 457,\n\"No two of them agree even about so simple a matter of fact as the\ninscription on the cross.\" Now the exact words, as given in each\nGospel, are as follows: Matthew gives the inscription in eight\nwords--\"This is Jesus the King of the Jews;\" Mark in five words--\"The\nKing of the Jews;\" Luke in seven words--\"This is the King of the\nJews;\" and John in eight words--\"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the\nJews.\"\n\nThis needs no comment. Could anything be more natural than such slight\ndiscrepancies? Would four shorthand reporters of the present day have\nbeen more exact?\n\nThe first early writer he examines is Clement, Bishop of Rome, who,\ntowards the close of the first century, wrote an epistle to the\nCorinthians. It is attached to the ancient copy of the Scriptures\nknown as the Codex Alexandrinus, written in the fifth century, and\npreserved in the British Museum.\n\nThis writer's fame surpassed all others in the first century. His\nfirst Epistle to the Corinthians, written in Greek, is deemed to be\ngenuine; but, says Dr. Mosheim, \"it seems to have been corrupted and\ninterpolated.\"\n\nEusebius assures us it was received by all, and reverenced next to\nthe Holy Scriptures, and therefore publicly read in the Churches for\nsome ages, even till his time.[21]\n\n  [21] \"Cod.\" cxii. c. 38.\n\nThe epistle itself makes no mention of the author's name. It purports\nto be addressed by \"the Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the\nChurch of God sojourning at Corinth.\" But in the Codex Alexandrinus\nthe title of \"The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians\" is\nadded at the end. Internal evidence shows it was written after some\npersecution of the Church, either that of Nero, A.D. 64-70, or\nDomitian, at the end of the century. The epistle contains these\nwords:--\n\n\"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake\nteaching gentleness and long-suffering. For thus he said, Be pitiful,\nthat ye may be pitied; forgive, that it may be forgiven you; as ye do,\nso shall it be done to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you;\nas ye judge, so shall it be judged to you; as ye show kindness, shall\nkindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it\nshall be measured to you.\"\n\nOur author himself shows that these precepts cannot be mere floating\ntradition. He says such \"seems impossible\" (vol. i. p. 226). They are\nevidently the words of Jesus taken from a written source, but he\ncontends that they are not a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount,\nas recorded in the Gospels as we have them, but _from some other\nGospel_ which is not extant. He says: \"When the great difference is\nconsidered between the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, and\nstill more between these and the passage in Mark, it is easy to\nunderstand that that other Gospel may have contained a version\ndiffering as much from them as they do from each other.\"\n\nI remark, supposing that Clement had before him all three versions,\nwhich differ from each other, what is more natural than that he should\ngive the sense without adhering to the exact words of any. Only an\ninquirer who has a bias against Christianity would think of disputing\nthe quotation.\n\nIf Epiphanius \"clearly wrote without having the Gospel of Luke before\nhim,\" as our author states on page 100, and if Tertullian \"evidently\nquotes that Gospel from memory,\" as he also says on the same page; why\nshould it be assumed as a matter of course that Clement had the\nwritings before him? He also may have quoted from memory.\n\nThere is something strangely marvellous about the disappearance of\nthese imaginary lost records of the Sermon on the Mount. We know that\nin the year A.D. 139 Justin Martyr wrote that the \"Memoirs of the\nApostles,\" called \"Evangels\" (gospels), were read after the prophets\nevery Lord's Day in the assembly of the Christians. Where were they\nthen? Were they identical with these memoirs called Gospels? Where\nwere they about the year A.D. 180, when Iren\u00e6us proves that four\nGospels were held in the highest esteem, and were read in all the\nChurches; alluding to them as the four columns of the Church, and\ncomparing them to the four quarters of the world, the four principal\nwinds, and the four figures of the Cherubim? Where were they when he\nsays: \"So well established _are our Gospels_, that even teachers of\nerror themselves bear testimony to them: even they rest their\nobjections on the foundations of the Gospels\"?[22] This hypothesis of\nour author is certainly going out of the way to find the reason for a\nthing. It is to be remembered that what is evidenced by Iren\u00e6us, who\nwrote about A.D. 180, and was the pupil of Polycarp, is highly\nimportant. Dr. Mosheim says his five books against heresies, the only\nwritings of his extant, are a splendid monument of antiquity.[23] From\nthe evidence of Iren\u00e6us, it is clear that the four Gospels must have\nbeen occupying a special and authoritative place in the Church some\ntime before the time he wrote his five books on heresies, about the\nyear 180. Tischendorf, who knows as much as any man about the\nScripture manuscripts, says: \"It is a well-established fact that,\nalready between A.D. 150 and 200, not only were the Gospels translated\ninto Latin and Syriac, but also that their number was defined to be\nonly four, neither more nor less.\" The Syriac version of the New\nTestament called the Peshito, a work of immense value, as the language\nis almost identical with that spoken by Christ, a translation\nadmirably executed, \"is generally assigned,\" says Tischendorf, \"to the\nend of the second century, though we have not any positive proof to\noffer;\" and \"the Latin version had acquired before this period a\ncertain public authority.\" As the man who translated Iren\u00e6us's five\nbooks from Greek into Latin follows the Italic version, and as\nTertullian, in the quotation which he makes from the Latin\ntranslation of Iren\u00e6us copies that translator, Tischendorf justly\nargues that some time must have elapsed between that date when the\ntranslation is known to have been in existence, and the period when\nthey were first separated from other Church writings, and attained a\nprominent and sacred character. Thus we get to the apostolic age for\nthe origin of all the four Gospels, and there seems to be no interval\nof time sufficient to account for our author's primitive Gospels to\nhave disappeared, leaving no trace of their existence. It is\nenormously more probable that the four Gospels alluded to by Iren\u00e6us\nand Tertullian contained the records from which Clement quoted the\npassage of the Sermon on the Mount, than that there were primitive\nindependent writings which were soon lost, obtaining no recognition\nwhen the separate Gospel manuscripts became associated with the Old\nTestament, and were read after them in the Christian assemblies. Our\nauthor says the passage quoted by Clement, referring to the Sermon on\nthe Mount, is decidedly opposed to \"the pretensions made on behalf of\nthe Synoptics.\" I do not quite know what \"pretensions\" he alludes to,\nbut I am not defending pretensions, either ecclesiastical or\nnon-ecclesiastical. It is not necessary, in the defence of the\nGospels, to assert that the four Evangelists whose names are attached\nto them wrote every word; that they only contain records of what those\ndisciples were either eye-witnesses of, or, in the case of Mark and\nLuke, heard Peter and Paul preach. The formul\u00e6, \"according to\nMatthew,\" \"according to Mark,\" \"according to Luke,\" \"according to\nJohn,\" do not imply that, in the most ancient opinion, these recitals\nwere written from beginning to end by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and\nJohn.[24] It is enough to know that the writings so far emanated from\nthose disciples as to justify the titles they bear, and their\nreception by the early Church, as the true record of the important\ntransactions to which they refer. That reception of them was\nsufficiently near to the date of their composition to preclude the\nprobability that the early Christian Church had not the means of\ntesting their genuineness or historical data, while their internal\nevidence is such as to confirm their truthfulness and authority.\n\n  [22] \"Adv. H\u00e6r.\" iii. 11. 7.\n\n  [23] They were written while Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome (A.D. 177\n  to 193), as is evident from his Catalogue (Lib. iii. c. 3) of the\n  Bishops of Rome, for Eleutherius is the last of the twelve he\n  mentions, and was then in possession of that pastorate.\n\n  [24] See R\u00e9nan, \"Life of Jesus,\" p. 8, cheap edition.\n\n\"As to Luke,\" says R\u00e9nan, \"doubt is scarcely possible. It is a regular\ncomposition, founded on anterior documents, the work of one man, who\nselects, prunes, and combines. The author is certainly the same as\nthat of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts is a\ncompanion of Paul, a title which applies to Luke exactly. The name of\nLucus (contraction of Lucanus) being very rare, we need not fear one\nof those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions of\ncriticism relative to the New Testament. It is beyond doubt that the\nauthor of the Third Gospel and of the Acts was a man of the second\ngeneration, and that is sufficient for our object. The date can be\ndetermined by considerations drawn from the Gospel itself. The\ntwenty-first chapter, inseparable from the rest of the work, was\ncertainly written a short time after the destruction of Jerusalem. We\nare here upon solid ground, for we are concerned with a work written\nentirely by the same hand, and of the most perfect unity. If the\nGospel of Luke is dated, those of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for\nit is certain that the Third Gospel is posterior to the first two, and\nexhibits the character of a much more advanced composition.\"\n\n\"Every one drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. The Acts\nof the Apostles and the ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus\nwhich appear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess.\nThe life of Jesus in the Synoptics rests upon two original\ndocuments--first, the discourses of Jesus collected by Matthew;\nsecond, the collection of anecdotes and personal reminiscences which\nMark wrote from the recollections of Peter. We may say that we have\nthese two documents still, mixed with accounts from another source, in\nthe two first Gospels, which bear, not without reason, the name of the\nGospel according to Matthew, and of the Gospel according to Mark. It\nwas when tradition became weakened, in the second half of the second\ncentury, that the texts bearing the name of the apostles took a\ndecisive authority, and obtained the force of law.\"\n\nI have selected these passages from R\u00e9nan's \"Life of Jesus,\" as they\nbear upon the view of the origin of the Gospels which may be\nentertained with consistency by those who accept their authority,\nwithout insisting upon any such pretensions as our author seems to\ncombat, and which are not necessary for their defence.\n\nI object also to the case being tried upon an indictment which\nincludes a uniform, plenary, and verbal inspiration. Nor is it, I\nsubmit, necessary to defend the view that the Old and New Testaments\ninclude no words but what are of Divine authority.\n\nI maintain that God has supernaturally revealed His character and His\nwill in the Bible, but I know not where the hard and fast line is\nwhich separates the human from the superhuman in our versions of these\nsacred documents, the general characteristic of which is that they are\ninspired productions; that therein \"holy men of God spake as they were\nmoved by the Holy Ghost.\"[25] \"Not the words which man's wisdom\nteacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.\"[26]\n\n  [25] 2 Pet. i. 21.\n\n  [26] 1 Cor. ii. 13.\n\n\"God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the\nfathers,\" and having subsequently spoken by His Son, authenticates His\nmessage, which, we cannot doubt, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles\nto record, by a special inspiration, as He did in pre-Christian times.\n\nIt is human nature for man to pervert even his best of blessings. Jews\nand Christians alike have done so. When we think of the translators of\nthe Hebrew Scriptures into Greek altering the prophetical dates, to\nmislead as to the coming of Messiah, as was done in the Septuagint\nVersion; of the genealogy of Joseph being fitted into three periods of\nfourteen generations each, to square with Jewish notions of numerical\nprecision and completeness; of the verse in John's first epistle (v.\n7) inserted in the text to add strength to the theological phraseology\nof a creed; and of the first verses of the eighth chapter of the\nFourth Gospel being left out in several of the most ancient MSS.,\nevidently owing to some great authority, such as Eusebius (who was\nordered by Constantine to prepare copies of the Scriptures), having\nsuppressed them; we cannot but be suspicious that human infirmity and\nmeddlesomeness have, to some extent, interfered with the transmission\nof the Divine oracles. The fountain is undoubtedly pure, but has not\nthe channel been polluted through which the Divine truths have been\ntransmitted?\n\nWe have next a reference to the \"Epistle of Barnabas\" and the \"Pastor\nof Hermas,\" both of which are attached to that ancient copy of the\nScriptures known as the Codex Sinaiticus, recently found by\nTischendorf, in a monastery in the desert of Sinai, and now preserved\nat St. Petersburg. It is the most ancient MS. of the Scriptures we\ncan refer to, and is supposed to have been written in the fourth\ncentury.\n\nAfter the New Testament, in this valuable MS., is placed the epistle\nascribed to Barnabas. It is complete. It was written some time between\nthe year 70 and the close of the first century, and it contains these\nwords:--\"_Let us therefore beware lest we should be found as it is\nwritten, Many are called, few are chosen._\" These words certainly\nappear to be quoted from the twenty-second chapter of Matthew, but our\nauthor says there is a similar passage in the apocryphal book of\nEzra--\"_There be many created, but few shall be saved_,\" and he asks\nus to believe it is quoted from the latter. As we have not the same\nbias as he has, we decline, for obvious reasons, to do so, although he\npoints out that the verse in Matthew is not in the oldest codex.\nUnfortunately the one in the British Museum is defective at that part,\nbut the verse appears in later MSS. He says, had the Epistle of\nBarnabas been seriously regarded as a work of the apostle of that\nname, it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank. If this\nbe our author's opinion, there was more discrimination used by the men\nwho decided what writings were admissible into the canon than he has\nelsewhere given them credit for. The Epistle of Barnabas also contains\nthe following important passage:--\n\n\"_But when he selected his own apostles, who should preach his gospel,\nwho were sinners above all sin, in order that he might show that he\ncame not to call the righteous, but sinners, then he manifested\nhimself to be the Son of God._\"\n\nOur author says that the words \"_he came not to call the righteous,\nbut sinners_,\" very probably a pious scribe added in the margin, and\nthey were afterwards included in the text of the epistle.\n\nI remark that this is quite a gratuitous assumption. I see no\nprobability of anything of the kind, and I agree with Tischendorf, who\nasks, \"Could any one mistake the words being a quotation from Matt.\nix. 13?\" But our author insinuates that this chapter should be\ndissected, and the miraculous eliminated. He says the words of Jesus,\n\"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick,\"\n\"evidently belong to the oldest tradition of the Gospel;\" and he gives\nthe opinion of Ewald, who ascribed them (ver. 1214), apart from the\nremainder of the chapter, originally to the _collection of\ndiscourses_[27] from which, with two intermediate books, he considers\nour present Gospel of Matthew was composed.\n\n  [27] Spruchsammlung.\n\nThese are the sort of conjectures upon which our author builds his\nargument. The ninth chapter of Matthew is too full of the miraculous\nto be accepted as a whole. It records how Jesus forgave sins, to the\nsick gave health, to the blind sight, to the dumb speech, and to the\ndead life; all of which is out of keeping with his bias and the German\nrationalism with which he has such profound sympathy.\n\nTischendorf finds a further analogy between the Epistle of Barnabas\nand the Gospel of Matthew in the words, \"_David prophesied, The Lord\nsaid unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy\nfootstool_;\" and inquires, \"Could Barnabas so write without the\nsupposition that his readers had Matt. xxii. 4 before them? and does\nnot such a supposition likewise infer the actual authority of\nMatthew's Gospel?\" Because the passage is in the Psalms, our author\nridicules Tischendorf's inference. It is, to say the least, quite as\nprobable that Barnabas quoted from the Gospel as from the Psalms, and\nthere is propriety in Tischendorf's opinion and inference.\n\nIn designating his argument \"rabid\" and \"preposterous,\" our author\nexposes himself to arrows winged with similar feathers. When he\nunwarrantably pretends to _know_ that the earliest records of what\nJesus did and taught did not contain anything but what comports with\nthe German school of theology which he favours, and which he has done\nhis best to make familiar to English readers, without exposing himself\npersonally to the odium which attaches to such opinions in a Christian\ncommunity, he has no claim to indulgence from those who examine his\nlanguage and animadvert thereupon.\n\nConsidering that, according to his own showing, the belief was, at all\nevents, prevalent in the Christian Church in the middle of the second\ncentury that these writings of the apostles were authentic, and that\nhe cannot account for their being so esteemed, so soon after the\nevents occurred to which they refer, as to be universally read in all\nthe Christian Churches; it is, to say the least, unbecoming in him to\nexalt his conjectures into oracles. Other critics, quite as inquiring,\nable, and learned, more modestly say, \"_The subject presents a variety\nof embarrassing circumstances, so that it is difficult to arrive at a\nsatisfactory conclusion_.\" He lays himself open to be classified with\nthose who \"_rush in where angels fear to tread_.\" There is a close\nanalogy between those who say in their hearts there is no God, and\nthose who say He has never spoken; and we know what is said in the\nBible of the former.\n\nI will give here a specimen of the way our author quotes to suit his\nown argument, and you will see whether the epithet \"_preposterous_\" is\nat all applicable to him.\n\nIn showing how much John was opposed to Paul on the question of\nGentile Christians observing Jewish rites, he says, \"_Allusion is\nundoubtedly made to Paul in the Epistle to the Churches_, in the\nApocalypse;\" and, \"_It is clear that Paul is referred to in the\naddress to the Church of Ephesus_.\" The first passage is Rev. ii. 2,\n\"_I know thy works and thy patience, ... and how thou hast tried them\nwhich say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them false_;\"\nimplying that John was so opposed to Paul as to deny his being an\napostle, which is grossly improbable.[28] But the full absurdity of\nthe idea is more manifest in the next quotation from Rev. ii. 14: \"But\nI have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that\nhold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a\nstumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things\nsacrificed unto idols,\" _&c._ It would not have answered his purpose\nto finish the sentence, so he stops at the word \"idols,\" and puts\n\"_&c._\" When I mention that the words which are represented by the\n\"_&c._\" are \"_and to commit fornication_,\" you will agree with me,\nthat not only is the idea of John saying that Paul had taught the\nChristians at Pergamos to sin in this respect the climax of absurdity,\nbut that an author who quotes so unfairly, and reasons so strangely,\nis not to be implicitly trusted, nor his conclusions accepted. He has\nadopted the erroneous notion of Baur, the late eminent Professor of\nTheology at T\u00fcbingen, and other German writers, that the difference\nbetween the Jewish and Christian converts, in reference to\ncircumcision and other Jewish observances, amounted to a party\ncontest, which caused Paul and Peter and James to be seriously at\nvariance. Now we know the facts of the temporary disagreement, and\nthey certainly do not justify such a conclusion. The hypothesis of\nsuch a Pauline and a Petrine contest needs only to be brought into\ncontact with the letters of Paul, in which he refers frequently to the\nGentile Churches sending help to the Jewish church at Jerusalem, and\nit is at once exploded. He tells the Galatians how it was arranged at\nJerusalem, after the matters in dispute had been discussed, that he\nand Barnabas, receiving the right hand of fellowship, should go to the\nheathen, and James, Peter, and John to the circumcision; only the\nlatter stipulated that the poor at Jerusalem were to be remembered,\nwhich Paul says, \"I was forward to do.\" And he instructs the\nCorinthians in his first epistle as to their collections on the first\nday of the week before he came, that their liberality might be ready\nto send to the poor saints at Jerusalem. There is here the very\nopposite of such extreme hostile and disgraceful party feeling as must\nhave existed if John could indulge in such language regarding Paul as\nour author attributes to him. There were false men, such as Simon the\nsorcerer; false apostles, such as Paul alludes to; and corrupters of\nmorals, such as the Nicolaitanes; so that there is not the slightest\nnecessity to think of Paul and his dispute about Jewish rites, to make\nthe words of the Apocalypse intelligible.\n\n  [28] Paul was not living when John wrote the Apocalypse.\n\nClement's letter, written from Rome to the Corinthians, probably about\nthe year 94 or 95, supplies us with evidence as to the nature of the\ndifference between Peter and Paul, as well as proves the epistle to be\ngenuine. He says, \"Do take up the writings of the blessed apostle.\nWhat did he say to you in the beginning of the Gospel? Truly, by\nDivine Inspiration, he gave you directions concerning himself and\nPeter and Apollos, because even then ye were splitting into parties.\nBut your party spirit at that time had less evil in it, because it was\nexercised in favour of apostles of eminent holiness, and of _one_ much\napproved of by them. But now consider _who_ they are that have\nsubverted you. These are shameful things, brethren, very shameful,\nthat the ancient and flourishing Church of Corinth have quarrelled\nwith their pastors, from a weak partiality for one or two persons.\"\n\nClement contrasts the eminent holy Peter and Paul and Apollos with the\npersons who were subverting them, and the latter were undoubtedly the\nsort of false apostles that John alludes to in the Apocalypse. The\nevidence of the Second Epistle of Peter is not to be set aside because\nour author includes it among the questionable writings of the New\nTestament; and Peter there speaks of Paul as \"our beloved brother, who\naccording to the wisdom given him hath written unto you.\"[29] It is\nnot convenient for such critics to allow the letter to be genuine, on\naccount of this very passage. But there is ample proof, from internal\nevidence, as shown by Dr. Macnight, Dr. Blackwell, and Dr. A. Clarke,\nthat it is a genuine letter. What a weak case he must have in hand who\nhas to resort to such means to defend it!\n\n  [29] 2 Pet. iii. 15.\n\nThe foregone conclusion that miracles are incredible, hampers all the\ninvestigations of these German scholars, and compels them to resort to\nall sorts of conjectures and devices to account for things which, on\nthe basis of Evangelical views, are neither mysterious nor\ninharmonious. If it be true of Germany that her ablest theologians are\nnow exploding such fallacies, the argument of our author is one, the\nforce of which is expended, a gun brought into the field of battle\nwhen the fight is nearly over. It may do some damage, but cannot\naffect materially the issue of the contest. The outspokenness of the\nsceptics has roused the believers, and the result, we cannot doubt,\nwill be for the furtherance of the gospel.\n\n\"The natural and spiritual miracles of the sacred narrative are only\nthe notes of a higher harmony which resound throughout the discords of\nearthly history. To our dull sense indeed they may seem disconnected,\nbut the more we listen the more we perceive a connected law of higher\neuphony, now presaging, and finally bringing about the solution of all\ndissonance into an eternal harmony. Surely then a believer may look\ndown with pity upon the spirit of the age and its declaration, that\nthe harmony of the Kosmos is destroyed by the miracles of the Bible.\"\n(Beyschlag.)\n\nThe \"Shepherd of Hermas\" is next alluded to, but as it is not\npretended that it contains any quotation from, or reference to, any\npassage of the Old or New Testament, it is simply a negative witness\nin this case. It is found in the Codex Sinaiticus, after the Epistle\nof Barnabas. The following is Mosheim's description of the work: \"The\nbook entitled the 'Shepherd of Hermas' (so called because an angel is\nthe leading character in the drama) was composed in the second\ncentury, by Hermas, the brother of Pius, the Roman bishop. The writer,\nif he was indeed sane, deemed it proper to forge dialogues held with\nGod and angels, in order to insinuate what he regarded as salutary\ntruths more effectually into the minds of his readers. But his\ncelestial spirits talk more insipidly than our scavengers and\nporters.\"\n\nWhat a contrast between the writings of the New Testament and those\nleft out of the canon does such a book as this \"Shepherd of Hermas\"\nexhibit! Bunsen thus alludes to it: \"That good but dull novel which\nNiebuhr used to say he pitied the Athenian Christians for being\nobliged to hear read in their meetings.\" \"From the very dawn of\nCatholic literature, beginning with 'Hermas the Shepherd,' it had been\nthe object of the Christian writers to render the Greek and Roman\nmind, by degrees, independent of the heathen philosophers, and to\ncreate a Catholic literature and library, more particularly for the\nuse of children and catechumens.\"[30]\n\n  [30] \"Hippolytus and his Age,\" vol. i., 315.\n\nFailing to distinguish between what was intended to be true, what was\nmeant to be fiction, and what was fraudulently spurious, theologians\nhave often been misled, and important doctrines have been thereby\nperverted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._\n\n\n_\"I cannot dispense with miracles as historical explanations of\ncertain indubitable historical facts. I do not find that they make\nrents in history, but by their aid alone am I able to get over its\ngaping chasms.\"_\n\n  _Rothe._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._\n\n     THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS--THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP--JUSTIN\n     MARTYR--HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS--THE CLEMENTINES--THE EPISTLE TO\n     DIOGNETUS.\n\n\nNext our author examines quotations in \"the Epistles of Ignatius,\"\nthough he says they really appertain to a very much later period, for\nthey are \"all pronounced, by a _large mass of critics, spurious\ncompositions_.\" He suffered martyrdom, it is said, on the 20th December,\nA.D. 115, when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the\namphitheatre, not at Rome, but at Antioch, in consequence of the\nfanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on\nthe thirteenth of that month.[31] If any of his fifteen letters, says\nour author, could be accepted as genuine, the references to them\nmight be important. Dr. Mosheim says his whole epistles are extremely\ndubious. The shorter of the two version of Ignatius is, however,\ngenerally allowed to be genuine. Tischendorf says \"its genuineness is\nnow generally admitted.\" In it we find, \"What would a man be profited\nif he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?\" which of\ncourse is a quotation from Matt. xvi. 26.\n\n  [31] While Trajan was on his Parthian expedition, and spent the winter\n  at Antioch. (See Davidson's \"Introduction to the New Testament,\" p.\n  370.)\n\nThe next document mentioned is the Epistle of Polycarp to the\nPhilippians, who, Iren\u00e6us says, was in his youth a disciple of the\nApostle John. He was Bishop of Smyrna, and ended his life by\nmartyrdom, A.D. 167. Iren\u00e6us knew Polycarp personally. It is said that\nthe epistle was written before A.D. 120. Our author ascribes it to a\nlater date, and says that there are potent reasons for considering it\nspurious. As, however, Iren\u00e6us, Polycarp's disciple, believed it to be\ngenuine, we shall take the liberty of differing from our author, and\nof believing it to be so. The epistle contains the following:\n\"Remembering what the Lord said, teaching: Judge not, that ye be not\njudged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven you; be pitiful, that ye may\nbe pitied; with what measure you mete it shall be measured to you\nagain; and that blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted\nfor righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.\" Also:\n\"Beseeching in our prayers the all-seeing God not to lead us into\ntemptation, as the Lord said, The spirit indeed is willing, but the\nflesh is weak.\" Also: \"If, therefore, we pray the Lord that he may\nforgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive.\"\n\nOur author demurs to these being quotations from our Gospels, and says\nthey might have been from orally current accounts of the Sermon on the\nMount, or from many of the records of the teaching of Jesus in\ncirculation.\n\nHegisippus is the next early writer referred to. He made use of the\n\"Gospel according to the Hebrews.\" Jerome says (confirming Eusebius)\n\"that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic\nand Syriac (Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew characters.\"\n\nWe have, says our author, direct intimation that Hegesippus made use\nof the Gospel according to the Hebrews. \"He was one of the\ncontemporaries of Justin--a Palestinian Jewish Christian. In order to\nmake himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church, he\ntravelled widely, and came to Rome when Anicitus was bishop.\n_Subsequently he wrote a work of historical memoirs in five books_,\nand thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of Christianity.\nThis _work is lost_, but _portions have been preserved by Eusebius_,\nand one other fragment is _also extant_.\" It must have been written\nafter the succession of Eleutherius to the Roman bishopric (A.D.\n177-193), as that event is mentioned in the book.\n\n\"The testimony of Hegesippus is of _great value_, not only as a man\nborn near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of an\nintelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities\" (p. 430).\n\nHegesippus says, in the fifth book of his Memoirs, that \"these words\n('Good things prepared for the righteous neither eye hath seen nor ear\nheard, nor have they entered into the heart of man,' from 1 Cor. ii.\n9) are vainly spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie\nto the Divine writings and to the Lord saying, 'Blessed are your eyes\nthat see, and your ears that hear,'\" &c. This fragment is preserved by\nStephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite of the sixth century.\n\n\"Nothing is more certain,\" says our author, \"than the fact that, in\nspite of the opportunities for collecting information afforded him by\nhis travels through so many Christian communities, for the express\npurpose of such inquiry, Hegesippus _did not_ find any New Testament\nCanon, or, that such a rule of faith did not exist in Rome in A.D. 160\nand 170.\"\n\nI ask, _How in the world can our author be certain of this, when only\nportions of Hegesippus are extant?_ This applies generally to his\nargument that the _silence_ of the early writers is of \"as much\nimportance as their supposed allusions to the Gospels.\" Such a mode of\nreasoning is aptly commented upon by the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his\nletter to Dr. Davidson on the Fourth Gospel. He says: \"When but small\nportions of a work have been preserved to our use, it is no wonder\nthat these portions should make no mention of many circumstances\ninteresting and important, which the writer must certainly have known\nand told of. If I tear a few leaves from the middle of my English\nHistory book, I shall find on _them_ (the few leaves) no record of the\nNorman Conquest or of the Battle of Waterloo. Would it thence be a\nfair conclusion that these events are unhistorical and fictitious?\"\n\nPapias is next referred to. He was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia,\nin the first half of the second century, and is said to have suffered\nmartyrdom under Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 160-167. About the middle\nof the second century he wrote a work in five books, called,\n\"Exposition of the Lord's Oracles,\" which is lost, excepting a few\nfragments preserved by Eusebius and Iren\u00e6us. We have the preface to\nhis book, which states: \"I shall not hesitate to set beside my\ninterpretations all that I rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and\nrightly remembered, earnestly testifying to its truth. For I have not,\nlike the multitude, delighted in those who spoke much, but in those\nwho taught the truth; nor in those who recorded alien commandments,\nbut in those who recall those delivered by the Lord to faith, and\nwhich come from truth itself. If it happened that any one came who had\nfollowed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after the words of the\nPresbyters--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 was not so profitable as that from the living and abiding\nvoice.\" \"It is clear (says our author) from this that even if Papias\nknew any of our Gospels, he attached little or no value to them, and\nthat he knew absolutely nothing of the Canonical Scriptures of the New\nTestament\" (p. 445).\n\nI remark that it is far from clear that he attached no value to our\nGospels from anything he says in the fragments extant, and of course\nwe know nothing of those portions that are lost. We know that he was\nmaking a book, consisting of what he could gather from tradition about\n\"the truth,\" \"to set beside his interpretations\" about the\n\"commandments delivered by the Lord to faith.\" There were Gospel\nwritings in circulation, and he was supplementing what they recorded.\nThere is positively no evidence to make us think that our present\nGospels were unknown to him. He does not, in the fragments we have,\nmention Paul's writings, nor the Gospel of Luke, nor the Fourth\nGospel, but he does allude to a book by Matthew and another by Mark,\nand Eusebius tells us that Papias makes use of passages taken from\nPeter's first epistle and John's first epistle. So, on the whole, the\ntestimony of Papias, instead of being against is in favour of the\nSynoptics, and also of the Fourth Gospel; for the silence inference\napplies no more to it than it does to Paul and Luke's writings, and\nthe statement of Eusebius about John's Epistle is not to be set aside,\nfor if John wrote it, it will be allowed he wrote the Gospel. His\nevidence respecting Mark is important, for the fragments contain a\nstatement that \"Mark recorded what fell from Peter, writing\naccurately, and taking especial care neither to omit nor to\nmisrepresent anything;\" and Papias says that \"Peter preached with a\nview to the benefit of his hearers, and not to give a history of\nChrist's discourses.\" Our author's inference is that it is some other\nperson of the name of Mark that is connected with the Second Gospel,\nand not the Mark that Papias refers to. This is very far-fetched and\nimprobable, for the description tallies well with our Second Gospel,\nand quite admits of the supposition that Mark had every opportunity of\nobtaining from eye-witnesses the historical materials of his Gospel.\nNo one supposes that every statement in the book emanated from Peter's\ndiscourses.\n\nPapias is the only early writer that our author acknowledges furnishes\nany evidence in favour of the Synoptic Gospels. He cannot deny that\nhe records that Matthew composed discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew\ntongue, but he says \"_that totally excludes the claim of our Greek\nGospel to apostolic origin_.\" The boldness of this assertion can only\nbe properly met by an equally explicit denial that it does anything of\nthe kind. If the translation be a faithful one from a Hebrew version,\nit is of course entitled to the epithet apostolic if the original\npossessed it. Our author must have some peculiar notions about verbal\ninspiration if this be the rule he lays down. But he altogether\noverlooks the supposition that Matthew's Gospel was not originally\nwritten in Hebrew, notwithstanding this statement of Papias.\n\nTischendorf, in his book issued by the Tract Society, entitled, \"When\nwere our Gospels Written?\" maintains that the assertion of Papias\n\"rests on a misunderstanding,\" and he briefly states his reasons for\nthis view. He says: \"This Hebrew text must have been lost very early,\nfor not one even of the very oldest Church fathers had ever seen or\nused it.\" \"There were two parties among the Judaisers--the one the\nNazarenes and the other the Ebionites. Each of these parties used a\ngospel according to Matthew, the one party using a Greek and the other\nparty a Hebrew text. That they did not scruple to tamper with the\ntext, to suit their creed, is probable from their very sectarian\nspirit. The text, as we have certain means of proving, rested upon our\nreceived text of Matthew, with, however, occasional departures, to\nsuit their arbitrary views. When then it was reported, in later times,\nthat these Nazarenes, who were one of the earliest Christian sects,\npossessed a Hebrew version of Matthew, what was more natural than that\nsome person or other, thus falling in with the pretensions of this\nsect, should say that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and\nthat the Greek was only a version from it? How far these two texts\ndiffered from each other no one cared to inquire; and with such\nseparatists who withdrew themselves to the shores of the Dead Sea, it\nwould not have been easy to have attempted it.\"\n\n\"Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not,\nobtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the\nNazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the original. But\nwhen he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to\nthe statement that many supposed this Hebrew text was the original of\nMatthew's Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and added a\nfew observations of his own on it. From these observations of Jerome,\nas well as from other fragments, we must conclude that this notion of\nPapias cannot be substantiated; but, on the contrary, this Hebrew has\nbeen drawn from the Greek text, and disfigured moreover here and there\nwith certain arbitrary changes. The same is applicable to a Greek text\nof the Hebrew Gospel in use among the Ebionites. This text, from the\nfact that it was in Greek, was better known to the Church than the\nHebrew version of the Nazarenes; but it was always regarded, from the\nearliest times, as only another text of Matthew's Gospel.\"\n\nThe references to Justin Martyr occupy nearly one hundred and fifty\npages of the work. He was one of the most learned and one of the\nearliest writers of the Church not long after the apostles. His\nconversion took place about the year 132, and his martyrdom, A.D. 165.\n\nIn his second \"Apology,\" A.D. 139, and in his Dialogue with Tryphon\nthe Jew, are many quotations of passages found in the Gospels. He\nquotes from all the four Evangelists, and our author's elaborate\nattempt to prove the contrary is certainly not successful. His\nobjection, based on slight discrepancies in the words while the sense\nis identical, is frivolous in the extreme. Supposing there were in\nJustin's hands a primitive work which supplied the passages, and that\nwork was embodied in the canonical compilation, they can be truthfully\nsaid to be quotations from the latter. The objection to his quotations\non the grounds that they are not verbatim, is neutralized by the fact\nthat neither are his quotations from the Old Testament always exact.\n\nIt has been shown that \"if Justin did not quote from our Gospels,\nthere must have been in his hands, in the second century, a variety of\naccounts of Christ's life, to which he, a leading Christian apologist,\nattached the greatest importance; and yet, in the course of the few\nfollowing years, those accounts must have disappeared, and four\nothers, of which this eminent Christian apologist knew nothing, must\nhave taken their place. This would have been what Canon Westcott\njustly calls a 'revolution,' for it would have, in a single\ngeneration, entirely changed the records of the life of Christ\npublicly used by the Christians.\"[32]\n\n  [32] \"Literary World,\" Oct. 23, 1874.\n\nJustin quotes from a book entitled the \"Memoirs,\" which he says \"are\ncalled Gospels,\" and our author tries to make out that the passage\nquoted is an interpolation. It is not the only instance where the\n\"wish,\" and not the proof, \"is father to the thought.\"\n\nIn Justin's work, the \"Apology,\" occur the words, \"And thou shalt call\nhis name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins;\" which\nare found in the apocryphal Gospel of James, as said to the Virgin\nMary, while in Matthew's Gospel they are spoken to Joseph. It is urged\nthat Justin must, therefore, have quoted them from a lost Gospel; but\nwhy should it be supposed so when they are in the apocryphal Gospel of\nJames, which, Origen says, was everywhere known about the end of the\nsecond century, and which, there is good ground for believing, was\nwritten in the early part of that century?\n\nA few other passages in Justin's work, which are not found in our\nGospels, may be accounted for by supposing them to be quotations\neither from lost Gospels, genuine or apocryphal, or tradition may have\nsupplied them. There is no certain inference to be arrived at.\n\nJustin tells us in his first \"Apology\" (A.D. 139), that the memoirs of\nthe apostles called evangels were read _after the prophets_ every\n_Lord's Day_ in the assemblies of the Christians.\n\nThis must have reference to the writings which alone, a few years\nlater, were universally known as the Four Gospels, or the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\nThe second volume of the work opens with an examination of \"the\nevidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known\nby the name of 'The Clementines,'\" which includes the Homilies, the\nRecognitions, and a so-called Epitome--the Homilies and Recognitions\nbeing, he says, \"the one merely a version of the other,\" and the\nEpitome a blending of the other two. As there are in the Clementine\nHomilies upwards of a hundred quotations of expressions of Jesus, or\nreferences to His history (not less than fifty passages from the\nSermon on the Mount), it is important to ascertain, if possible, when\nthey were written, and from what writings they quote. The date cannot\nbe determined. The range of probability is from the middle of the\nsecond century. If much later, the inquiry does not amount to much,\nbecause we know, from ample evidence, such as that of Iren\u00e6us, that\nthe Four Gospels as we have them were in existence, and read in the\nChurches, in the middle of the second century. We presume, therefore,\nour author takes an early date for granted, or he would not have\noccupied forty pages in their examination.\n\nThe first quotation which, he says, agrees with a passage in our\nSynoptics, occurs in the third Homily, p. 52: \"And he cried, saying,\nCome unto me all ye that are weary;\" which agrees with Matt. xi. 28.\nBecause the quotation is not continued, but the following words are an\nexplanation of what \"Come unto me,\" &c., means--\"that is, who are\nseeking truth, and not finding it,\"--we are to deem it \"evident that\nso short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything.\" I exclaim,\nIndeed! Not in a book that contains a hundred references to the words\nof Jesus! Not, considering that they are especially the words of\nJesus, that no one else so said to the weary, \"Come unto me!\" Most\nreaders will surely think the contrary should be inferred!\n\nAmong the quotations are words resembling the text of Matthew xxv.\n26-30: \"Thou wicked and slothful servant: thou oughtest to have put\nout my money with the exchangers, and at my coming I should have\nexacted mine own.\"[33] If this were the only reference to the Gospels\nas we have them, the quotation is sufficiently near to make the\ninference certain that such writings, in some shape, must have been in\nexistence when the Clementine Homilies were written. This our author\nacknowledges, but he says (vol. ii. p. 17): \"If the variations were\nthe exception among a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with the\nparallels in our Gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such\ndivergences a conclusion that they were derived from a different\nsource. The variations being the rule, instead of the exception,\nthese, _however slight_, become evidence of the use of a different\nGospel from ours.\"[34]\n\n  [33] \"Hom.\" iii. 61.\n\n  [34] \"The 'Recognitions of Clemens,' which differ little from\n  Clementina, are the witty and agreeable productions of an Alexandrian\n  Jew, well versed in philosophy, written in the third century.\"--_Dr.\n  Mosheim._\n\nI remark, supposing this be so, that the author of these Homilies had,\nin the year 160, other Gospel manuscripts before him, it is not\npretended that our Gospels contain all that was known of the sayings\nof Jesus, and all the events of His public ministry. We are told in\nthe Fourth Gospel: \"There are also many other things which Jesus did,\nthe which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even\nthe world itself could not contain the books that should be\nwritten.\"[35] If the author of the Fourth Gospel did not include many\nthings which he knew had been previously written about, why should we\nbe surprised to find the authors of the Synoptic Gospels record only\nportions?\n\n  [35] John xx. 25.\n\nWe know that Paul wrote an epistle to the Church at Laodicea, which is\nnot preserved to us. We hold that Paul was as much an inspired writer\nas any of the apostles, and instead of making all sorts of\ndifficulties about the books we have, we ought to be grateful that\nthey are extant. We read in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 16:\n\"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also\nin the Church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle\nfrom Laodicea.\"\n\nI wonder whether our author has an objection to the genuineness of the\nEpistle to the Colossians, because Epictetus, who was born at\nHierapolis about A.D. 50, which was within a few miles of Colosse and\nLaodicea, and who would be likely to know, at that time, what was\nthere going on, does not refer to Paul and the Churches there?\n\nBut it is useless to disprove the assertion that there are no\nquotations from the Gospels, for we are met at every turn with the\nobjection that those specified are probably quotations from the\nnumerous lost Gospels known to have been in circulation. He says: \"The\ngreat mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptics have\nassumed their present form only after repeated modifications by\nvarious editors of earlier evangelical works. The primitive Gospels\nhave entirely disappeared, supplanted by the later and more amplified\nversions (p. 459). The first two Synoptics bear no author's name,\nbecause they are not the work of any one man, but the collected\nmaterials of many. The third only pretends to be a compilation for\nprivate use, and the fourth bears no simple signature, because it is\nneither the work of an apostle nor of an eye-witness of the events it\nrecords\" (p. 401). I remark, if Luke's Gospel does only pretend to be\nfor private use, does that affect its value? If Matthew wrote at all,\nand our author acknowledges he did in Hebrew, his work would be likely\nto be translated into Greek, either by himself or some one else, and\nmany copies circulated. Supposing the original in Hebrew to be lost,\nit is not probable the Greek copies could be all collected from\nvarious places, and all altered and supplemented. How could any one\ndo this? He might write and issue a new version, but he could _not_\nsuppress the original one unless all the existing copies were under\nhis own control. As we have a certain work preserved, and no other,\npretending to be Matthew's, it is highly probable that what Matthew\ncontributed to the Church is that Gospel. A fictitious one would be\nless likely to be preserved than a real one, though we are asked to\nbelieve the contrary. Our author suggests that if we had the original\nwritings we should find them minus the miracles, which is altogether\ninconsistent with what he has said about the prevalence of miraculous\nnotions among the Jews at the time. At any rate, if the books in\ncirculation did not relate miracles, they would not be in harmony with\nthe gospel preached by Paul, and believed by the first Christians.\nSupposing that there were, as Luke intimates, and as our author\nasserts, many original writings, what more likely than that Matthew\nshould collect some of them, and embody them, with his own record, in\none book, under his own name? It is quite true that we meet with\nreferences to apostolic writings under other titles than those in the\nNew Testament: we read of,--\n\n\"The Gospel according to the Hebrews.\"\n\n\"The Gospel according to the Egyptians.\"\n\n\"The Memoirs of the Apostles.\"\n\n\"The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew.\"\n\n\"The Gospel of the Lord.\"\n\n\"The Discourses of Peter.\"\n\n\"The Collection of Discourses.\"\n\nAlthough we do not know how these were embodied in our New Testament\nScriptures, it is probable that they were in some way included, or the\ncopies of the present Gospels may not all have uniformly borne the\nsame titles as we know them by. In our day it is not usual for an\nauthor's name to appear in the body of his work, and often a\ntitle-page gives more than one title.[36] How few persons can give the\nexact title of the book known as \"Butler's Analogy.\" The value of a\nbook does not depend essentially upon the person who wrote it. We do\nnot know who wrote the Book of Job, many of the Psalms, the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews, and other portions of the Bible, but it would be unwise\nto reject their teaching on that account.\n\n  [36] \"The 'Recognitions' are conveyed to us by the ancients under\n  different titles. They are sometimes styled 'St. Clemens's Acts,'\n  'History Chronicle;' sometimes 'St. Peter's Acts,' 'Itinerary\n  Periods,' 'Dialogues with Apion,' all which are unquestionably but\n  different inscriptions, or it may be parcels, of the same book.\"--_Dr.\n  Cave's_ \"Apostalici,\" p. 58.\n\nOur author says: \"No reason whatever has been shown for accepting the\ntestimony of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of\nmiracles\" (p. 249). I remark, the question is, Do they show such\n_in_sufficient testimony as to warrant the conclusion that the general\nevidence based on a great variety of proofs is not to be accepted?\n\nThe Epistle to Diognetus is a short composition, which has been\nascribed to Justin Martyr, but its authorship is uncertain, and the\ndate of its composition. It is not quoted or mentioned by any ancient\nwriter. The two concluding chapters are supposed to have been written\nby a different hand. To the first quarter of the second half to the\nend of that century the date is variously assigned. It is written in\npure Greek, and is elegant in style. Bunsen, in his valuable book,\n\"Hippolytus and his Age,\" asserts that \"the epistle is certainly the\nwork of a contemporary of Justin the Martyr;\" that he believes he has\nproved that the first part is a portion of the lost early Letter of\nMarcion, of which Tertullian speaks; and that \"the very beautiful and\njustly admired second fragment, which in our editions of Justin's\nworks is given at the end of that Patristic gem, the Epistle to\nDiognetus,\"[37] does not belong to that letter, but is the conclusion\nof the great work, in ten books, by Hippolytus, \"The Refutation of all\nHeresies.\" Our author, in the eighteen pages devoted to the Epistle to\nDiognetus, says nothing of this, although it is both important and\ninteresting. He says the supposed allusions in the Fourth Gospel may\nbe all referable to Paul's epistles, that the date and author are\nunknown, and that the letter is of no evidential value. His two brief\nallusions to Bunsen's work show that the ignoring of that eminent\nman's opinion was not unintentional; while the absence of any\nreference to Bunsen's elaborate proof that Hippolytus wrote the\n\"Refutation,\" is also significant.\n\n  [37] \"Hippolytus and his Age,\" vol. i. 187.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._\n\n\n_\"It remains a possibility that Christ actually was what He supposed\nHimself to be.\"_\n\n  John Stuart Mill.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS--CONTINUED._\n\n     BASILIDES--VALENTINUS--MARCION--TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF\n     CORINTH--MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS\n     APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND\n     LYONS--PTOLEM\u00c6US, HERACLEON, CELSUS--CANON OF MURATORI.\n\n\nOur author says of Basilides, \"He was founder of a system of\nGnosticism, who lived at Alexandria about the year 125. With the\nexception of a very few brief fragments, none of his writings have\nbeen preserved, and all our information regarding them is derived from\nwriters opposed to him. Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had\nwritten a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides, 'Says that he had\ncomposed twenty-four books upon the gospel.' This is interpreted by\nTischendorf to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four\nGospels, a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded\"\n(p. 42). I remark that by \"the gospel\" would be meant the gospel\nwhich was preached by the apostles, and Tischendorf is not far wrong\nin supposing that the written records of it in the hands of the first\nChristians was the subject of the commentary. Our author has certainly\nnot proved the contrary. He says: \"We know that Basilides made use of\na Gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after\nhis own name; ... but the fragments of that work which are extant are\nof a character which precludes the possibility of the work being\nconsidered a Gospel.\" Neander affirmed the Gospel of Basilides to be\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews. I remark that that is not only\nprobable, but that the Gospel to the Hebrews may have been the Hebrew\ntranslation of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, with its additions and\nmodifications, to suit the Jewish Nazarene sect, who, we know, had a\nHebrew text of their own, which they did not hesitate to alter and\nadapt to their own views. Basilides, says our author, expressly states\nthat he received his knowledge of the truth from Glaucis, the\n\"interpreter of Peter,\" whose disciple he claimed to be. Basilides\nalso claimed to have received from a certain Matthias the report of\nprivate discourses which he had heard from the Saviour for his\nspecial instruction. Canon Westcott writes: \"Since Basilides lived on\nthe verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made\nuse of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical\nbooks. The belief in Divine inspiration was still fresh and real.\"[38]\nOur author says: \"It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing\nhis doctrine on these apocryphal books as inspired, and upon\ntradition, and in having a special Gospel called after his own name,\nignores the canonical Gospels, offers no evidence for their existence,\nbut proves that he did not recognise any such works as of authority.\"\nI remark, the question is not their authority, but, Did they exist?\nBasilides wrote a book, called it a Gospel, or commentary of the\nGospel, and made as much use as suited his heretical purpose of the\ncanonical records, of tradition, and of other books. This seems to be\nwhat we can arrive at. Hippolytus, writing of the Basilideans and\ndescribing their doctrines, uses the singular pronoun \"he\"--\"he says,\"\nin a passage of which our author gives an unintelligible translation.\nThis pronoun is an inconvenient witness. Our author wants it to be\n\"they,\" in order that the disciples of Basilides living at a later\nperiod, when the Gospels were generally recognised, may be meant, and\nnot Basilides, who lived A.D. 125. Hippolytus has a sentence of\nBasilides, which our author translates as follows:--\"Jesus, however,\nwas generated according to _these_, as we have already said. But when\nthe generation which has already been declared had taken place, all\nthings regarding the Saviour, according to _them_, occurred in a\nsimilar way as they have been written in the Gospel.\" This means that\nthe things referring to the Incarnation were as _written_ in the\nGospel, not as preached, but as written; and if Basilides, as the\nfounder of the sect, is referred to, the statement testifies to the\nexistence of the Gospels in the year 125, and the doctrine of the\nIncarnation being in them. But our author says the statement is not\nmade in connection with Basilides, but his followers; that it is made\nabout A.D. 225, by Hippolytus, and affords no proof that either\nBasilides or his followers used the Gospels or admitted their\nauthority. \"The exclusive use, by any one, of the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the\nstatement\" (p. 48). \"No one who considers what is known of that\nGospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the\nsecond century by perfectly orthodox Fathers, before we hear anything\nof our Gospels, can doubt this\" (p. 48). I remark, that those who\nadopt Tischendorf's view, that Matthew was written in Greek, and a\ncorrupted version in Hebrew, used in certain countries, will not have\nto resort to any such explanation as our author suggests. His\nexamination in detail of the several quotations is important, because\nit exhibits his want of appreciation of the evidence they afford. The\nfirst passage Tischendorf points out is found in the \"Stromata\" of\nClement of Alexandria, and it is certainly from our Gospel of\nMatthew,[39] however that work may have been compiled (for it is not\nnecessary to insist that no other records than Matthew's own are\nincluded in the book which, we contend, was at very early date read in\nthe Churches, and is what we now have). \"They say the Lord answered,\nAll men cannot receive this saying. For there are eunuchs who are\nindeed from birth, but others from necessity.\"[40] Our author says\n\"this passage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our\nFirst Gospel, might be quoted as evidence for the use of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, but it is simply preposterous to point to it\nas evidence for the use of Matthew. Apologists ... seem altogether to\nignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and to forget\nthe very existence of the \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f31 of Luke.\" We value his\nacknowledgment, and find no difficulty, notwithstanding the silence of\nsome apologists, in reconciling our belief in the four Gospels with\nthe facts or probabilities of what can be ascertained as to their\n\"creation.\" We allow that the word Luke uses (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f31) refers\nto many, which is consistent with the idea that many committed to\nwriting what they knew, and that their records were embodied in the\nSynoptic Gospels.\n\n  [38] \"On the Canon,\" p. 255.\n\n  [39] See Matt. xix. 11, 12.\n\n  [40] \"Strom.\" iii. 1.\n\nThe next passage referred to by Tischendorf is one quoted by\nEpiphanius: \"And therefore he said, Cast not ye pearls before swine,\nneither give that which is holy unto dogs.\"[41] \"It is introduced in\nthe section of the work of Epiphanius directed against the\nBasilideans. As in dealing with all these heresies there is continual\ninterchange of reference to the head and later followers, there is no\ncertainty who is referred to in these quotations, and in this\ninstance nothing to indicate that the passage is ascribed to Basilides\nhimself. His name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter,\nbut not again until the fifth chapter\" (p. 50).\n\n  [41] \"H\u00e6r.\" xxiv. 5.\n\nI remark, it was the founder of the sect and not the followers who\nwrote the book, and those who opposed the heresy would, although they\nalluded to the sect, have regard to the founder when they referred to\nthe doctrines held, and quoted the written opinions which\ndistinguished the party on gospel matters. To make the matter as plain\nas I can, I will suppose a case as an illustration of the point.\nSupposing that in Pliny's letter to Trajan there were found these\nwords referring to the Christians: \"They say, the rule which should be\nobserved in regard to an enemy is, Love your enemies, bless them that\ncurse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which\npersecute you\"--would it be right to assert that the quotation is no\nproof that Christ so taught, but His disciples, long afterwards? This\nis something like what our author's objection, referring to the\npronouns \"he\" and \"they\" in Hippolytus, amounts to. \"They\" does not\nmean \"he\" when thus used; and \"he,\" when actually used in the first\nline of the first chapter, and afterwards means, \"they;\" that is, \"He\n(Basilides) says,\" means \"They (his followers at a later date) say.\"\n\nThe plural pronoun is used, indicating the sect, Basilides and his\nfollowers. Therefore our author says there is uncertainty as to who he\nis when used in the same sentence. He says \"Hippolytus is giving an\nepitome of the views of the school with nothing more definite than a\nsubjectless \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f31 (he says) to indicate who is referred to.\nNone of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred\nto Basilides himself, but they are introduced by the utterly vague\nexpression, 'He says' (\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u1f31), without any subject accompanying the\nverb.\"\n\nThe suggestion (p. 51) that Hippolytus \"consciously or unconsciously,\nin the course of transfer to his pages, corrected the text,\" is very\nunsatisfactory. An intelligent reader cannot fail to see how an\nobvious inference is avoided, and how ingenuity is taxed to make words\nsquare with foregone conclusions.\n\nTischendorf asks: \"Who is there so sapient as to draw the line between\nwhat the master alone says, and that which the disciples state,\nwithout in the least repeating the master?\" (p. 59) and our author\nsays, \"Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything\nindiscriminately to the master\" (p. 59). To say that Tischendorf does\nthis is reckless assertion.\n\nWhen our author has to account for such a passage in Basilides as,\n\"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest\nshall overshadow thee,\" he says it _happens_ to agree with the words\nin Luke i. 55; and resorts to his usual mode of avoiding the\nacknowledgment that such a verbatim quotation is against his\nhypothesis, by saying, \"There is good reason for concluding that the\nnarrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels.\" The\nfollowing sentence is startling, and apt to mislead those who do not\ntake the trouble to be sure of his meaning. He says (p. 67): \"Nothing,\nhowever, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whomsoever\nmade, is not taken from our Third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not\nexist a single MS. which contains such a passage.\" What does he mean?\nWe turn to Luke i. 35, and read: \"The Holy _Ghost_ shall come upon\nthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore\nalso that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the\n_Son of God_.\" Does he mean the whole passage is not in any MS? No: he\nmeans the following, with the slight variation at the end, is not in\nany MS. \"The Holy _Spirit_ shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nHighest shall overshadow thee, therefore the thing begotten of thee\nshall be called _holy_.\" Only the words in italics are different in\nthe two passages, and the meaning is the same, the only difference\nbeing that the latter does not include the words \"the Son of God.\" The\nremark that the quotation _happens_ to agree with the passage in Luke\ni. 35, should not be unnoticed.\n\nHappens! Mark the peculiar inappropriateness of the word. It indicates\nour author's whereabouts, and is a beacon in the book to warn the\nreader. Events transpire, and they _happen_ to agree with prophetic\nvisions which plainly foretold them! Reason being unequal to an\nexplanation, coincidence must be resorted to. Was it an accident that,\n\"at one particular point in history, and in one special individual,\nthe elements of a new religious development, which, _per se_, were\nalready extant, should have concentrated themselves in a new life?\"\nThis, says Baur, is \"the wonder in the history of the origin of\nChristianity which no historical reflection can further analyse.\" Did\nit _happen_ that the Messiah came as was predicted centuries before?\n\nDid Paul _happen_ to have a vision just at the time when the whole\ncourse of his life underwent a change, and from being a chief\npersecutor of the faith he became a chief apostle--no less an apostle\nthan the most prominent among the Twelve? If the Saviour did not meet\nhim on the way to Damascus he could not be an apostle; and as he was\nan honest man, and no impostor, could what _happened_ to him have been\nother than what he asserted? Baur was in a great difficulty about the\nmatter, and said, \"_No analysis, either psychological or didactic, can\nclear up the mystery of that act in which God revealed His Son in\nPaul._\" Jeremiah prophesied that the Jews should return to their own\nland after seventy years of exile, and they _happened_ to do so!\n\nThe artful way in which the evidence from the writings of Hippolytus\nis disposed of is one of the most notable things in the book we are\nreviewing. The reader's attention is taxed to keep up with the\nsophistical argument, and our author finds it necessary to explain why\nhe has been forced to go at such a length into these questions, as to\nrisk \"being very wearisome\" to his readers (p. 73).\n\nThese remarks apply to a great extent to the examination of the\nevidence of Valentinus, described as \"another Gnostic leader, who,\nabout the year A.D. 140, came from Alexandria to Rome, and flourished\ntill about A.D. 160.\" \"Very little remains of the writings of this\nGnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few quotations\nin the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments\npreserved by others\" (p. 56).\n\nMarcion, the son of a bishop of Pontus, became a conspicuous heretic\nin the second century, and there was a book called \"Marcion's Gospel,\"\nwhich has long furnished a field for criticism. He was a Pauline\nheretic, denouncing the Jewish party which insisted upon dragging\nJewish observances into Christianity. He went to Rome about A.D.\n139-142, and taught there some twenty years. His opinions were widely\ndisseminated. His collection of apostolic writings, which is the\noldest of which we have any trace, includes (says our author) a single\nGospel and ten Epistles of Paul--viz., Galatians, Corinthians (2),\nRomans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (in the superscription of which\nthere is, \"to the Laodiceans),\" Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.\n\nThe Gospel of Marcion is not extant, but it is referred to by his\nopponents, who affirmed that his evangelical work was an audaciously\nmutilated version of Luke's Gospel. Our author gives a brief account\nof the various opinions which have prevailed about the book during the\nlast hundred years, and considers the discussion upon it far from\nclosed. Is it a mutilation of Luke, or an independent work derived\nfrom the same source as his, or is it a more primitive version of that\nGospel? Whence are the materials from which the portions of the text\nextant are derived? Tertullian and Epiphanius denounced Marcion's\nheresy. The former called him \"impious and sacrilegious,\" which, our\nauthor says, implies anything but fair and legitimate criticism. I\nremark, Did he deserve the epithets? Would Paul, who tells the\nColossians to \"beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and\nvain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the\nworld, and not after Christ,\" have been less emphatic in his\ndenunciations in such a case? Marcion was more Pauline than Petrine,\nbut would Paul have failed to censure in the strongest language such a\nmisrepresentation of Jehovah and the Old Testament economy as Marcion\ndisseminated?\n\nCan our author's assertion be absolutely true that \"Tertullian and\nEpiphanius were only dogmatical, and not in the least critical\"? How\ncould they be otherwise than to a certain extent critical? They were\nnot critics in the way of taking nothing for granted, after the modern\nfashion; but they must have weighed, compared, and tested Marcion's\nviews while writing against them. \"The spirit of the age,\" he says,\n\"was indeed so uncritical, that not even the canonical text could\nawaken it into activity.\" This is a sentence which suggests that the\nposition in the Church of the canonical text was so evident, that to\nquestion it was then unwarrantable, as, indeed, it has continued to be\nto this day. The combined internal and external evidences harmonising\nwith the believer's consciousness, his necessities, and his\naspirations, were sufficient to preclude sceptical and captious\ncriticism.\n\nThe Christian contemporaries of Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, and Epiphanius\nwere uncritical in that they did not doubt that the foundations of\ntheir faith were sure. The gospel which had been preached to them,\nwhich had changed the whole course of their lives, corresponded in its\nmain features with the four books which were held in estimation by\nthe Church at that time above all other writings; and they would not\nbe likely to wrangle about the title instead of cultivating the faith\nthey possessed. They could not, perhaps, prove by the rules of logic\nthat \"God is, and is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him;\"\nthat Christ is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express\nimage of his Person; but they knew that He had said,--\"Ye believe in\nGod believe also in me;\" \"In my Father's house are many mansions;\"\nand, \"I go to prepare a place for you.\" \"Be thou faithful unto death,\nand I will give thee a crown of life.\" They lived in the consciousness\nof these truths, and died (Bishop Pothinus, for instance) a martyr's\ndeath rather than deny them.\n\nThere is this remark to be made in reference to the alleged uncritical\nage of the Fathers. How is it that Marcion is seen to be so critical?\nHe is surely after the modern model. He who wrote the \"Antithesis,\"\nand, as our author says, anticipated in some of his opinions those\nheld by many in our own time; he who wrote,--\"If the God of the Old\nTestament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,\nwhy did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by the\ndevil, and to fall from obedience of the law into sin and death?[42]\nHow came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at\nall?\"[43] surely he is an instance of a man in that age possessing the\ncritical faculty. He has the boldness to question, and say,--\"Yea,\nhath God said?\" \"Anticipating the results of modern criticism,\" says\nour author, \"Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the\nso-called Messianic prophecies\" (p. 106).\n\n  [42] Tertullian, \"Adv. Marc.\" xi. 5, cf. 9.\n\n  [43] Ibid. xi. 10.\n\nIf the research which is going on as to the Gospel of Marcion be\nconducted in a proper manner, and from a proper motive, not from\nantipathy to \"parsons\" and ecclesiastical assumptions, which was the\nincentive of Strauss in attacking Christianity, good will come of it.\nAs Justin Martyr did not, as far as we know, suppose the book to be a\ncorrupted version of the Gospel according to Luke, Tertullian may have\nbeen mistaken, and it may have been an independent work, one of the\nmany Luke refers to, the existence of which does not necessarily\ninvalidate the canonical ones. We may naturally suppose that events of\nsuch marvellous speciality and importance as those which had \"come to\npass\" in those days among the Jews, would be more or less described\nin letters and other writings by many persons who were eye-witnesses.\nSuch writings would be collected and read when the first Christians\nassembled. The difference between the four canonical Gospels and other\nmanuscripts would consist in their being compiled by persons competent\nto the task, who, like Ezra, were instruments Divinely influenced to\ncompile and \"set forth in order a declaration of those things,\" for\nthe benefit of future ages and the religious instruction of the race.\n\nThe analysis of the text of Marcion by Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar,\nHelgenfeld, and others, who have examined and systemised the data of\nthe Fathers, is supposed to be sufficient to awaken in any inquirer\nuncertainty, and stimulate conjecture (p. 101). I do not doubt it.\nGerman hypercriticism is able, by a process of ratiocination, to\ndiscredit any truth, even to persuade men that the Throne of the\nuniverse is vacant, and that the only altar that man has the knowledge\nto rear is one to the Unknown God; but\n\n    \"He sits on no precarious throne,\n    Nor borrows leave to be.\"\n\nThey who believe in the inspiration by the Holy Ghost of the prophets\nof the Old Testament see no difficulty in regard to the inspiration of\nthe writers of the New. If Isaiah and Jeremiah and Daniel had\nsupernatural communications made to them, in order that the Eternal\nCreator might be manifested, why not Paul and John and Matthew? It is\nthe foregone conclusion, on the part of critics, that the miraculous\nis impossible, which embarrasses their researches. One of John Stuart\nMill's last sentences is: \"It remains a possibility that Christ\nactually was what He supposed Himself to be.\" If this had occurred to\nthe great reasoner at the outset of his career instead of the close,\nhow much might the world have been advantaged!\n\nTatian is a witness whose evidence our author next tries to set aside.\nHe was an Assyrian by birth, a disciple of Justin Martyr at Rome, and\nafterwards, having joined the sect of the Eucratites, a conspicuous\nexponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines. The only one of his\nwritings extant is his Oration to the Greeks, written after Justin's\ndeath, as it refers to that event, and it is generally dated A.D.\n170-175. One point contested is Canon Westcott's affirmation that it\ncontains a \"clear reference\" to a parable recorded by Matthew:[44]\n\"The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden in a field, which\na man found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he\nhath and buyeth that field.\" And the supposed reference by Tatian is,\n\"For by means of a certain hidden treasure he has taken to himself all\nthat we possess, for which, while we are digging, we are indeed\ncovered with dust, but we succeed in making it our fixed\npossession.\"[45]\n\n  [44] Matt. xiii. 44.\n\n  [45] \"Orat. ad Gr.\" \u00a7 30.\n\nThere is certainly not much similarity between the two passages,\nalthough Tatian may be well supposed to have had the parable in his\nmind when he wrote. The more important question is, Did Tatian write\n\"A Harmony of Four Gospels,\" which recognises our four Evangelists?\nWas his Diatessaron such a book, or was it the Gospel according to the\nHebrews? If the latter, what is the Gospel according to the Hebrews? I\nsay it is probable it is the corrupted Hebrew translation of the Greek\nGospel of Matthew, and this conjecture has more in its favour than our\nauthor's hypothesis.\n\nDionysius of Corinth, Eusebius tells us, wrote seven epistles to\nvarious Churches, and a letter to Chrysophora, \"a most faithful\nsister.\" Only a few short fragments exist, which are all from the\nepistle to Soter, Bishop of Rome, whose date in that pastorate is A.D.\n168-176. In these fragments we find the following words:--\"For the\nbrethren having requested me to write epistles, I write them. And the\napostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking away\nparts and adding others, for whom the woe is destined. It is not\nsurprising, then, if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate the\nScriptures of the Lord, when they have corrupted these, which are not\nof such importance.\"[46] After quoting this passage, our author\nreiterates his statement that \"We have seen that there has not been a\ntrace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of the Fathers before\nand during this age.\" Does he suppose his readers will have seen as he\nsees, or rather refuse to see what is plain enough? He has his own\nopinion, but he need not assume that he has convinced his readers that\nhe has proved what he alleges. He talks of Westcott's boldness, and of\nhis imagination running away with him, and that it is simply\npreposterous to suppose that this passage refers to the New Testament.\nI leave Canon Westcott to defend his own words, but I say it is not\npreposterous to infer that when Dionysius speaks of the \"Scriptures of\nthe Lord\" he means Gospel writings, which are included in our New\nTestament. If it be assumed that the defence of the authority of the\nNew Testament writings and of evangelical views is necessarily based\non the synodical authority of the early Church, there may be some\nweight in his objections; but Christianity has a position independent\nof ecclesiastical pretensions to infallibility, and the latter may be\noverthrown without the great institution established by Divine mercy\nfor the recovery of humanity from sin and its consequences being in\nthe slightest degree damaged. Dr. Donaldson is quoted, who remarks:\n\"It is not easy to settle what this term, 'Scriptures of the Lord,'\nis; but my own opinion is that it most probably refers to the Gospels,\nas containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is not likely, as\nLardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of\nthe New Testament.\"[47] The word \"Scripture,\" in Greek, \u0393\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f21\n(Graph\u00e9), in Latin, _Scriptura_, has, no doubt, a meaning\nwhich denotes an inspired writing. It is used fifty-one times in the\nNew Testament in the same sense, for Christ and the authors of the\nNew Testament regarded the Old Testament as distinguished from all\nother writings, as _the_ writing--the writing of God. By speaking of\ntheir own books as Graphai, the apostles place them on a level with\nthe Old Testament, and thus assert their Divine character.[48]\n\n  [46] Eusebius, \"H. E.\" iv. 23.\n\n  [47] \"Hist. Christ. Lit. and Doct.\" ii. p. 217.\n\n  [48] See Chr. Wordsworth, \"On the Canon,\" p. 55. Lec. ii. and Ed.\n  1851.\n\nDr. Davidson speaks of the New Testament writings being ranked as\n\"Holy Scripture\" by Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 170.\n\nOur author asserts (p. 167) that \"many works were regarded as inspired\nby the Fathers besides those in our Canon,\" and mentions especially\nthe Gospel of Peter having been read at Rhossus. He says: \"The fact\nthat Serapion, in the third century, allowed the Gospel of Peter to be\nused in the Church of Rhossus shows the consideration in which it was\nheld, and the incompleteness of the canonical position of the New\nTestament.\" Now, he ought to have quoted Serapion's own explanation,\nwhich we have preserved by Eusebius. He says (in his treatise written\nto confute what was false in the Gospel of Peter): \"We receive Peter\nand the other apostles even as Christ; but the writings falsely called\nby their names, we, as competent critics, renounce, knowing that we\nreceived not such things. For when I was with you I supposed that all\nwere agreed with the true faith; and, without reading the Gospel\ncalled Peter's, which they brought forward, I said, If this is the\nonly thing that seems to cause you dissension, let it be read.\"\nSerapion says he borrowed the book and read it, and found many things\nagreeable to Christ's doctrine, but some discrepant additions.\n\nThus the reading of the Gospel of Peter at Rhossus cannot be instanced\nas a proof that other Gospels besides the canonical ones were used as\ninspired books, nor can any other be mentioned as having been thus\nregarded, the Gospel according to the Hebrews not being apocryphal,\nbut a part of the New Testament, whether we take it to be, as our\nauthor supposes, the basis of Matthew's Gospel, or, as we say, a\ncorrupted version of that apostle's Greek work. \"To argue that because\none spurious Gospel was temporarily received among a few persons,\ntherefore there was no real canon of Scripture, and we cannot be sure\nthat any Gospel is genuine, shows about as much common sense and\nlogical acumen as would be displayed by a critic eighteen centuries\nhence, who, discovering in one of our newspapers an account of the\nconviction of a gang of coiners, should argue that because their base\nhalf-crowns had got into circulation, and had passed current with some\npersons who might have been expected to detect the fraud, therefore\nthere was no such thing as a legal currency of intrinsic value among\nus; or if there were, still we did not know or care to inquire into\nthe genuineness of the coin which we accepted and passed.\"[49]\n\n  [49] See Kentish Bache's \"Letters to Dr. Davidson,\" p. 22.\n\nOur author says (p. 16): \"'The Pastor of Hermas,' which was read in\nthe churches, and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was\nquoted as inspired by Iren\u00e6us.\"[50]\n\n  [50] \"Adv. H\u00e6r.\" iv. 20, \u00a7 2; Euseb. \"H. E.\" v. 8, and cf. iii. 3.\n\nThe word Iren\u00e6us uses is _Graph\u00e9_, which is sometimes translated, when\nfound in his works, _Scripture_, and at other times _writings_, as may\nbest suit the argument of a critic like Dr. Davidson, who does so\nadapt the translation to suit his purpose.\n\nWhatever erroneous notions might prevail as to apocryphal writings,\nthe discrimination of Serapion, in regard to the Gospel of Peter,\nshows that such a work as the \"Pastor of Hermas,\" in which, as\nMosheim says, the angels are made to \"talk more insipidly than our\nscavengers and porters,\" would not be put on a level with the books\nwhose internal evidence, as well as historical pretensions, placed\nthem in a much superior position. The contrast is too great for such\nmen as Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian, as well as Serapion, not to have\nrecognised the difference. The \"gross forgeries\" were too gross to be\nat once accepted as genuine by the Fathers of the slight critical\nfaculty and the ready credulity of our author's argument.\n\nMelito of Sardis, whose writings, it is generally agreed, belong to\nA.D. 176, because the fragment extant has a phrase indicating that\nCommodus had been admitted to share the Imperial Government with\nMarcus Aurelius, is the next witness. He writes to Onesimus, \"a\nfellow-Christian who had urged him to make selections for him from the\nLaw and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the faith generally,\nand furthermore desired to learn the accurate account of the old\n(Palaion) books.\" \"Having gone to the East,\" Melito says, \"and reached\nthe spot where each thing was preached and done, and having learned\naccurately the books of the Old Testament, I have sent a list of\nthem.\" Dr. Westcott excites our author's ire because he says \"that the\nuse of the word 'old' in this way implies that there must have been a\nNew Testament, and the form of language implies a familiar recognition\nof its contents.\" This is \"truly astonishing,\" says our author. I\nremark, it is truly astonishing that any one should assert that the\nuse of the adjective \"old\" in this sentence does not plainly indicate\nthe existence of other books of a New Covenant or Testament. If the\nJewish Scriptures had been merely described as _old books_, we could\nhave understood the objection; but as the words occur, \"_having\nlearned accurately the books of the Old Testament_,\" we must side with\nDr. Westcott, in spite of our author's astonishment.\n\nClaudius Apollinaris, Eusebius says, was Bishop of Hierapolis, and\nthere is the fragment of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch,\nwhich supports the statement, and in which Apollinaris is referred to\nas the \"most blessed.\" The date of his writings, in consequence of an\nallusion to the Thundering Legion of the army of Marcus Aurelius, may\nbe fixed at about A.D. 174. None of them are extant. We have only two\nbrief fragments, in which the controversy respecting the observance of\nthe Christian Passover is alluded to. The following passage is\nimportant: \"There are some, however, who through ignorance raise\ncontentions regarding these matters in a way which should be pardoned,\nfor ignorance must not be pursued with accusation, but requires\ninstruction. And they say that the Lord, together with His disciples,\nate the lamb on the great day of unleavened bread, and they state that\nMatthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their\nunderstanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them\nthe Gospels seem to contradict each other.\" Tischendorf and Westcott\nnaturally adduce this passage in support of the position of the four\ncanonical Gospels. Our author demurs, arguing that \"there is such\nexceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to Claudius\nApollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot\nhave written them, that they have no material value as evidence for\nthe antiquity of the Gospels\" (p. 191).\n\nAthenagoras wrote an apology, entitled \"The Embassy of Athenagoras the\nAthenian, a Philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to the\nEmperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus,\nArmeniaci Surmatici, and, above all, Philosophers;\" and also a\n\"Treatise on the Resurrection of the Body.\" A passage from the former\noccurs in the work of Methodius on the Resurrection, and is preserved\nby Epiphanius and by Photius.\n\n\"For we have learnt not only not to render a blow, nor to go to law\nwith those who spoil and plunder us; but, to those who inflict a blow\non one side, also to present the other side of the head in return for\nsmiting; and to those who take away the coat, also to give besides the\ncloke.\"[51]\n\n  [51] \"Leg. pro Christ.\" \u00a7 1.\n\nOf this our author says: \"No echo of the words of Matthew has lingered\nin the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology\nthroughout; and _nothing can be more certain than the fact_ that there\nis not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics\"\n(p. 194).\n\nThe value of our author's conclusions may be measured by what he here\nasserts. It seems to me that the reverse may be asserted. (1) That\nwords in Matthew _did_ \"linger in the ear of the writer;\" (2) that he\n_does not_ \"employ utterly different phraseology throughout;\" and (3)\nthat many things \"_can_ be more certain than the fact that there is\nnot a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics.\"\n\nThe next passage which is referred to is as follows:--\"What, then, are\nthose precepts in which we are instructed? I say unto you, Love your\nenemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that persecute you;\nthat ye may be sons of your Father which is in the heavens, who maketh\nhis sun,\" &c.[52]\n\n  [52] \"Leg. pro Christ.\" \u00a7 11. See Matt. v. 44, 45.\n\nThere is also the following:--\"For if ye love, them which love you,\nand lend to them which lend to you, what reward shall ye have?\"[53]\n\n  [53] \"Leg. pro. Christ.\" \u00a7 12. Comp. with Matt. v. 46.\n\nOf this passage, our author says it is evident that it does not agree\nwith either of the Synoptics. \"We have seen,\" says he, \"the persistent\nvariation in the quotations from the Sermon on the Mount which occur\nin Justin, and there is no part of the discourses of Jesus more\ncertain to have been preserved by living Christian tradition, or to\nhave been recorded in every form of Gospel. The differences in these\npassages from our Synoptics present the same features as mark the\nseveral versions of the same discourse in our First and Third Gospel,\nand indicate a distinct source\" (p. 195). I remark, every step our\nauthor takes in this sort of criticism tends to the confirmation of\nour Christian faith, which is not the Christianity of a creed or a\nChurch, but the belief in a Person. The more independent accounts of\nHis life and discourses which can be traced, the greater the proof of\nHis advent and mission. The Sermon on the Mount cannot be accounted\nfor apart from the superhuman. \"Never man spake like this man.\" The\nmore it is quoted the more it is established as a sublime fact in\nliterature, which neither the Jewish race, nor the Augustan era, nor\nindeed any other race or any other age, could have originated apart\nfrom Divine intervention.\n\nThe Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, written from the Churches in those\ntowns to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, about the year A.D. 177,\ngiving an account of the terrible persecution which had broken out, is\nin part preserved by Eusebius. It contains words similar to those used\nin regard to Zacharias and Elisabeth, where they are said to have\n\"walked in all the commandments and ordinances of God, blameless.\" And\nit has also the words, \"And himself having the Spirit more abundantly\nthan Zacharias,\" which compares with Luke i. 67: \"And his father\nZacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied.\" In\nreference to these passages, our author's comment is as follows: \"The\nstate of the case is, we find a coincidence, in a few words in\nconnection with Zacharias, between the Epistle and our Third Gospel;\nbut so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source,\nthe words in question are, on the contrary, in association with a\nreference to events unknown to our Gospels, but which were indubitably\nchronicled elsewhere. It follows clearly, and few will venture to\ndoubt the fact, that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel\ndifferent from ours, and not to our Third Synoptic at all\" (p. 204).\nThe event unknown to our Gospels is the martyrdom of Zacharias, which\nour Gospels make no mention of.\n\nPtolem\u00e6us and Heracleon, two Gnostic leaders, are next referred to. Of\nthe former, Epiphanius has preserved \"The Epistle to Flora,\" addressed\nto one of his disciples, which contains passages similar to sentences\nfound in Matthew xii. 25, xix. 8, 6, xv. 4-8, v. 38, 39.; but our\nauthor objects that the Epistle \"was in all probability written\ntowards the end of the second century, and therefore it does not come\nwithin the scope of our inquiry;\" and he goes into considerable detail\nto justify this statement.\n\nCelsus wrote a work entitled \"True Doctrine,\" which is not extant,\nand of which Origen wrote a refutation. Our author says \"it refers to\nincidents of Gospel history and quotes some sayings which have\nparallels, with more or less of variation, in our Gospels;\" but\n\"Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any Christian book, unless we\nexcept the Book of Enoch, and he accuses Christians, not without\nreason, of interpolating the Book of the Sibyl, whose authority he\nstates some of them acknowledged\" (p. 236). He goes into the question\nof the date, which he makes out to be probably not between A.D.\n150-160, as Tischendorf suggests, but much later.\n\nIn the last fragment of early literature examined--the Canon of\nMuratori--the Book of Luke is alluded to as \"_the third Gospel_,\" and\nour author says (p. 241) \"the statement regarding the Third Gospel\n_merely_ proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment\nwas composed,\" and that \"the inference\" that there was a first and\nsecond Gospel is a _mere_ conjecture. I remark that if the statement\ndoes prove that Luke's Gospel existed at the time the fragment was\ncomposed, we gratefully accept the acknowledgment; and as to the\nadverbs \"_mere_\" and \"_merely_,\" which qualify the noun \"_conjecture_\"\nand verb \"_proves_,\" when our author's third volume appears, if it\ndoes not furnish more than \"_mere conjecture_\" that the first and\nsecond preceded it, we will allow the adverbs properly applied, and\nthe logic perfect.\n\nThe sentences in which such words as _certainly_, _it is certain_, _it\nis undeniable_, _there is no question_, _it is impossible to suppose_,\n_it is obviously mere speculation_, &c., are used, where the reasoning\ndoes not warrant them, are innumerable; and it is only after becoming\nfamiliar with the special pleading which is characteristic of the work\nthroughout, that the unsophisticated reader escapes from the\nbewilderment into which the evidences of Christianity seem to get\nentangled. The author seems to have got the reader into a gloomy\ncavern of criticism, and it is only after the eye has become\naccustomed to the partial darkness that he can make out whether what\nhe is taken to see are real figures, images, or ghosts. When he has\ngot to the middle of the second volume, however, he begins to see the\nlight again, and breathe more freely. He sees a way right through the\ncavern, and finds that the figures of this underground chamber of\nhorrors are all phantoms.\n\nThe \"Examiner\" justly says: \"For our part we see no reason why the\nSynoptic[54] Gospels may not have assumed their present form by the\nend of the first century;[55] and we cannot think that our author's\nGerman oracles have succeeded in establishing their dissimilarity from\nthe documents quoted by the Primitive Fathers. Justin Martyr's\nreferences to the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, appear to us to\nbe actually derived from Matthew. If, however, as is contended, they\nwere taken from the lost \"Gospel of the Hebrews,\" this merely proves\nthe substantial identity of the two. The question of Justin's\nacquaintance with the Fourth Gospel is more difficult. We are\nnevertheless disposed to resolve it in the affirmative.\"\n\n  [54] The word Synoptics, applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke's Gospels,\n  indicates abridgment--the bringing of all parts under one view.--_See\n  Dr. Hyde Clark's Dictionary_.\n\n  [55] \"Negative critics, as we have seen, have been compelled again to\n  raise the age of the Gospels, and to place them in the apostolic age,\n  between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100.\"--_Dr. Christlieb_, p. 541.\n\nThis is a sensible comment on our author's general argument.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._\n\n\n_\"Every trace has vanished of the great nameless one.\"_\n\n  Baur.\n\n\n_\"The denial of the authenticity of John's Gospel is a source of far\ngreater difficulties than its acknowledgment.\"_\n\n  Ritschl.\n\n\n_\"The doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the fundamental\ndoctrine of Christianity. Without it Christianity, as a theological\nand as a philosophical system, cannot rank above Rabbinism and\nMahommedanism.\"_\n\n  Bunsen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_THE FOURTH GOSPEL._\n\n\nThe evidence that to John the Apostle is to be ascribed the Fourth\nGospel, is worthy of the best attention we can bestow upon it. After\nthat apostle had been dead half a century, this book, as is\nacknowledged by our author and all other critics, occupied a prominent\nplace among the manuscripts of the Christians, with the name of John,\nas the author, attached; and the question now arises, after nearly\neighteen centuries of belief in its authorship and authority, is there\nreasonable ground for doubting that it can be properly attributed to\nthe apostle who was the companion, disciple, and bosom friend of\nJesus? I think the question may be answered with confidence upon the\nevidence within our reach.\n\nIn the first place, Iren\u00e6us believed it was the Gospel according to\nJohn the Apostle; and who was Iren\u00e6us, that his belief in it should\nbe good evidence? He was not John's contemporary, but there was one\nbetween John and Iren\u00e6us who was so intimate with both that the link\nof evidence is fully to be relied upon, and that link is Polycarp.\nTherefore, Iren\u00e6us, who was a hearer of Polycarp, can tell us\nsomething about it. Now Polycarp was born in the time of Nero, so he\nwas for thirty-two years a contemporary of John's, and was his\ndisciple. And Iren\u00e6us says in a letter written to a person called\nFlorinus, and preserved by Eusebius: \"When I was yet a youth, I saw\nthee in Asia Minor, at Polycarp's house, where thou wert distinguished\nat court, and obtained the regard of the bishop. I can more distinctly\nrecollect things which happened then than others more recent, for\nevents which happened in youth seem to grow with the mind, and to\nbecome part of ourselves. So I can tell the place where the blessed\nPolycarp used to sit and discourse, and his going out and coming in,\nand the manner of his life, and his personal appearance, and his\ndiscourses to the people, and how he related his intercourse _with\nJohn_, and the rest who had seen the Lord; and how he rehearsed their\nsayings, and what things there were which he had heard from them\nabout the Lord, and about His _miracles_, and about His doctrine; and\nhow Polycarp, having learned from the eye-witnesses of the Word of\nLife, narrated all things agreeably with the Scriptures. And to these\nthings, by God's mercy bestowed on me at that time, I used diligently\nto listen, writing the remembrance of them, not on paper, but in my\nheart; and, by God's grace, I am always meditating affectionately upon\nthem.\"[56]\n\n  [56] \"Hist. Eccl.\" v. 20.\n\nNow we may be certain that Polycarp would be likely to know the truth\nof the matter, and Iren\u00e6us declares that \"_John, the disciple of the\nLord who leaned on the bosom of the Lord at supper_, wrote the\nApocalypse.\"[57] So we have here reliable evidence that John wrote\nboth the Apocalypse and the book whose author leaned on our Lord's\nbosom at supper. Not only this from Polycarp. There is extant \"The\nEpistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,\" which Iren\u00e6us believed to be\ngenuine, and in it we find these words: \"For whosoever doth not\nconfess Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is antichrist.\" I compare\nthis with the words in John's Epistle: \"And every spirit that\nconfesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God,\nand this is that spirit of antichrist.\" Our author says it is not a\nverbatim quotation. I say it is a quotation, if not verbatim. It is\nacknowledged that the author of the First Epistle of John and the\nFourth Gospel is the same, the ideas and style being so much alike.\n\"The two writings,\" says R\u00e9nan, \"present the most complete identity of\nstyle, the same peculiarities, the same favourite expressions.\"\n\n  [57] Ibid. iv. 32.\n\nIt is impossible to doubt that Polycarp would have learned from John\nhimself whether he was the author of a Gospel; and if Iren\u00e6us had\nnever heard Polycarp allude to the Gospel as John's, he could not have\nbelieved in it as he did, and have plainly stated that John wrote it\nand the Apocalypse. There would have been in this case a justifiable\ninference from \"silence.\" If Polycarp in his teaching had never\nalluded to John's Gospel, it would have been so strange that Iren\u00e6us\nwould have deemed it spurious altogether, and unworthy of the\nestimation with which he regarded it; for it is one of the four\nGospels that he fancifully likens to the four corners of the earth,\nthe four principal winds, and the four wings of the Seraphim. It is to\nbe remembered that our author acknowledges Iren\u00e6us so regarded all\nthe four Gospels, for he alludes (p. 91) to \"the arbitrary assumption\nof exclusive originality and priority for the four Gospels\" by\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, and Epiphanius. It is evident that this Fourth\nGospel could not have first appeared as late as A.D. 150, but must\nhave been in existence long before; and on the testimony of Iren\u00e6us,\nthrough Polycarp, from John himself, its authenticity may be\nconsidered established.\n\nThe evidence from the work of Hippolytus, entitled, \"The Refutation of\nall Heresies,\" that Basilides quoted from the Fourth Gospel, our\nauthor dismisses in one paragraph (p. 371), having fully referred to\nthe testimony from that writer in treating of the Synoptics. There\nare, however, two very distinct passages which cannot be objected to\nas quotations, and the attempt to get rid of them by the substitution\nof the plural pronoun \"they\" for the singular one \"he,\" in the text of\nHippolytus, is an utter failure. The first is from John i. 9, \"The\ntrue Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;\" and\nthe words in \"The Refutation,\" by Hippolytus, are, \"And this, he says,\nis that which has been stated in the Gospels, 'He was the true Light\nwhich lighteth every man that cometh into the world.'\" The other is,\n\"Mine hour is not yet come,\" agreeing with John ii. 4. The discovery\nof the work, \"The Refutation of all Heresies,\" in the year 1841, at\nMount Athos, by the erudite Minoides Mynas, a Greek, in the employ of\nthe French Government, was important as bearing on this question, for\nit proves that the Fourth Gospel was in existence thirty years earlier\nthan the T\u00fcbingen criticism asserted. Our author's want of\nappreciation of the evidence found in Hippolytus is one of the weakest\npoints in his book.\n\nIs the Fourth Gospel quoted by Justin Martyr? Our author says, No! I\nsay, Yes! to the question. In his Dialogue with Tryphon (p. 316) occur\nthe words, \"I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying,\" which\nis evidently from that Gospel, for we know of no other which makes\nJohn the Baptist say the same. He says \"the evangelical work of which\nJustin made use was obviously different from our Gospels, and the\nevident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that\nthere is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin\nquoted the passage (as above) from the Fourth Gospel, from which he so\nfundamentally differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe\nthat he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all probability the\nGospel according to the Hebrews\" (p. 302). I remark, that the words,\n\"I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying,\" could not be\nquoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews if that supposed\nindependent book did not contain them, and there is no evidence that\nit did. On the contrary, our Gospel of Matthew, compiled, as we\nsuppose, partly from it, would have in that case had the words; and as\nit has not, and as only John's Gospel has them, the inference is clear\nthat Justin had seen the latter, as well as the other Gospel or\nGospels from which the earlier part of the sentence is taken. The\nwhole of Justin's sentence is as follows: \"For John sat by the Jordan\nand preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle\nand raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild\nhoney.\" Men supposed him to be the Christ, wherefore he cries to them,\n\"_I am not Christ_, but the voice of one crying (or preaching). For he\ncometh who is greater than I, whose shoes I am not meet to bear.\"\n\nWe find in the second \"Apology\" (p. 94) these words: \"Christ said,\n'Except ye be born again ye may not enter into the kingdom of\nheaven;\" and in the very same line is continued the reference to the\nconversation with Nicodemus, in these words: \"But that it is\nimpossible for those who have been once born to enter into their\nmother's womb, is plain to all.\" I scarce need remind you how the\nstatement of Christ and the question of Nicodemus are as close\ntogether in the Fourth Gospel. The passage there is, \"Except a man be\nborn again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto\nhim, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second\ntime into his mother's womb and be born?\" The two sentences, coming\ntogether in both, leaves no doubt that Justin used the Fourth Gospel,\nfor there is nothing like them in any of the other Gospels.\n\nIt is something to have from Justin Martyr the evidence that Jesus\ntaught Nicodemus that a man cannot see the kingdom of God without\nbeing born of the Holy Ghost. If Justin quoted from an earlier Gospel,\nit is against our author's non-superhuman theory; and if from our\nGospels, it is equally so. But, supposing that he could prove that\nJustin did not quote, that would _not_ prove that the books were not\nin existence. Paul's Epistles, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1\nCorinthians, and Romans, all written not later than the year 58, are\nthey quoted, as we might suppose they would be, by Justin? We know\nnothing as to the extent of his library. He might have had copies of\nall these Gospels and Epistles, or none at hand to quote verbatim\nfrom. Was there a concordance, to help a writer to be exact, after the\nmodern demand?\n\nThe internal evidence of the Fourth Gospel is, perhaps, not so\nappreciable by our author as the external, on account of his foregone\nconclusion that the superhuman is incredible. But as \"there is no\nfeasible explanation of the Divine origin of Christianity without\nacknowledging the Divine mission of Jesus,\" so is there no possible\nexplanation of the Fourth Gospel without a recognition of the\nevangelical doctrine of the triune in the Divine Nature--the threefold\nmanifestation of the one God. Exclude from the Fourth Gospel the idea\nof the Holy Spirit having inspired John to write it, and there\nnaturally follows the attempt to exclude the book from its historical\nand authoritative position. It has a perfectly harmonious place in the\nsuperhuman means by which spiritual truth is exhibited and enforced\nfor the benefit of mankind, but that place is an advanced one. It was\nthe last of inspired utterances, and it presupposes the development\nthat it supplements, and which it designs to promote. The Holy Spirit,\n\"the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,\nthat Great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting\ncovenant,\" to make us \"perfect in every good work to do His will,\"\nmust be recognised and duly honoured if the Bible is to be understood\nand Christianity successfully exhibited and defended. Let us turn to\nthe book. It opens with allusions to the dignity of Christ the Messiah\nwhich no philosophy known in Alexandria had a conception of. Philo and\nhis Platonic school discoursed of the Logos; but their doctrine is\ndistinct from that of this Gospel. Justin takes up their idea, as our\nauthor shows (p. 278), and draws a distinction between the Logos and\nJesus, describing Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power of the\nLogos; for Justin says,--\"Through the power of the Word, according to\nthe will of God the Father and Lord of all, he was born a man of a\nvirgin.\"[58] Philo says,[59]--\"The Logos of God is above all things in\nthe word, and is the most ancient and most universal of all things\n_created_.\" I do not deny that Justin got ideas of the Logos from the\nOld Testament and from the writings of Philo, as shown by our author,\nbut I submit that he confused their doctrine with the more developed\ntruth of the New Testament. \"It is certain,\" he says (p. 291), \"that\nboth Justin and Philo, unlike the prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place\nthe Logos in a secondary position to God the Father, indicating a less\nadvanced stage in the doctrine. 'He calls the Word constantly the\nfirst-born of all _created_ beings'\" (p. 292). Our author says,--\"We\ndo not propose in this work to enter fully into the history of the\nLogos doctrine\" (p. 280). Had he done so, he could not have shown that\nthe doctrine reached to the height of the apostolic conception. There\nis no allusion to the Divinity of the Logos, as John and Paul assert;\nand no reference to the unquestionable statement of Scripture that, in\nthe Word made flesh, we have a revelation of the mysterious triune\nnature of Jehovah. A vague notion of it is found in many idolatrous\nsystems of religious worship, and its prevalence is an indication of\nthe truth which tradition, from primitive revelation, has handed\ndown; but the mystery, as Paul says, was hidden for ages and\ngenerations, and was not made manifest until, in the fulness of time,\nthe scheme of Redemption was fully unfolded. The gospel is called by\nPaul \"the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the\nworld began, but now is made manifest by a clear interpretation of the\nscriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the\neverlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of\nfaith.\"[60] To concentrate the doctrine in the Fourth Gospel and\nPaul's later epistles, and then repudiate the writings, is a mode of\nsustaining the denial of it which is far from being successful. This\ndoctrine is evidently one of the essential elements of Christian\ntruth. As the bread which sustains our bodily life, so the bread of\nthe life of the soul, may be decomposed, but none of the elements must\nbe left out of it if it is to be of use. In the Old Testament we find\nmany passages which show the plurality in the Divine nature. The\ndoctrine, it is true, was not so revealed as to be conspicuous at the\ntime, for if it had been, it would have been misunderstood, and thus\ntended to interfere with the schooling which the Jews were undergoing\nto cure them of their proneness to idolatry; but with the New\nTestament in our hand we see what, without it, would be still hidden\nin obscurity. As we read the Fourth Gospel in the light of this\ndoctrine, how it harmonises with the \"plan of salvation\" which\nbelievers in all evangelical Churches call Christianity! The book\nprofesses to be written that men, believing in Jesus Christ, may have\neternal life; records the testimony of John the Baptist that Jesus was\nthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (i. 29); and\nannounces the important dogma that the supernatural influence of the\nHoly Spirit is indispensable to overcome the unwillingness of the soul\nof man to receive the truths of the Divine revelation. \"No man can\ncome to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him\" (vi. 44).\n\"Except a man be born of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of\nGod.\" It testifies to the Divine nature of Jesus in the most explicit\nmanner. \"Therefore the Jews sought to kill him,\" because he said \"God\nwas his Father, making himself equal with God\" (v. 18). \"That all men\nshould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father\" (v. 23). \"If ye\nhad known me, ye should have known my Father also\" (viii. 19).\n\"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am\" (viii. 58).\n\"It is he (the Son of God) that talketh with thee. And he (the man who\nhad been blind) said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him\" (ix.\n38). \"I and my Father are one\" (x. 30). \"For blasphemy\" (we stone\nthee), \"and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God\" (x. 36).\n\"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that\nbelieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever\nliveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?\" (xi.\n25, 26). \"Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is\nglorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify\nhim in himself, and shall straightway glorify him\" (xiii. 32). \"He\nthat hath seen me hath seen the Father\" (xiv. 9).\n\n  [58] \"Apol.\" i. 46.\n\n  [59] \"Leg.\" iii. \u00a7 61.\n\n  [60] Rom. xvi. 25, 26.\n\nThe doctrine of what we call (not having a better word) the\npersonality of the Holy Spirit is clearly indicated in such passages\nas the following:--\"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you\nanother Comforter, that _he_ may abide with you for ever; even the\nSpirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth _him_\nnot, neither knoweth _him_: but ye know _him_; for _he_ dwelleth with\nyou\" (xiv. 17). \"But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father\nwill send in my name, _he_ shall teach you all things, and bring all\nthings to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you\" (xiv.\n26). \"It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away,\nthe Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send\n_him_ unto you. And when _he_ is come, _he_ will reprove the world of\nsin, and of righteousness, and of judgment\" (xvi. 7). \"When _he_, the\nSpirit of truth, is come, _he_ will guide you into all truth: for _he_\nshall not speak of _himself_; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall\n_he_ speak: and _he_ will show you things to come\" (xvi. 13). The\nseventeenth chapter I will not refer to in part, but specify entire,\nbegging the reader to meditate on its marvellous comprehensiveness and\nexpressiveness.\n\nMuch of the teaching of Jesus would be so far above the comprehension\nof the disciples when they heard it, that it would not be likely to be\nimpressed on their memory. The Holy Spirit was to be sent, to bring\nall things to their remembrance; and it is only by this promise being\nfulfilled that we can understand the inspired words of the Fourth\nGospel.\n\nCould Jesus have said what He is described in this book to have said,\nif God had not been with Him as He never was with any other man? If\nsuch a question be pertinent, how utterly needless the further\nquestion, Could the book have been written by the _nameless unknown\nsome one_ whom the hypothesis of its non-Johannine origin substitutes\nas the author?\n\nWhatever difference there is between the composition of the Fourth\nGospel and the Apocalyse, there is, at all events, a striking analogy\nbetween the opening verses of the former and those in the latter,\nwhere the faithful and true witness is referred to as \"the beginning\nof the creation of God,\"[61] and as being set down with His Father\nupon His throne. In the preface to each of the addresses to the seven\nChurches Christ assumes the attributes and prerogatives of the Deity.\nThe prominence given to the mysterious doctrine of the Divinity of\nChrist is as great in the one as the other.\n\n  [61] Rev. iii. 14.\n\nIt is somewhat singular that from R\u00e9nan, who so utterly rejects the\nmiraculous, we should have such a decided opinion that it is\nappropriately entitled the Gospel according to John. After saying, \"I\ndare not be sure that the Fourth Gospel has been entirely written by\na Galilean fisherman,\" he writes in his introduction to the \"Life of\nJesus\": \"No one doubts that towards the year 150, the Fourth Gospel\ndid exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from Justin,\nAthenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, and Iren\u00e6us, show that\nfrom thenceforth this Gospel mixed in every controversy, and served as\ncorner-stone for the development of the faith. Iren\u00e6us is explicit.\nNow he came from the school of John, and between him and the apostle\nthere was only Polycarp. The part played by this Gospel in Gnosticism,\nand especially in the system of Valentinus, in Montanism, and in the\nquarrel of the Quartodecimans, is not less decisive. The school of\nJohn was the most influential in the second century, and it is only by\nregarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of the\nschool, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all.\"\n\n\"The First Epistle, attributed to John, is certainly by the same\nauthor as the Fourth Gospel. Now this Epistle is recognised as from\nJohn by Polycarp, Papias, and Iren\u00e6us. But it is, above all, the\nperusal of the Fourth Gospel itself which is calculated to give the\nimpression that John must have written it. The author always speaks\nas an eye-witness. He wishes to pass for the Apostle John. If, then,\nthis work is not really by the apostle, we must admit a fraud of which\nthe author convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the time\nrespecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there is\nno example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind.\nBesides, not only does the author wish to pass for the apostle, but we\nsee clearly that he writes in the interest of this apostle.\"\n\nAs to the difference in language and style between it and the\nApocalypse, it is not altogether unusual for an author to produce\nworks which differ greatly from each other. An instance is mentioned\nby the Rev. Kentish Bache, in his letter to Dr. Davidson. \"William\nPenn, within one and the same year (1668) wrote two different works,\nentitled 'The Sandy Foundation Shaken,' and 'Innocency with her Open\nFace.' The former pamphlet is circulated by the Unitarians as a tract\ndemolishing the doctrine of the Trinity, while the latter is an\nearnest defence of that very doctrine; and yet Penn protests that his\nbelief had undergone no change\" (p. 35).\n\nOne of the difficulties in the way of the reception of the Fourth\nGospel is the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which the Synoptics do\nnot record. A probable explanation is suggested by Grotius, who says,\nas Lazarus was living when the Synoptics were written, and as \"the\nchief priests consulted that they might put him to death, because that\nby reason of him many of the Jews went away and believed on\nJesus,\"[62] the publication of the miracle would have exposed Lazarus\nto more intense hostility, and endangered his life.\n\n  [62] John xii. 10.\n\nOur author makes the strange assertion that \"the Fourth Gospel, by\nwhomsoever written--even if it could be traced to the Apostle\nJohn--has no real historical value, being at best the glorified\nrecollections of an old man, written down half a century after the\nevents recorded\" (p. 467). This bold assertion ignores the fact that\nthe impressions of early life are, as a rule, indelibly fixed on the\nmemory. Of no historical value, though written by John! Our author\nknows perfectly well that such an event as the raising of Lazarus from\nthe dead could never fade from the memory of those who witnessed it.\nDoes he overlook, or suppress, the consideration that John's\nrecollection would be daily refreshed by the teaching of the\nprinciples of a gospel which consisted of these events and discourses?\nWe can as well conceive of the Duke of Wellington having forgotten,\nwhen he was eighty years old, the campaigns of the Peninsula and the\nbattle of Waterloo, as John forgetting the memorable transactions in\nthe life of his Master with which he was so closely identified.\nBesides, we do not know that the materials for John's book had not\nlong before been noted down. It is not probable that he who wrote the\nApocalypse in the year 68 would put nothing into writing of the\nmemoirs until close upon the time when the book was published. Such is\nnot the mode of authorship now, and was not then. Supposing the\napostle to have died, leaving behind him unarranged materials,\nincluding notes and memoranda made at various times, and that these\nwere, with fidelity, but with more scholarship than John possessed,\ntranscribed, edited, and made a book of, entitled \"The Gospel\naccording to John,\" we have an explanation of the linguistic\ndifficulty which does not overstep the limits of reasonable\nprobability.\n\nWell may Dr. Davidson acknowledge \"it is not easy to account for the\nearly belief of its Johannine origin;\" and that \"if a disciple of\nJohn wrote it, he had learned more than his master.\" It _would_ have\nbeen \"strange if such an author had continued unknown.\" If we reject\nthe Johannine origin, we have to believe that during the fifty years\nbetween John's death and the time of the book's _general acceptance as\nhis_ there lived some one capable of writing it, of whom history and\ntradition are silent. This is certainly a large matter for sceptical\ncredulity to swallow. How much easier to believe that the refinement\nand beauty of composition, whose charm has captivated the world, is\nthe work of a Grecian disciple, who wrote under the superintendence,\nif not dictation, of the apostle who only could have furnished the\nmaterials at the time when it was written. At the close of the first\ncentury all the other apostles were dead, and for its authorship we\ncannot look beyond the circle which surrounded Jesus at the\ninstituting of that ever-abiding memorial of Him, \"The Lord's Supper.\"\n\nAmong the anomalies of our author's hypothesis we have to think of the\napostles living in the first century, and attaining their reputation\nas writers during the second. In the first century men appear, but\nwithout their writings. In the second century the writings come to\nlight, but without the men. How unnatural, says Dr. Christlieb, is\nthis! Who can fail to see that the hypothesis is incredible?\n\n\"We invariably find that an age which is fertile in literary\nproductions is followed by a conservative period, in which the\nproductions of the foregoing period are collected and digested--first\nthe classical, then the post-classical. Does the second century, in\nother respects, bear the impress of a productive classical period in\nliterature? On the contrary, its undoubted products breathe a spirit\nwhich bears the same relation to the New Testament writings as does\nthe tenour of a post-classical age bear to that of the age preceding\nit. Did these writings, especially the Fourth Gospel, belong to\n'unknown' authors, they would be perfectly inexplicable phenomena as\ncompared with all the other products of that period. It has been well\nsaid that it were no less absurd to ascribe the most inspiriting\nwritings of Luther to the spiritless period of the Thirty Years' War,\nthan to transfer the Gospel of John to the middle of the second\ncentury.\"[63]\n\n  [63] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.\n\n\"Notwithstanding their warm Christian life, the writings of the second\ncentury evince such a remarkable dearth of new ideas that one plainly\nsees how, after the spiritual flood-tides of the first century, the\nebb had set in.\"[64]\n\n  [64] Dr. Christlieb, p. 541.\n\n\"Compare, for instance, the clear and sober-minded spirit of the New\nTestament epistles, or the quiet sublimity of the Gospel of John, with\nthe epistles of Ignatius, the enthusiasm of which degenerates into a\nwell-nigh fanatic desire for martyrdom; or with the Pastor of Hermas,\nand the value ascribed by him to ascetic rigour; or with the epistles\nby Clement of Rome, which tell the fable of the ph\u0153nix as a fact; or,\nagain, with the Epistle of Barnabas, which delights in insipid\nallegories, and gives the most absurd typical interpretations of the\nOld Testament, justifying Neander's remark, that here we encounter\nquite another spirit than that of an apostolic man.\"[65]\n\n  [65] Ibid. p. 541.\n\nOur author produces such a mass of evidence from the early writers,\nconfirmatory of the truths of the Gospel, that his criticism tends to\nopposite conclusions. Supposing he can prove that the canon of\nScripture is not _un_assailable, he has not accomplished much. It is\nof more value to have confirmation of the facts and principles of\nDivine truth, than to be assured that the authorship, construction,\ncompilation, or arrangement of the Scriptures, are just what the\nChurch of Rome authoritatively pronounced. Because we cannot\npositively settle certain questions of little comparative importance,\nare we to surrender our faith in essentials? Are we to let the\nconjectures and queries of German cavillers, with their \"Yea, hath God\nsaid,\" destroy our cherished faith and hope? God forbid! It is not the\npreservation or infallibility of the apostolic writings which makes\nHis incarnation, death, and resurrection, facts in the history of our\nrace. The facts make the history, not the history the facts. Europe\nwas saved from Oriental despotism by Leonidas at Thermopyl\u00e6, and the\nvalour and patriotism of the Greeks; by Charles Martel in the eighth\ncentury; and again by Prince Eugene in the seventeenth century; but it\nis not because history has truly or imperfectly recorded these facts\nthat we enjoy to this day the great benefits resulting to civilisation\nfrom their heroism.\n\nThe truth of Christianity does not, at all events, rest on the\n_quotations of the early Fathers_, and our author would have\naccomplished but little had he proved that there were none found. In\nthe first ages of the Church, when the events were fresh, the voice\nof the preacher was the channel which conveyed the saving gospel to\nthe souls of men, and there was not the same necessity for reference\nto the written records as in after times. When a century had elapsed\nafter the death of Christ, then the records of the first disciples\nbecame of importance. They then came into prominence, and were\nabundantly quoted, as our author acknowledges. As time went on that\nimportance increased, and about three hundred years after the events\nthe Emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius to have fifty copies of the\nHoly Scriptures fairly inscribed on parchment, the use whereof he\ntells Eusebius he \"knew to be absolutely necessary to the Church.\"\nEusebius gives us the emperor's entire letter. They were not so\nabsolutely necessary when most of the Fathers wrote whom our author\nhas referred to. _I_ do not want any written record to prove to me\nthat the Spaniards in the Peninsular War, seventy years ago, poisoned\nthe bread of the British troops. I lived in my youth with an old\nChristian soldier and his wife who were in the campaign, and used to\namuse me with their experience of such facts, as we sat round the fire\non a winter's evening. Nor of the American War of Independence do the\npeople of the present generation depend entirely on writings or books\nfor the proof that it took place. Two lives reach from date to date,\nand no evidence can be stronger than such.\n\nUntil we have better reason than our author has adduced for altering\nour estimate of these sacred writings, so often assailed, but\nmaintaining serenely, century after century, their high pretensions as\na message from heaven to culture our moral and spiritual nature, and\nguide us thither, we should be foolish, oh, how foolish! to question\ntheir authority or neglect their guidance. Because we cannot be sure\nthat the Bible is in every detail the perfect transcript of Divine\nrevelation, we are to abandon the only solace that humanity possesses,\nthe only theory which accounts for the wickedness which, without its\nteaching, is such an anomaly to all else in creation, the only bond\nwhich binds society in brotherhood, and makes social existence capable\nof including happiness here, or the hope of life hereafter. Better a\nmisunderstood revelation than none at all. Better a glimpse of\nimmortality, than the negation which is utter darkness, and makes the\nissue of existence only death.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._\n\n\n_\"Hoist with his own petard.\"_\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE._\n\n\nWe now come to the question of contemporary evidence. Our author says\nthe testimony of the New Testament in favour of the miraculous is\ninadequate because it is not contemporary. I have to endeavour to show\nthat he has himself proved it to be contemporary.\n\nThe \"Spectator\" describes him as virtually saying: It is as if you\ntried to prove some unheard-of facts of the civil war in the time of\nCharles I. by testimony not to be traced higher than the reign of\nGeorge III. I say we trace the testimony to one of Cromwell's own\nofficers, and our author's own criticism shall be shown to prove it.\n\nI take one piece of evidence of his own which he has elaborately\npresented. I compare it with proofs of the same kind from other\nsources. I refer to the authorities specified, and I accept it and\nendorse it. But I make a different use of it. He uses it to prove that\nbecause John, the apostle, wrote the Apocalypse, he cannot have\nwritten the Fourth Gospel. I use it to prove that because John wrote\nthe Apocalypse _the facts of the Gospel are by contemporary testimony\nsubstantiated_; and I contend that this evidence--clear, direct, and\nirrefragable--neutralises his main argument and the object of his\nbook, which is to invalidate supernatural religion and the reality of\nDivine revelation.\n\nHe says (on page 392 of his second volume): \"The external evidence\nthat the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse is more ancient than that\nfor the authorship of any other book of the New Testament, excepting\nsome of the epistles of Paul. Justin Martyr affirms in the clearest\nand most positive manner the apostolic origin of the work. He speaks\nto Tryphon of a certain man whose name was John, one of the apostles\nof Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation made to him, of the\nMillennium and subsequent general resurrection. The genuineness of\nthis testimony is not called in question by any one.\"\n\n\"As another most important point we may mention that there is probably\nnot another work of the New Testament the precise date of the\ncomposition of which, within a very few weeks, can be so positively\naffirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis, and\nis now more universally accepted by all competent critics than the\nfact that the Apocalypse was written A.D. 68, 69. The writer\ndistinctly and repeatedly mentions his name. 'The revelation of Jesus\nChrist ... unto his servant John. John to the seven Churches which are\nin Asia;' and he states that the work was written in the island of\nPatmos, where he was 'on account of the word of God and the testimony\nof Jesus'\" (p. 395).\n\n\"It is clear that the writer counted fully upon being generally known\nunder the simple designation of John; and when we consider the\nunmistakable terms of authority with which he addresses the seven\nChurches, it is scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was\nthe apostle, or, distinctly desired to assume his personality\" (p.\n397).\n\n\"The whole description (of the New Jerusalem) is a mere allegory of\nthe strongest Jewish dogmatic character, and it is of singular value\nfor the purpose of identifying the author\" (p. 399).\n\n\"There is no internal evidence whatever against the supposition that\nthe 'John' who announces himself as the author of the Apocalypse was\nthe apostle. On the contrary, the tone of authority adopted\nthroughout, and evident certainty that his identity would everywhere\nbe recognised, denote a position in the Church which no other person\nof the name of John could possibly have held at the time when the\nApocalypse was written. The external evidence, therefore, which\nindicates that Apostle John as the author is quite in harmony with the\ninternal testimony of the book itself\" (p. 402).\n\nI have quoted sufficient to show that our author, whose object is to\ndiscredit the Fourth Gospel, elaborately and successfully proves that\nJohn the Apostle wrote the Apocalypse.\n\nThere is other testimony to prove this, easily got at, besides what\nour author supplies.\n\nSir Isaac Newton long ago fixed upon the year 68 as the date.\n\nDr. Davidson says: \"We should despair of proving the authenticity of\nany New Testament book by the help of ancient witnesses, if that of\nthe Apocalypse be rejected.\"\n\nIn the present quarter's \"Edinburgh Review\" (October 1874) there is a\nremarkable confirmation of the importance I am attaching to the\nApocalypse as a book written by the Apostle John during the nine\nmonths' reign of the Emperor Galba, that is, between May 1, 68, and\nJanuary 15, 69. The writer of the article, which is a review of\nR\u00e9nan's \"Antichrist,\" says: \"The arguments which support the\nassignment of A.D. 68 as the date of its composition are absolutely\nirresistible.\" And he adds: \"Here we have a book the date of which is\npositively ascertained, and the writer almost certainly known, while\nits contents are of a prophetic character, and lay claim (in a marked\nmanner) to inspiration, yet are so peculiarly historical in their\ncharacter, and deal with a period of history so perfectly well known\ndown to its minutest details, that it can be checked and verified at\nevery turn. Might we not almost say that we have here (as in the Book\nof Daniel) a _gauge_ by which to measure inspiration, a _sample_ by\nwhich to understand prophecy, a _key_ for a full comprehension of what\nHoly Scripture is and means?\"\n\nThe Apocalypse is, as our author describes it, an ecstatic and\ndogmatic allegory. What it is besides, which the believer in Divine\ninspiration would include in the definition, is out of the range of\nsuch a critic's comprehension, and he would not be likely to attach\nmuch importance to the words, \"Write the things which thou hast seen,\nand the things which are, and the _things which shall be hereafter_.\"\nBut he seems to have overlooked how much essential evangelical\ndoctrine it expresses, and how much it is imbued with its spirit; that\nit testifies to the resurrection of Christ and the atonement. Although\nit _is_ an allegory, its author could no more have written it, if he\nhad known nothing of those doctrines, than Bunyan could have written\n\"The Pilgrim's Progress,\" or Milton \"Paradise Lost\" and \"Regained.\" By\nproving John to be the author of this \"highly dogmatic treatise,\" as\nhe calls the Apocalypse, he takes us to the essence of the dogmas.\nThey must have either been in existence before John wrote it, or he\ninvented them, for they are certainly there.\n\nHe seems unconsciously to have furnished the very contemporary\nevidence which such critics as himself pretend _not_ to have found,\nand profess they require, before they can accept the miracles and\nevangelical doctrines of the gospel.\n\nHe allows that Matthew was an _eye-witness_, but denies that he wrote\nof _miracles_. He allows that Paul wrote of _miracles_, but he was\n_not_ an _eye-witness_.\n\nNow John both saw them and wrote of them, for he was the son of\nZebedee, and he wrote the Apocalypse. This being proved, we have in\nit, from him, as an eye-witness of the miracles of Jesus, evidence\nwhich confirms the Gospels. The vision is from Him \"_who liveth and\nwas dead; the first begotten of the dead, who cometh with clouds_,\"\nand to one who was \"_in the spirit on the Lord's day_.\"\n\nIt as evidently presupposes the miraculous facts of the Gospels, and\nis supplementary to them, as certainly as it presupposes the\nprophecies of the Old Testament, and supplements the predictions of\nDaniel.\n\nThe allegory of \"a Lamb as it had been slain,\" which is prominent in\nthe vision, is unmistakable. No critic could be so perverse as to deny\nthat this plainly indicates that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and\nthat His death is referred to as a sacrifice for sin in fulfilment of\nthe ancient types and sacrificial rites; nor can it be doubted that\nthe same is in harmony with the gospel which Paul preached and wrote\nabout in his absolutely unquestionable epistles, to which alone we\nrefer, avoiding, for obvious reasons, allusion to the Acts of the\nApostles, as our author seems to ignore that book altogether.\n\nLet us turn to the sublime words of this Apocalypse, proved to have\nbeen written by John the Apostle, and as we read, imagine, if we can,\nthat the author himself, and the Christians of the seven Churches of\nAsia and elsewhere, knew nothing of the miraculous facts of the\nGospels and the doctrine of the atonement with which they are\ninseparably connected; and imagine, if we can, that they were both\nadded, according to our author's hypothesis, to the original and lost\nGospels a century later. It is entitled \"The Revelation of Jesus\nChrist, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things\nwhich must _shortly come to pass_.\"\n\nAmong such things--\"shortly to come to pass\"--affecting the Church, we\ncannot be wrong in understanding the attack upon Jerusalem by the\nRomans to be included. If so, the saying of the angel--\"Rise and\nmeasure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship\ntherein,\" implies that Jerusalem was still standing when the book was\nwritten. Also, among the things shortly to come to pass, must be\nunderstood the impending judgments on Rome (the mystical Babylon) for\nthe terrible and bloody persecution which had lately happened; for\nRome is evidently referred to in the seventeenth chapter, where we\nread: \"Upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the\ngreat; and I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and of\nthe martyrs of Jesus.\" We are left in no uncertainty as to the\ninterpretation of this chapter, for it is given us in the last verse,\nwhere we are told--\"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city\nwhich reigneth over the kings of the earth.\" \"The seven heads are\nseven mountains on which the woman sitteth. _And there are seven\nkings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is_ not yet come.\"\nIt is all but certain that the kings referred to are--1 Augustus, 2\nTiberius, 3 Caligula, 4 Claudius, 5 Nero, and the 6th, \"_which now\nis_,\" Galba, who reigned nine months, from 1st May, 68, till 15th\nJanuary, 69; the 7th, to come next, being Otho, who, when he cometh,\nmust continue a short space. It was but \"a short space,\" for on the\n20th of April in the same year Vespasian ascended the throne. The\nbeast which was to appear next is undoubtedly Nero; for though he was\ndead, Tacitus tells us there was a wide-spread rumour, which created\ngreat alarm, that the report of his having committed suicide, when the\nsenate had denounced him, was false. He is said to have been\npersonified by a slave, who took up his abode in an island not far\nfrom Patmos. When we think of the Roman coins of that date having on\nthem the words \"Nero C\u00e6sar,\" the Hebrew letters for which are\nidentical with the \"six hundred threescore and six,\" the number of the\nbeast, which \"he that hath understanding is to count,\" we cannot avoid\nthe conclusion that Nero, under the symbol of a beast, is referred to.\n\nIf this be the correct interpretation, there is no uncertainty about\nthe date and authorship of the book.\n\nThe preface or title closes with the words, \"Blessed is he that\nreadeth, and they that hear, the words of this prophecy, and keep\nthose things which are written therein; for _the time is at hand_.\"\nAnd then the book opens with an apostolic salutation to the Churches,\nand a fervent ascription of praise to Jehovah, and to the risen and\nexalted Messiah and Redeemer.\n\n\"John to the seven Churches which are in Asia (Churches planted by\nPaul years before): Grace unto you, and peace, from him which is, and\nwhich was, and which is to come; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful\nwitness, the first begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings\nof the earth. Unto him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in\nhis own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his\nFather; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.\"\n\n\"I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and\nin the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is\ncalled Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus\nChrist.\" \"I was in the spirit on the Lord's day.\" (To be \"in the\nspirit on the Lord's day\" is in harmony with evangelical Christianity,\nand quite meaningless apart from it. The first day of the week is,\nundoubtedly, called the Lord's day, because on that day He rose from\nthe dead; and bread has been broken and wine drunk on that day, in\nobedience to His commands, and in remembrance of His death, ever since\nthe day of Pentecost.)\n\n\"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for\nevermore, and have the keys of hades and of death.\"\n\n\"The Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to\nopen the book, and to loose the seals thereof.\"\n\n\"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne ... a Lamb as it\nhad been slain; and they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to\ntake the book, and open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and\nhast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue,\nand people, and nation.\"\n\n\"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches,\" &c.\n\n\"Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth\nupon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever.\"\n\n\"These are they that came out of great tribulation, and washed their\nrobes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.\"\n\n\"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under\nthe earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard\nI saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that\nsitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever.\"\n\nThere is nothing in the Fourth Gospel, nor in any other part of\nScripture, that more emphatically proclaims the Godhead of Jesus\nChrist than this worship of Him by the whole host of heaven. The\nwhole creation, as twice described in the second commandment, fall\ndown and worship Him. It is identical with the language Paul uses in\nhis letter to the Philippians: \"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted\nhim, and given him a name that is above every name, that in the name\nof Jesus _every knee should bow_, of things in heaven, and things in\nearth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess\nthat Jesus Christ _is Lord_, to the glory of God the Father.\"\n\nThis sort of language pervades the whole book. The allegory of a Lamb\nslain to wash away sin by the shedding of His blood occurs a score\ntimes.\n\nIt is not possible to read it and believe what our author insinuates.\nHe wants some proof that the four Gospels are not religious romances\nwritten long after the events occurred which they record. I point out\nthat the author has the proof in his own argument that John wrote the\nApocalypse, and that the evidence therein given to the miracles is not\naffected by any uncertainty whether the Gospels were produced by\neye-witnesses, or constructed on second-hand evidence, by such\ndisciples as Mark and Luke.\n\nNo criticism ever questions that Paul preached a miraculous gospel,\nor ever doubts the genuineness of certain of his epistles in which the\ndoctrines are fully stated.\n\nThere are, at least, four which have never been questioned--viz., the\nFirst of Thessalonians, written about the year 50; the Epistle to the\nGalatians, A.D. 52; the First of Corinthians, A.D. 57; and the one to\nthe Romans, A.D. 58; and in all those letters the miracles and\ndoctrines are referred to which, years before, when he first went\nforth to preach, were the themes of his ministry. His insight into\nspiritual matters increased as he grew older, as his later writings\nindicate; but from first to last it was the same gospel.\n\nHe writes to the Corinthians in the year 57, to remind them of the\ngospel he had preached unto them. He says, \"I delivered unto you first\nof all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins,\naccording to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose\nagain the third day, according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen\nof Peter, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of five hundred\nbrethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present,\nbut some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of me also, as of\none born out of due time.\" Now as Paul's written version of the\ngospel at this time was in the main identical with John's, we get from\nthe evidence that John wrote the Apocalypse a very definite\nconclusion.\n\nIt has been absurdly suggested by John Stuart Mill, and others,[66]\nthat Paul originated the dogmatic doctrines of Christianity. Now we\nknow that Paul, in the early years of his ministry, communicated with\nJames, Peter, and John, at Jerusalem, respecting that gospel which he\nwas preaching among the Gentiles; for he writes to that effect in his\nunquestioned epistle to the Galatians, and tells them that when \"those\nthree apostles, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was\ngiven to him, they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of\nfellowship.\" Would John and Peter and James have done this if the\nmiraculous gospel Paul told them he was preaching was inconsistent\nwith their own knowledge of the circumstances and events in Christ's\nlife of which they were all eye-witnesses?\n\n  [66] \"Nothing can be more false than the fashionable notion of our day\n  that Paul was the author of Christianity. The true founder of\n  Christianity was Jesus.\"--_R\u00e9nan_ (\"The Apostles,\" p. 3).\n\nWe have John writing a book before the destruction of Jerusalem, and\nPaul an epistle before the reign of Nero, and they both bear testimony\nto the fact that Jesus was the Messiah of Jewish prophecy, who\ndescended into our world to be its Saviour and Redeemer by the\nsacrifice of His life on the cross--His miraculous resurrection from\nthe dead being the attestation of His atoning work, while His promise\nto come again to earth in like manner as He was seen to go away, they\nboth relied upon with implicit confidence.\n\nAs early as the year 52 Paul writes from Corinth to the Thessalonians,\nreminding them \"how they turned from idols to serve the living and\ntrue God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom He raised from the\ndead, even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come;\"[67] and he\ncharges them by the Lord that this epistle be read in all the Churches\nin Macedonia.[68] Its genuineness has never been questioned.\n\n  [67] 1 Thess. i. 9.\n\n  [68] Ibid. i. 27.\n\nThus it is quite certain that Paul, at the commencement and throughout\nhis ministry, preached the dogmatic doctrines of the Divinity of\nChrist, the resurrection, the atonement, the depravity of human\nnature, justification by faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit in\nrenewing and sanctifying the souls of men, which constituted the\nChristianity of the first three centuries, and undoubtedly\nemanated--not from the depths of Paul's moral consciousness, but from\nthe events, Divine utterances, and superhuman circumstances which were\nthe theme of the earliest Christian records.[69] The Apocalypse is\nabsolute proof as to how they originated, and that they were prevalent\nwhen it was written.\n\n  [69] Paul tells the Thessalonians he is thankful that they received\n  what he preached as the word of God, not as the word of men.\n\nThis, I contend, is sound argument, and neutralises that of our\nauthor. Other objections of cavillers have their appropriate answers.\nThey may say that the eye-witnesses might honestly believe and teach,\nbut were deceived. No one would, I think, say they were dishonest, and\ninvented the miracles. It may be said that a single eye-witness such\nas John is insufficient. But if a jury has _one_ such, and all the\ncircumstantial evidence in the case supports his testimony, the\nverdict is easily arrived at. A tree that is grafted usually yields\nfruit after the process, not before; but we have here this tree of\nChristianity proved to be fully developed in the year 68, and its\nfruit described, and we are asked to believe that it was grafted to\nbear its evangelical dogmas a century afterwards! The fact is that the\nsame apostle, who describes its fruit in the year 68, was present\nwhen it was planted, and we know from his evidence that the tree\nneeded no grafting to produce such fruit.\n\nThis evidence, from a hostile critic of such ability and scholarship,\nto the authenticity and authorship of the book of Revelation, is\nsurely of considerable value. As Professor Owen could, from a single\nbone of a fossil animal, show what the whole was of which the bone\nformed a part, so might be used this evidence that John wrote the\nApocalypse.\n\nThe Christian apologist may show our author his own argument, and\npointing out the word _Apocalypse_, exclaim, \"I thank thee, Jew, for\nteaching me that word!\" _Thou art hoist with thine own petard!_\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_CONCLUSION._\n\n\n_\"The final and surest proof of the actuality and Divine origin of\nrevelation is its manifestation in individuals, as a healing,\nsin-constraining power, diffusing everywhere light and life.\"_\n\n  Christlieb.\n\n\n_\"The most important controversies are those which a man finds in his\nown heart.\"_\n\n  J. A. Bengel.\n\n\n_\"The Key to Scripture is the Person and Office of Messiah.\"_\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_CONCLUSION._\n\n\nAt the close of his work our author attempts to console his readers\nfor having demolished their evangelical belief in the following\neloquent language:--\n\n\"In surrendering its miraculous element and its claims to supernatural\norigin, therefore, _the religion of Jesus_ does not lose its virtue,\nor the qualities which have made it a blessing to humanity. It\nsacrifices none of that elevated character which has distinguished and\nraised it above all human systems; it merely relinquishes a claim\nwhich it has shared with all antecedent religions, and severs its\nconnection with ignorant superstition. It is too divine in its\nmorality to require the aid of miraculous attributes. No supernatural\nhalo can heighten its spiritual beauty, and no mysticism deepen its\nholiness. In its perfect simplicity it is sublime, and in its\nprofound wisdom it is eternal\" (p. 489).\n\nThis may be eloquently expressed, but it will not bear analysis. If\n\"the religion of Jesus\" has an \"_elevated character_,\" which has\n\"_distinguished and raised it above all human systems_,\" it must have\na superhuman \"_elevated character_,\" and, if so, a supernatural\n_character_, and, therefore, the religion of Jesus is a _supernatural\nreligion_. To take from the Bible all that is miraculous, and pretend\nit would \"_not lose its virtue_,\" or \"_the qualities which have made\nit a blessing to humanity_,\" is simply absurd. The teachings of\nChrist, apart from His recognition of Abraham's faith in God having\nspoken to him; of Moses, as divinely commissioned to give the law of\nSinai; and of David, to prophesy of Himself as the Messiah, is\ninconceivable. It is not possible to strike out of the Bible all that\nis supernatural and leave it intelligible. What would be left, far\nfrom being \"perfect simplicity and profound and eternal wisdom,\" would\nbe, for religious instruction, indeed, a blank.\n\nKnowing what human nature is and has been in all ages, where, we may\nask, could such perfect and sublime morality have come from apart\nfrom Divine interference? As Henry Rogers says in his recent work,\n\"The Superhuman Origin of the Bible inferred from itself,\" \"_The Bible\nis not such a book as man would have made if he could, or could have\nmade if he would._\"\n\nEven John Stuart Mill, in his book just published, describes Christ as\nthe \"pattern of perfection for humanity;\" and \"a unique figure, not\nmore unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even those who\nhad the direct benefit of His personal teaching.\"\n\nThe late Dr. Priestley, the eminent Unitarian, said that the actual\nresurrection of Jesus Christ is more authentically attested than any\nother fact in history.[70]\n\n  [70] See his work, \"Matter and Spirit,\" p. 247.\n\nThe fact is, in short, just this: the whole Scripture testimony to the\nwork of man's redemption is, to the believer, explicit and harmonious,\nwhile the emasculated and perverted creed of the moralist who rejects\nthe miraculous is sheer confusion and absurdity.\n\nWe appreciate the admonition of the apostle Paul, where he says: \"Oh,\nTimothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane\nand vain babblings, and oppositions of science, so called, which,\nsome professing, have erred concerning the faith.\"\n\nIt is of importance to note that the writings which record the deaths\nof some of the principal persons, such as John the Baptist, James the\nApostle, and Stephen, would, probably, have mentioned the decease of\nothers if they had died before the books were composed. Supposing they\noriginated at a later date, the writers would have had no motive for\nomitting any such particulars. Surely, the Acts of the Apostles would\nhave told us of the death of Paul and Peter, Matthew and Barnabas, and\nthe other men whose doings it records. If we imagine the book a\nfiction, then, we ask, where are the stories which apocryphal books\ncontain, such as the crucifixion of Peter, which would, certainly,\nhave been included? This must be accounted for before we set aside the\nbook as not history, but fiction.\n\nThis anonymous sceptical work has to encounter the damaging objection\nthat it enters a verdict before the case is complete. The judge, that\nis, impartial criticism holding the balance evenly, may justly say,\nHow can the verdict be pronounced in the absence of witnesses of such\nimportance as the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul? The\nfinal reflections at the conclusion of the second volume are\npremature. Instead of it being \"right not to delay a clear statement\nof what the author believes to be the truth and its consequences,\" it\nis the opposite; and we venture to predict that, when he has done his\nworst, when he has made the most of the silence of primitive writers\nwhose works time has reduced to fragments; when he has fully exposed\nthe irrelevancy of many of the assertions of over-sanguine apologists\n(such as Tischendorf and Canon Westcott); when he has magnified to the\nutmost the difficulties inseparable from the investigation of matters\neighteen centuries distant, between which period in history and the\npresent time there have intervened revolutions in nations, invasions\nof barbarians, cities burned, libraries destroyed, and all that is\nconceivable of obliteration, falsification, fraud, and superstition,\nin what are called the dark ages--his ability, learning, research, and\nlogic will not have convinced the majority of his readers that\nChristianity is to be placed in the category of the world's religious\ndelusions and impostures. His complete work will be fully replied to\nby critics of his own calibre and acumen, and the highest honour it\nwill ultimately attain will be to be relegated to the unenviable\nposition in literature in which are placed Spinoza, Hume, Baur,\nStrauss, R\u00e9nan, Mill, and all those able doubters who have boldly but\nunsuccessfully assailed the truth as it is in Jesus.\n\nI close with the remark that the Bible is regarded by the Evangelical\nProtestant Nonconformists from an independent point of view. The\nauthority of the councils of the Popish Church is nothing to them. The\ndecision of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, furnishes evidence of\nthe Holy Scriptures being, in the main, what we esteem them to be; but\nwe do not recognise its authority.\n\nWe are in a position to welcome any light which any critic can throw\nupon the records of Divine revelation, and can be grateful for any\nlaborious research which separates the gold from the dross, and\nselects the real coin from the counterfeit. But it is undoubtedly true\nthat, as the religion of the Bible is a spiritual matter, it is best\ndiscerned by those whose hearts are open to receive it.\n\n\"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it\nbe of God.\"[71] \"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness\nin himself.\"[72] \"Filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom\nand spiritual understanding.\"[73]\n\n  [71] John vii. 17.\n\n  [72] 1 John v. 10.\n\n  [73] Col. i. 9.\n\nOn the assumption that man is not a spiritual being, the investigation\nof what the Bible teaches is not likely to be successful. The most\nprominent statements will be foolishness. The primary fact that God is\na Spirit will not be apprehended, and all analogous doctrines deemed\nthe outgrowth of superstition. It is the vainest of all inquiries from\nsuch a foregone conclusion. Man is not placed at such a point of\nobservation in the universe as to be competent to conduct a\ntheological investigation, based on a negative hypothesis, regarding\nthe essential proposition of all religious truth. Among the\nindispensable requisites in the pursuit of such knowledge, are, the\nreceptive disposition, the listening attitude, the becoming humility,\nthe consciousness of a tendency to go wrong, and of dependence on the\nDivine illumination of the Holy Spirit. \"Blind unbelief is sure to\nerr.\" The inquirer who does not lay aside pride and self-sufficiency\nis not in a condition to take the first step. If intellectual power,\nacuteness of perception, and the logical faculty, could ensure the\nsuccessful pursuit of spiritual truth, we may suppose that Satan's\nknowledge would convince him of the folly of his opposition to the\nDivine authority. That which intervenes betwixt the Almighty Creator\nand the fallen angel intercepts the vision of the depraved human soul.\nOnly \"the pure in heart can see God.\" The blindness is not removable\nuntil, as in the case of Saul of Tarsus, those conditions are complied\nwith which are implied in the statement, \"Behold he prayeth.\" His soul\nis humbled, his eyes are opened, and he gets nearer to the truth. \"The\nLord is nigh unto them who call upon him.\"[74]\n\n  [74] Psa. cxlv. 18.\n\nThe summary of what I have endeavoured to make plain to you respecting\nthe book is briefly this:--\n\n1. That it chiefly consists of German scepticism made plain to English\nreaders; of a recast of the exploded fallacies of Hume; and an\nunsuccessful attempt to eliminate the miraculous from the Gospels.\n\n2. That the assumption that there are in the Bible Satanic miracles,\nthus putting Jewish superstition on a level with revealed truth, is\nreasoning on false premises.\n\n3. That the miracles of the Bible do not admit of their being\naccommodated to the laws of nature, to satisfy the scientific and\nphilosophical theologians.\n\n4. That the objection to the testimony of the first disciples, on the\nground of their not being learned, scientific, and critical, has no\nweight, especially as applied to Paul, whose education would enable\nhim to weigh the evidence of the eye-witnesses, which he would compare\nwith the revelation to himself; and thus he was in a position to know\nthe exact truth.\n\n5. That the abstract argument against miracles not having sufficient\nforce to merit Mr. Arnold's endorsement, its further discussion was\nnot necessary, the first part of the book being sufficiently\nneutralised.\n\n6. That the argument from the silence of early Church writers is not\nconclusive, because we have only fragments of their writings, and that\nthere was not the same need to refer to written records while\ntradition was fresh.\n\n7. That the objection to a quotation because it is not verbatim is\nfrivolous.\n\n8. That the hypothesis that the original records of Christ's life,\nwhich are not our Gospels, and are lost, did not contain any miracles,\nis a German conjecture, which is totally unsupported and absolutely\nincredible.\n\n9. That the assumption of uniform and verbal inspiration is not an\nessential of orthodox views, and that Christianity has been more\ndamaged by its friends than its enemies.\n\n10. That the author's mode of presenting his facts is not to be relied\nupon, any more than his conclusions.\n\n11. That offensive epithets and unwarrantable boldness of assertion do\nnot strengthen his arguments; nor is eloquent language always sense.\n\n12. That the question is not whether the Gospels establish the reality\nof miracles, so that Christianity is false if they do not sufficiently\ndo so; but is the general evidence, resting on a great variety of\nproofs, sufficient to prove it true?\n\n13. That special pleading is found throughout the book.\n\n14. That whatever information is wanting, as to the exact manner in\nwhich the four Gospels were compiled--whatever probability there may\nbe that Matthew's is made up of materials from several other sources,\nsuch as the lost \"Gospel of the Hebrews,\" as well as from that\napostle's own record of what he heard and was eye-witness of--whatever\nprobability there may be that the Fourth Gospel is only the Apostle\nJohn's to the extent of his having furnished the materials, which\nGrecian, rather than Jewish, pens put into elegant language and\nartistic form--it is undeniable that if John the son of Zebedee, the\napostle, wrote the Apocalypse, as our author proves he did, the fact\nfurnishes the strongest evidence, \"clear, direct, and irrefragable,\"\nthat he knew, being an eye-witness of the events of the Gospel\nrecords, the Resurrection of Christ to be no \"cunningly devised\nfable,\" but the fact of facts, the truth of truths, the miracle of\nmiracles.\n\n15. That the religion of the Bible being spiritual, its truths are\nbest discerned by those whose hearts are open to receive them.\n\nThe vast expanse of evangelical Christian evidence, shining around us\nlike the sky on a clear night, has its nebul\u00e6 which only faith's\ntelescope can reach; but there are stars and constellations which are\nso conspicuous that no inquirer after truth can fail to see them. John\nto the seven Churches, whose angels are seven stars, is as obvious as\nthe Pleiades; Paul and Barnabas, as of old, are Mercurius and Jupiter;\nAbraham's descendants, still distinct from all other races, in all\nlands, are prominent as Sirius; Pliny's letter to Trajan is radiant as\nArcturus; the martyr-story of the Catacombs and of history is as\ndemonstrative as Mars; while the institution to show forth the Lord's\ndeath, by the breaking of bread on the Lord's day, glows like Venus.\nThese, requiring no telescope,\n\n    \"Confirm the tidings as they roll,\n    And spread the truth from pole to pole.\"\n\n\nUNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.","title":"The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":38440}