{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_67151/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_67151","id":"gutenberg_67151","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67151","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jesus Christ -- Resurrection"],"text":"THE PROOFS\n                                   OF\n                         CHRIST\u2019S RESURRECTION;\n\n                       FROM A LAWYER\u2019S STANDPOINT.\n\n                                   BY\n                          CHARLES R. MORRISON.\n\n                             [Illustration]\n\n                                ANDOVER:\n                            WARREN F. DRAPER.\n                                  1882.\n\n        Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882,\n                          BY WARREN F. DRAPER,\n       In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n                         _All Rights Reserved._\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe present treatise is intended to give what the author has often felt\nthe need of\u2014a compact and thoroughly reliable statement of the principal\nhistorical facts to the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament\nwritings concerning our Lord, and the presumptions from them which\nestablish his claims as our Divine Redeemer and Saviour.\n\nThe question of his Resurrection from the dead is selected as the pivot,\nbecause everything hinges upon it. This question, whichever way it is\ndetermined, is decisive. It is a question which greatly concerns every\none. It is a question of evidence, and as such is especially deserving\nof careful inquiry by members of the legal profession. For, as Prof.\nGreenleaf observed in his work hereafter cited,\u2014\u201cIf a close examination\nof the evidences of Christianity may be expected of one class of men more\nthan another, it would seem incumbent on us, who make the law of evidence\none of our peculiar studies.\u201d\n\nAs the question of Christ\u2019s Resurrection is the objective point of our\ninquiries, all other questions are subordinated to it, and examined so\nfar only as deemed material to the main question.\n\nThe author has availed himself of a lawyer\u2019s privilege, and made use\nof the researches, arguments, and conclusions of others who may justly\nbe regarded as authority, and to whom he has given credit as far as\npracticable, but has endeavored to form an independent judgment in view\nof all accessible sources of information.\n\nThe work is, in the main, as published in a series of articles in the\n_New Hampshire Journal_, and also in the _Vermont Chronicle_, from March\n5, 1881, to April 1, 1882, which will explain the use of the common\nversion in the earlier chapters and the New Revision in the later ones.\n\nWhile the proofs have been marshalled around the principal fact, those\nto establish the subsidiary question of our Four Gospels and the Book\nof Acts have been largely centered upon the \u201cMemoirs\u201d mentioned in the\nconfessedly genuine writings of Justin Martyr. Justin, in his First\nApology, so called, written before the year one hundred and fifty of our\nera, and probably ten years earlier, has given a graphic account of the\nusages in the churches generally. In this account he says that, on the\n\u201cday called Sunday,\u201d Memoirs of Christ were read with the Prophets, in\nall their assemblies. Hence, when it is ascertained that these Memoirs\nwere our Canonical Gospels, we make a long stride toward the conclusion\nof their undoubted authenticity and genuineness.\n\nTo all questions of evidence which arise, the author applies legal\nprinciples and presumptions derived from experience and constantly acted\nupon in courts of justice. He asks of the reader a patient perusal to\nthe end, for he confidently believes that the vital fact of Christ\u2019s\nResurrection, with all the grand consequences which necessarily follow\nit, is as susceptible of proof, from undoubted historical facts and solid\nargument, as any other event in history.\n\nThe work is written for busy men in all the walks of life, and the writer\nhas endeavored to make himself understood.\n\n                                                     CHARLES R. MORRISON.\n\nMANCHESTER, N. H., August, 1882.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n    CHAPTER                                                  PAGE\n\n       I.   SOURCES OF EVIDENCE                                 7\n\n       II.  ADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS                        12\n\n      III. PAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR                            14\n\n       IV.  THE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR              18\n\n        V.   QUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS                          23\n\n       VI.  JUSTIN\u2019S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL                  30\n\n      VII. NO OTHERS PROVED                                    34\n\n     VIII. PRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY                           43\n\n       IX. THE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY      45\n\n        X.   ASCENDING THE STREAM                              50\n\n       XI.  STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM                         57\n\n      XII. IN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES                        63\n\n     XIII. INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS                            67\n\n      XIV. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS                  74\n\n       XV. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES                81\n\n      XVI. HIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF                  89\n\n     XVII. ORDER OF EVENTS                                    101\n\n    XVIII. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS                          110\n             (_False Assumptions._)\n\n      XIX. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS                          120\n             (_Affirmative Evidence._)\n\n       XX. LOGICAL RESULTS                                    134\n\n           INDEX                                              143\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROOFS OF CHRIST\u2019S RESURRECTION.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSOURCES OF EVIDENCE.\n\n\nIt is a characteristic of all who deny this and all other miracles,\nthat they beg the whole question to begin with. They assume as an axiom\nthat a miracle is impossible, or impossible to be proved by human\ntestimony. Or, to put it more mildly, in the language of one of their\nnumber (Renan[1]), \u201cneither men of the people nor men of the world are\ncompetent to prove it. Great precaution and a long habit of scientific\nresearch are requisite.\u201d If these are sound axioms, it should be a matter\nof indifference who were the witnesses, or what their credibility or\nmeans of knowledge, since at the best they were but human, and it is not\nclaimed that they were experts or _savans_ after the modern skeptical\nschool, although they might be expected to know whether one who walked\nwith them, and to whose instructions they listened, and from whom they\nreceived their commission, were dead or alive.\n\nIt is also a comfortable assumption on their part that no one is a\nscholar who does not agree with their opinion, and many young men who\nwould not be thought to be behind the times are misled by their confident\nboasting. \u201cNo modern theologian,\u201d says Strauss,[2] \u201cwho is also a\nscholar, now considers any of the four Gospels to be the work of its\npretended author, or in fact to be by an Apostle or colleague of an\nApostle.\u201d The logic of this is, that if any one does so consider them,\nhe is not a scholar. The same kind of scholarship and habit of thinking\nthat induced this wise conclusion brought him at last to the denial of\nthe existence of a personal God or a future life. His experience is\ninstructive, and shows the inevitable tendency of all reasoning that\ndenies the possibility of a miracle or a divine revelation. Mill\u2019s hard\nlogic cannot well be resisted. \u201cOnce admit a God, and the production, by\nhis direct volition, of an effect which in any case owed its origin to\nhis creative will, is no more a purely arbitrary hypothesis to account\nfor the past, but must be reckoned with as a serious possibility.\u201d If,\nthen, a miracle may occur, it may be proved[A] by human testimony, for\nthe very motive or reason for its occurrence, or, at least the principal\nreason, must be its value as an attestation.\n\nAnd the immense labor which the T\u00fcbingen school and every class of\nskeptics have bestowed in attempts to disprove the authorship of the\nFour Gospels, shows that they have not much confidence in their axioms\nafter all. Why so anxious as to the witnesses, if it is immaterial who\nthey are, or what they testify to? If a miracle cannot be proved by\n_any_ evidence, why have they multiplied books to prove or disprove the\nauthorship of the gospels?\n\n\nTHE BEST EVIDENCE.\n\nThe best evidence of which the subject admits, is all that is required\nin courts; and it is sufficient in matters of the highest concern, even\nin cases of life and death, that a fact be proved beyond a reasonable\ndoubt. The best evidence to Christ\u2019s disciples of his resurrection, was\nthat of their own senses. This evidence we cannot have. We are in the\nposition, in some respects, of jurors, who must decide not from their\nown knowledge, but upon the testimony of others. We have not, however,\nthe witnesses upon the stand, but only what may be regarded as their\ndepositions, and it is made a question whether the writings produced are\ntheir depositions.\n\nThe question, then, in this stage is, who were the writers of the Four\nGospels and the book of Acts? As to the latter, the writer claims to\nhave written a former treatise, and it seems to be taken by both parties\nto the controversy, that the same person (whoever he was) wrote both\nbooks, so that any evidence of Luke\u2019s authorship of the third Gospel, is\nevidence of his authorship of Acts, and _vice versa_. And the same is\ntrue in respect to the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John.\n\nThe best evidence as to the authorship of any of these books which\nthe nature of the subject admits of, is from history and tradition,\nincluding in these terms quotations, citations, harmonies, commentaries,\ntranslations, and manuscripts.\n\nThere are two modes of presenting this evidence. One is to begin with\ntheir present acknowledged acceptance, and ascend the stream; the\nother is to strike tributaries, as near their source as we are able,\nand descend to the river. The latter will be adopted here in the first\ninstance, and ultimately both modes of proof.\n\n\nLOST TRIBUTARIES.\n\nOne hundred years from the crucifixion, churches had been established\nin all the cities and in many of the villages of the Roman Empire, from\nCappadocia and Pontus on the east, to Gaul on the west, and Christians\nwere very numerous. Tacitus describes those at Rome at the time of Nero\u2019s\nbarbarity, as \u201ca great multitude,\u201d and Pliny, in his letter to Trajan,\n_cir._ A.D. 110, affirms that the heathen temples were almost deserted,\nso that the sacred victims scarcely found any purchasers, and that the\n\u201csuperstition,\u201d as he termed it, not only infected the cities, but had\neven spread into the villages, of Pontus and Bithynia (Gibbon, p. 576).\nHence persons unacquainted with the subject might suppose that it would\nbe easy to adduce abundant proof from writers of the first century, as to\nwhat memoirs of our Lord, if any, were in the churches at the time Pliny\nwrote his celebrated letter. Such, however, is not the fact.\n\nThere is no _direct_ historical testimony known to be earlier than the\nfirst apology[3] of Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor, _cir._ A.D. 139.\nThere are certain fragments written by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,\nwhich may be of an earlier date, but this is uncertain. There are also\nquotations apparently from the third and fourth Gospels, by Basilides,[4]\nthe Gnostic heretic who flourished at Alexandria as early as A.D. 125.\nThere is an epistle to the Philippian church, attributed to Polycarp\nwhich Dean Stanley thinks dates about A.D. 130. Its genuineness is not\nuniversally admitted. There is an epistle, conceded to be genuine, from\nthe church at Rome to the church at Corinth, of the probable date of\nA.D. 95. There are epistles attributed by some to Ignatius, who suffered\nmartyrdom, _cir._ A.D. 107, but their genuineness is controverted. There\nare in addition three other writings known as the Epistle of Barnabas,\nthe Letter to Diognetus, and the Pastor Hermas. They are by unknown\nauthors, and of uncertain date, but were probably written in the latter\npart of the first or the first part of the second century.\n\nAnd these are all that have come down to us in any form from the first\none hundred years after the crucifixion. That we have no more is\neasily explained. This period was one of intense activity and violent\npersecutions. Five (as some reckon them) of the ten general persecutions\nwere within[5] this period. The first was under Nero, A.D. 64, the second\nunder Domitian, A.D. 95, the third under Trajan, A.D. 100, the fourth\nunder Antoninus the Philosopher, and the fifth under Severus, A.D. 127;\nand, as some of these continued several years, there was scarcely an\nintermission for three-quarters of a century. The horrible tortures and\ncruel deaths under Nero are well-known, and, under Domitian, forty\nthousand were supposed to have suffered martyrdom.\n\nIt is no matter of surprise, therefore, that so little has reached us\nfrom this early period. Christians were making history, not writing\nit, and of their writings the most perished. There were hundreds and\nthousands who well knew what memoirs of our Lord were accepted by the\nchurches in this period, from whose lips no voice comes except in the\nvolume of universal tradition.\n\n[1] Renan\u2019s Life of Jesus, p. 43.\n\n[2] The Old Faith and the New (1874), p. 45.\n\n[A] See also _post_, c. 18.\n\n[3] A.D. 138 or 139 is the date most usually assigned to this most\nimportant work, although some place it as late as A.D. 150. If his\nstatement in it that \u201cChrist was born 150 years ago\u201d were to be taken\nstrictly, it would make its date A.D. 146 or A.D. 144, according as\nwe allow four or six years as the error for the beginning of the true\nChristian era; but he may have used the number in a general way. His\nmartyrdom is variously stated at A.D. 165 and A.D. 167.\n\n[4] That the quotations were by Basilides himself Matthew Arnold\u2019s\nreasoning seems entirely satisfactory, and \u201cno one\u201d he says, \u201cwho had\nnot a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it.\u201d Perhaps it may\nbe permitted to regard Matthew Arnold as a \u201cscholar;\u201d and see Abbot\u2019s\n\u201cFourth Gospel,\u201d Boston (1880), p. 86. See also _post_, c. 5.\n\n[5] Buck\u2019s Theological Dictionary, and Vol. VII of M\u2019Clintock and\nStrong\u2019s Cyclopedia, p. 966.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nADMISSIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.\n\n\nWith the somewhat scanty and inconclusive evidence from writings of the\nfirst one hundred years from the crucifixion, are there any facts that\nare conceded, and any presumptions from them? There are concessions,\nand from what motives is immaterial, since there is no doubt of the\nexistence of the facts that are admitted even by those who deny the\nauthenticity of the Gospels. Says Renan[1]: \u201cNot the slightest doubt has\nbeen raised by serious criticism against the authenticity of the Epistle\nto the Galatians, the two Epistles to the Corinthians, or the Epistle\nto the Romans; while the arguments on which are founded the attacks on\nthe two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and that to the Philippians, are\nwithout value.\u201d And it may be added that the genuineness of the Book of\nRevelations is conceded and insisted upon by most of his way of thinking.\n\nNow, from the four Epistles against whose authenticity \u201cnot the slightest\ndoubt has been raised by serious criticism,\u201d and the writings of\nJosephus, Tacitus and Pliny, these facts are as well established as any\nfacts of history can possibly be established:\u2014Jesus Christ was born in\nJudea in the days of Herod, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He\nwas a most extraordinary character, and a wonderful teacher. He gathered\ndisciples, of whom twelve were called Apostles. After his death, his\nfollowers were formed into numerous churches, which, in a few years,\nextended into all parts of the then known world, and of which there has\nbeen a continuous succession till now. If, from their disciples, we\nknow something of the life and teachings of Confucius and Socrates, we\nshould expect as much concerning him whose advent revolutionized the\nworld, within three centuries overturned the old pagan superstitions\nthroughout the Roman Empire, and is still the greatest moral power of the\nmost enlightened nations of the earth. But, if there were any accepted\nmemoirs of him in that first hundred years from his crucifixion, what has\nbecome of them? It is incredible that they should have dropped out of\nexistence and there be no history or tradition of it. It is incredible\nthat they should have been lost to churches having a continuous life,\nor that others should have been substituted for them, and there be no\ntrace of their disappearance or of a substitution. In the churches\nin every period, the old and the young were together. How, then, was\ndisplacement and substitution possible without protest? How was the loss\nof accepted memoirs possible, so long as there was a continued succession\nof teachers? Yet none have reached our time other than those which have\ncome to us through all the centuries as authentic writings of those whose\nnames they bear.\n\nBy the law of the \u201csurvival of the fittest,\u201d all other productions making\nany pretensions to such a character perished long ago, only fragments\nof them remain, and our four Gospels are in the churches. There is,\ntherefore, to begin with, the strongest presumption in their favor.\n\u201cIt is,\u201d says Professor Greenleaf,[2] \u201cfor the objector to show them\nspurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of\nproof.\u201d And from what has appeared it is plain that this \u201cburden\u201d is a\nvery heavy one.[3]\n\n[1] Renan\u2019s Life of Jesus, p. 35.\n\n[2] The Testimony of the Four Evangelists (p. 28, section 10), by Simon\nGreenleaf, LL.D., 1846. His standard work on evidence is in every\nlawyer\u2019s library.\n\n[3] See also _post_, c. 8.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPAPIAS AND JUSTIN MARTYR.\n\n\nThe fact of the early reception, by the churches, of Memoirs of Christ\ndeemed authentic, probable in itself without any proof, is conclusively\nproved by writings and to which reference has been made, particularly\nthose of Papias and Justin Martyr.\n\nPapias was bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first part of the\nsecond century of the Christian era. Though of moderate capacity, and\nentertaining extravagant ideas of the millennium, he was entirely honest,\nand there is no reason to question his testimony as to what he was told\nin respect to Matthew and Mark. He suffered martyrdom about A.D. 163.\nFrom fragments of his writings found in Eusebius and in the works of\nIren\u00e6us, it appears that \u201cJohn the Presbyter\u201d gave him information in\nrespect to the First and Second Gospels.\n\nThere is a difference of opinion as to whether this John was John\nthe Apostle. Eusebius held that he was not, and says that in his day\n(264-340) there were two tombs at Ephesus, both of which were called\nJohn\u2019s. The question of identity is not very material. Papias gives,\nin explanation, that he imagined that \u201cwhat was to be got from books\u201d\nconcerning the Lord, was not as profitable to him \u201cas what came from\nthe living and abiding voice.\u201d For this reason, he says, \u201cIf, then, any\none who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their\nsayings, what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by\nThomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the\nLord\u2019s disciples,[1] which things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the\ndisciples of the Lord, say.\u201d\n\nFrom this, it is plain there were then accredited \u201cbooks\u201d concerning\nour Lord. And two of these books are identified by his statement of\nwhat he was told by John the Presbyter, that \u201cMark, having become the\ninterpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of\nPeter\u2019s instructions,\u201d whom he accompanied (it was not, however, in exact\norder that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ), \u201cand Matthew put\ntogether the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted\nthem as best he could.\u201d These extracts prove that the First and Second\nGospels were extant, not only when Papias wrote, and when the Presbyter\ngave him the information, but also some time before. His informant, if\n_not_ John the Apostle, must have been one who had seen the Apostles or\nsome of them, so that the testimony is very direct.\n\nThat Papias does not mention Luke\u2019s Gospel, or John\u2019s Gospel, proves\nnothing except that he had no occasion to say anything about them, in\nthat connection. The Fourth Gospel may not have been _written_ at the\ntime of the interview with the Presbyter, for the Apostle John lived\nuntil about the year 100, and he wrote his Gospel very late in life. It\nis not quoted by Clement.\n\nAnd as to the Third Gospel, the occasion for the writing of it is\ndistinctly stated by the author himself, who was well known. And so of\nthe Fourth Gospel; its authorship modestly but clearly appears upon its\nface. We have mere fragments from Papias not exceeding two or three\nhundred lines all told. In some of his five books (almost the whole of\nwhich have been lost) there may have been references to both Luke and\nJohn. Eusebius[2] states that Papias made use of testimonials from the\nFirst Epistle of John; but as he does not say that Papias ascribed that\nEpistle to John, his use of it only proves that it was extant when he\nwrote. There is, however, a quotation in one of these fragments (v), \u201cIn\nmy Father\u2019s house are many mansions,\u201d which is literally as in John xiv.\n2, and so, presumptively, was taken from it. It is an interesting fact\nthat the only _quotations_ other than this, by Papias (if those in this\nfragment are indeed by him), are as in verses 25 to 28 of the 15th of\nFirst Corinthians, a chapter which will be found to have great weight in\nanother part of this discussion.\n\nPapias, therefore, probably[3] quotes the Fourth Gospel. But, without\nsuch quotation, no inference could be drawn against Luke or John from\nmere silence. Papias would still prove the First and Second Gospels,\nleaving the Third and Fourth to stand upon the presumption in their favor\nstated in our last chapter, and upon positive evidence from other sources.\n\n[1] The quotations from Papias are from Vol. I, of the Ante-Nicene\nChristian Library, translated by Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James\nDonaldson, LL.D.; and so in respect to any of the Apostolic Fathers. The\neditors say the words, \u201cWhich things, _etc._,\u201d are usually translated,\n\u201cWhat Aristion and John say,\u201d and that such translation is admissible,\nbut that they more naturally mean that John and Aristion, even at the\ntime of Justin\u2019s writing, were telling him of the sayings of the Lord.\n\n[2] Eusebius B. III., c. 39.\n\n[3] The editors call it \u201cmere guess-work\u201d (Ante-Nicene Christian Library,\nVol. I., p. 444, note). Eusebius makes no mention of it, though his\nsilence is not conclusive against it.\n\nThe question is of sufficient importance to warrant the giving of the\nentire passage from Iren\u00e6us in which the quotations appear. It is the\nlast of five short chapters of his work on Heresies. Certain passages\nare printed in italics, which the reader is specially asked to consider:\n\u201cAs the _presbyters_ say, then those who were deemed worthy of an abode\nin heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise,\nand others shall possess the splendor of the city, for everywhere the\nSaviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But\nthere is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce\nan hundred-fold, and those who produce sixty-fold, and who produce\nthirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second\nclass will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and\nthat on this account the Lord said, \u2018In my Father\u2019s house are many\nmansions;\u2019 for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable\ndwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by\nthe Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is\nthe couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the\nwedding. _The Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles_, say that this\nis the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they\nadvance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend\nthrough the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and\nthat in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it\nis said by the apostle, \u2018For He must reign till He hath put all enemies\nunder His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.\u2019 For in\nthe times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to\ndie. But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that\nHe is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things\nshall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject\nunto Him that put all things under Him, that the Son may be all in all.\u201d\nThere being no question of the genuineness of this passage from Iren\u00e6us,\nby whom were the quotations, found in it? Now while it is possible they\nwere by _Iren\u00e6us_, to illustrate what \u2018the Presbyters, the disciples of\nthe Apostles,\u2019 maintained, the more obvious and natural interpretation\nis, that they were cited by those Presbyters themselves. This being so,\nit is not of much consequence whether Iren\u00e6us had this information of\nthese views and citations, from Papias (from whom he had obtained like\ninformation upon other subjects as to the sayings of the Presbyters),\nor whether Iren\u00e6us had this information of their sayings from other\nsources. In either event the quotations were made _either_ by Papias,\nhis contemporaries, or predecessors, \u201cdisciples of the Apostles.\u201d And\nof this opinion are Charteris (Canonicity, c. 17, of the Introduction),\nand Routh, Tischendorf, Wescott, Dorner and Riggenback, as cited in\n\u201cSupernatural Religion\u201d p. 604.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE MEMOIRS INTENDED BY JUSTIN MARTYR.[1]\n\n\nGreat importance attaches to them in connection with other facts.\n\nThe date of Justin\u2019s birth is uncertain, being placed as early as A.D.\n85, and as late as A.D. 114; Rev. Mr. Wright says about A.D. 100. His\nmartyrdom was about A.D. 165. His father and grandfather were probably\nof Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity, he studied in\nthe schools of the philosophers, but after that he became an Evangelist,\nand a vigorous writer in defence of the Christian faith. It is probable\nthat he travelled much. He was not the first that wrote an Apology for\nChristians, but his are the earliest extant. Besides these, he wrote\na much larger work (the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew), a work on the\nresurrection, and some others; and by some, he has been regarded as the\nauthor of the Pastor Hermas. His first and principal Apology, of the\nprobable date of A.D. 138-9, was addressed as follows:\n\n    \u201cTo the Emperor Titus \u00c6lius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus\n    C\u00e6sar, and to his son Verissimus, the philosopher, and to\n    Lucius, the philosopher, the natural son of C\u00e6sar, and the\n    adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the Sacred\n    Senate, with the whole people of the Romans, I, Justin, the son\n    of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, native of Flavia Neapolis\n    in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf\n    of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly\n    abused, myself being one of them.\u201d\n\nThose to whom this formal address was made, would not be expected to know\nanything about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; but it was otherwise, in\nrespect to the Old Testament, for Jewish synagogues were in every city,\nand the Septuagint had been known for three hundred years.\n\nIn this Apology he explains some of the teachings of our Lord, and the\nusages of his disciples; and in respect to the last, are these passages:\n\n    \u201cFor the Apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are\n    called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined\n    upon them; that Jesus took bread and when he had given thanks\n    said, \u2018This do ye in remembrance of me, this is my body;\u2019 and\n    that, after the same manner having taken the cup and given\n    thanks, he said, \u2018This is my blood;\u2019 and he gave it to them\n    alone.\u201d... \u201cAnd we afterwards continually remind each other\n    of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and\n    we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are\n    supplied, we bless the Maker of all, through his Son Jesus\n    Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called\n    Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather\n    together to one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles or the\n    writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits;\n    then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally\n    instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.\n    Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when\n    our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and\n    the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings\n    according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;\n    and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of\n    that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are\n    absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are\n    well-to-do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what\n    is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the\n    orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any\n    other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the\n    strangers sojourning among us, and in a word, takes care of\n    all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all\n    hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which\n    God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made\n    the world; and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose\n    from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of\n    Saturn (Saturday): and on the day after that of Saturn, which\n    is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and\n    disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted\n    to you also for your consideration.\u201d\n\nThis passage is a part of chapter sixty-six, and the whole of chapter\nsixty-seven.\n\nThe great question is, What were these \u201cMemoirs of the Apostles,\u201d which\nwere thus read with the writings of the Prophets? It is a question of\ninterpretation.\n\nBy the rule adopted in courts, these words are to be construed with the\ncontext, and in connection with other writings of Justin in relation\nto the same subject, and also in the light of all the surrounding\ncircumstances.\n\nThese precise terms are first used in chapter sixty-seven. The same\nMemoirs, evidently, in chapter sixty-six, are described as Memoirs\n\u201ccomposed\u201d by the Apostles. They are not again referred to in this\nApology. They are referred to several times in the Dialogue, chapters one\nhundred to one hundred and eight, by the following terms: The Memoirs of\nHis Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs of His Apostles;\nThe Memoirs of the Apostles; _For in the Memoirs which I say were drawn\nup by his Apostles and those who followed them_; The Memoirs of His\nApostles; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs; The Memoirs of the\nApostles; The Memoirs of Him; The Memoirs of His Apostles; The Memoirs.\nFour times he calls them The Memoirs; three times The Memoirs of the\nApostles; five times The Memoirs of His Apostles; and once, The Memoirs\nof Him, _i. e._, Christ, as Roberts and Donaldson interpret it,[2] and as\nthe context and the whole scope indicate.\n\nIt is plain that the same \u201cMemoirs\u201d are intended throughout, under these\nvarious terms.\n\nIn chapter eighty-eight of the Dialogue, in mentioning the descent of the\nHoly Ghost upon Jesus at his baptism, Justin says that when he came out\nof the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, as \u201cthe Apostle\nof this very Christ of ours wrote.\u201d The incident is mentioned in all four\nof the Gospels.\n\nBut for his explanation elsewhere, it would be inferred that _all_ the\n\u201cMemoirs\u201d were \u201ccomposed\u201d by the Apostles. But he carefully explains his\nmeaning, so that the \u201cMemoirs,\u201d or some of them, may have been \u201cdrawn up\u201d\neither by the Apostles, or by those who followed them.\n\nIt is obvious that these Memoirs were not biographies or sketches by\nunknown or irresponsible persons, but writings well understood by the\nChurches to have been \u201ccomposed\u201d or \u201cdrawn up\u201d by the Apostles, or with\ntheir approval.\n\nAs Mark was understood to be Peter\u2019s interpreter, so Luke was understood\nto have been Paul\u2019s companion, and to have written under his sanction.\nAnd Paul was an Apostle, although not one of the twelve.\n\nJustin had informed the Roman Emperor[3] of the Apostles, and he gave\nlike information to Trypho.[3] He meant that all who should read should\nknow that what he gave of the life and teachings of Christ was not from\nirresponsible sources, but from writings expressly sanctioned, if not\nactually written, by those whom Christ had selected as witnesses.\n\nThese Memoirs, therefore, were doubtless understood _by Justin, and by\nthe church in general_, in city and country, to have been the productions\nof Apostles or their companions. They were read the same as the Prophets,\nand placed upon the same footing. Justin, in writing to Trypho, speaks of\nhaving believed GOD\u2019S VOICE SPOKEN BY THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST.\n\nAnd since, in speaking of their actual composition, he uses the plural,\n\u201cApostles,\u201d we should look for two or more Memoirs, \u201cdrawn up,\u201d by\nApostles.\n\nNow what were these Memoirs? What writings will answer the description?\nMatthew[4] and Mark will, according to what the Presbyter said of them.\nWere there any others? There should be one more at least, that was\nwritten by an Apostle, else wherefore, the _plural_? The four Gospels\nthat have come down to us, answer the description in every particular. To\nuse a legal phrase,\u2014\u201cFrom the time whereof the memory of man runneth not\nto the contrary,\u201d two of them have been accepted in the Church as having\nbeen composed by Apostles, and two, by companions of Apostles.\n\nUnless it can be shown that when Justin wrote, there were _other_ Memoirs\nof Christ _that will answer to his description_, our four Gospels and no\nothers were intended. _Were_ there any besides these?\n\n[1] The quotations from Justin Martyr are from Vol. II. of the\nAnte-Nicene Christian Library, edited by Roberts and Donaldson.\n\n[2] See _post_, c. 7, note 14.\n\n[3] \u201cFor from Jerusalem there went out into the world men, twelve in\nnumber, ... who proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by\nChrist to teach all the word of God\u201d (Ap. c. 39). \u201cAnd by those things\nwhich were published in his name among all nations by the Apostles\u201d\n(_ibid._ c. 42). \u201cHis Apostles going forth from Jerusalem preached\neverywhere\u201d (_ibid._ c. 45.) \u201cAnd further there was a certain man with us\nwhose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ\u201d (Dia. c. 81). \u201cFor\nas he (Abraham) believed the voice of God, and it was imputed to him for\nrighteousness, in like manner we, having believed God\u2019s voice spoken\nby the Apostles of Christ, and promulgated to us by the prophets, have\nrenounced even to death all the things of the world\u201d (_ibid._ c. 119).\n\n[4] The writer of Barnabas, in quoting as in Matthew xx. 16, had used\nthe authoritative Latin formula (_it is written_) for quotations from\nScripture, as follows: \u201cLet us beware lest we be found, as it is written,\n\u2018Many are called but few are chosen\u2019\u201d (_Ep. of Bar._ c. 4).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nQUOTATIONS AND CITATIONS.\n\n\nThe _apparent_ or seeming use of our Gospels by Justin and his\ncontemporaries is a fact of great weight in determining whether they are\nthe \u201cMemoirs\u201d referred to by him.\n\nAccording to the Indexes of Texts by the learned editors of the\nAnte-Nicene Christian Library, John\u2019s Gospel is quoted or cited, twice in\nBarnabas, once in Diognetus, twice in Hermas, once by Justin, and once\nby Papias. Mark is quoted or cited, once in Barnabas, twice by Clement,\nthree times by Justin, and once by Polycarp: Acts is quoted or cited once\nin Barnabas, once by Clement, once by Justin, and four times by Polycarp:\nLuke is quoted or cited three times in Barnabas, three times by Clement,\nonce in Hermas, fourteen times by Justin, and twice by Polycarp: and\nMatthew is quoted or cited six times in Barnabas, five times by Clement,\ntwice in Diognetus, nine times in Hermas, forty-seven times by Justin,\nand seven times by Polycarp.\n\nAs to _citations_, passages deemed such by one, may have been overlooked\nor regarded differently by another, so that there is not an entire\nagreement as to the number of citations, _i. e._ of allusions or\nreferences that are not quotations. And it should be understood that in\nthe _quotations_, the books from which they are taken are not stated,\nexcept that Justin indicates that _his_, in general, are from the\n\u201cMemoirs.\u201d Their agreement with our Gospels is sometimes literally exact,\nquite often it is otherwise; and not unfrequently two or three passages\nare seemingly blended, as if the author were quoting from memory and\ngiving the sense, merely.\n\nIt will be sufficient for the purposes of the argument to give examples\n(except as to the Fourth Gospel) only from Justin, and to omit _his_\nquotations from Matthew and Mark, since they are so numerous and not a\nfew of them of considerable length. Of his references, Rev. Mr. Wright\nsays[1]: \u201cUpon examination it is found that of the one hundred and twenty\nor more allusions which Justin makes to the Gospel history, nearly all\ncoincide as to substance with the statements of either Matthew or Luke.\nOf the sixty or seventy apparently direct quotations, ten are exact,\ntwenty-five are only slightly variant, while there are thirty-two in\nwhich the variation is considerable. But in respect to variations from\nthe original in quotation, it should be remembered that familiarity often\nleads to carelessness with regard to minute points. Justin, himself, out\nof one hundred and sixty-two quotations from the Old Testament, has only\nsixty-four exact, while forty-four are slightly variant, and fifty-four\ndecidedly so.\u201d\n\nIf the reader, with the New Testament in hand, will make a comparison in\nthe examples which will be given, he can form his own judgment, which it\nis conceived, will be no doubtful one. The substantial agreement is very\nstriking even when the language is not identical.\n\nJUSTIN FROM ACTS.\n\n    \u201cHe was taken up into heaven while they beheld.\u201d (Res., c. 9.)\n    Acts i. 9.\n\nFROM MARK.\n\n    \u201cBut is it not absurd to say that these members will exist\n    after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said,\n    \u2018They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be as\n    the angels in heaven.\u2019\u201d (Res., c. 2.) Mark xi. 25.\n\n    \u201cAnd that we ought to worship God alone, he thus persuadeth us:\n    \u2018The greatest commandment is, \u201cThou shalt worship the Lord thy\n    God, and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart, and with\n    all thy strength the Lord God that made thee.\u201d\u2019\u201d (Ap. c. 16.)\n    Mark xii. 30.\n\n    \u201cHe says, \u2018I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to\n    repentance.\u2019\u201d (Res., c. 8.) Mark ii. 17.\n\nFROM LUKE.\n\n    The first three are parts of long quotations from the Sermon on\n    the Mount, principally as in Matthew (Ap. cc. 15, 16) Luke vi.:\n    28, 29, and Matthew vi.: 7, 8, 13.\n\n    4. \u201cWe are persuaded that every man ... will render account\n    according to the power he has received from God, as Christ\n    intimated when he said, \u2018To whom God has given more, of him\n    shall more be required.\u2019\u201d (Ap. c. 17.) Luke xv. 48.\n\n    5. \u201cAnd the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at\n    that time brought her good news, saying, \u2018Behold, thou shalt\n    conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shall bear a son, and he shall\n    be called the Son of the Highest. And thou shalt call his name\n    Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,\u2019 _as\n    they who have recorded[2] all that concerns our Saviour Jesus\n    Christ have taught_, whom we believe since by Isaiah also, whom\n    we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that he\n    should be born as we intimated before.\u201d (Ap. c. 33.) Luke i.\n    32, and Matthew i. 21.\n\n    6. \u201cAs our Lord himself says, \u2018He that heareth me, heareth him\n    that sent me.\u2019\u201d (Ap. c. 63.) Luke x. 16.\n\n    7. \u201cAnd again in other words he said, \u2018I give unto you power to\n    tread on serpents, and on scorpions and on scolopendras, and on\n    all the might of the enemy.\u2019\u201d (Dial. c. 76.) Luke x. 19.\n\n    8. \u201cFor he exclaimed before his crucifixion: \u2018The Son of Man\n    must suffer many things, and be rejected by the scribes and\n    pharisees and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.\u2019\u201d\n    (Dial. c. 76.) Luke ix. 22.\n\n    9. \u201cJust as our Lord also said: \u2018They shall neither marry nor\n    be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the\n    children of the God of the resurrection.\u2019\u201d (Dial. c. 81.) Luke\n    xx. 35, 36.\n\n    10. \u201cFor he taught us to pray for our enemies also, saying,\n    \u2018Love your enemies; be kind and merciful as your heavenly\n    Father\u2019 is, for we see that the Almighty God is kind and\n    merciful, causing his sun to rise on the unthankful and on the\n    righteous, and sending rain on the holy and on the wicked.\u201d\n    (Dial. c. 96.) Luke vi. 35, and Matthew v. 45.\n\n    11. \u201cBut the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel\n    Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of\n    the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Highest would\n    overshadow her; wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her\n    is the Son of God; and she replied, \u2018Be it unto me according to\n    thy word.\u2019\u201d (Dial. c. 100.) Luke i. 35, 38.\n\n    12. \u201cFor when Christ was giving up his spirit on the cross he\n    said: \u2018Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit,\u2019 _as I have\n    learned also from the Memoirs_.\u201d (Dial. c. 105.) Luke xxiii. 46.\n\n    13. \u201cHe says, \u2018The children of this world marry and are given\n    in marriage; but the children of the world to come neither\n    marry nor are given in marriage, but shall be like the angels\n    in heaven.\u2019\u201d (Res., c. 3.) Luke xx. 34, 35.\n\n    14. \u201cAnd wishing to confirm this, when his disciples did not\n    know whether to believe he had truly risen in the body, and\n    were looking upon him and doubting, he said to them, \u2018Ye have\n    not yet faith, see that it is I,\u2019 and he let them handle him,\n    and showed them the prints of the nails in his hands. And when\n    they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was himself\n    and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, that they\n    might thus still more accurately ascertain that he had in\n    verity risen bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish. And\n    when he had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection\n    of the flesh, and wishing to show them this also, that it is\n    not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as he had said\n    that our dwelling place is in heaven). \u2018He was taken up into\n    heaven while they beheld,\u2019 as he was in the flesh.\u201d (Res., c.\n    9.) Luke xxiv. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and Acts i. 9.\n\nBefore presenting Justin, from the Fourth Gospel, the use of this Gospel\nby his contemporaries will be considered.\n\nIn _Barnabas_ (c. 6) it is said that \u201cHe was to be manifested in flesh\nand to sojourn among us.\u201d (Com. John i. 14.) It is also said in c. 12,\nin effect, that the brazen serpent was a type of Jesus. (Com. John iii.\n14-18.) Another passage in c. 7, although not cited by the editors, is,\n\u201cBecause they shall see him then in that day having a scarlet robe about\nhis body down to his feet; and they shall say, \u2018is not this he whom we\nonce despised and _pierced_ and mocked and crucified?\u2019\u201d This _may_ have\nhad reference to what is recorded only in John, as Apollinaris,[3]\nbishop of Hierapolis (_cir._ A.D. 170), afterward wrote: \u201cThe Son of God,\n_pierced_ in the sacred side, who shed forth from his side the two things\nagain cleansing, water and blood, word and spirit.\u201d\n\nIn _Diognetus_, c. 6, it is said that \u201cChristians dwell in the world yet\nare not of the world.\u201d (Com. John xvii. 11, 14, 16.) In c. 11 it is said,\n\u201cThis is he who was from the beginning\u201d (Com. John i. 1); and in the same\nchapter, \u201cFor who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word,\nwould not seek to know accurately the things which have been clearly\nshown by the Word to his disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has\nrevealed them.\u201d (Com. John i. 14, 18.) There is but a single _quotation_\nin this eloquent Letter, which is as in First Corinthians viii. 1,\n\u201cKnowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.\u201d\n\nJohn alone speaks of Christ as the _door_, but the figure is often used\nin _Hermas_, as, \u201cYou saw, he added, the multitude who were building the\ntower? I saw them, sir, I said. Those, he said, are all glorious angels,\nand by them accordingly is the Lord surrounded. And the gate is the Son\nof God. This is the one entrance to the Lord. In no other way, then,\nshall any one enter into him except through his Son.\u201d (Simil. ix. 12.)\nJohn x. This book of Hermas is an allegory in which an angel, in the\nguise of a shepherd, gives instruction in the doctrines and duties that\nwere held and required by the Church. It has not a single _quotation_\nfrom either the Old or New Testament. But as Dr. Chartris in \u201cCanonicity\u201d\n(p. 137) well says: \u201cThe dignity, mission, and sufferings of God\u2019s Son\nare prominent in Hermas\u2019 teaching, and remind us of the Fourth Gospel at\nevery turn.\u201d\n\nThe supposed quotation by Papias, Fragment 5 (found in Iren\u00e6us), \u201cIn\nmy Father\u2019s house are many mansions,\u201d has been given in a previous\nchapter.[A]\n\n_Basilides_, according to Hippolytus, used as proof-texts the exact\npassages found in John i. 9 and John ii. 4. Hippolytus first records the\ncomments of Basilides on the sentence in Genesis, _Let there be light_,\nand then proceeds as follows: \u201cAnd this, he says, is what is said in the\nGospels, \u2018The true light which lighteth every man which cometh into the\nworld.\u2019 And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, the Saviour is\na sufficient witness when he says, \u2018My hour is not yet come.\u2019\u201d Those who\ndeny that these quotations[4] were by Basilides, claim that Hippolytus\nsometimes mixes up the opinions of the master of a school with those of\nhis followers, and so it is not certain that Basilides used these texts.\nThe learned author of \u201cCanonicity,\u201d recently published, p. 173, declares\nthat the difficulties in the way of ascribing those quotations to any\nother than Basilides, are \u201cenormous.\u201d The reasoning of Matthew Arnold\n(who is quite far from being rigidly orthodox) is so conclusive that we\ngive the substance of it: \u201cIf we take all the doubtful cases of the kind\nand compare them with our present case, we shall find that it is not\none of them. It is not true that here where the name of Basilides has\njust come before, and where no mention of his son or of his disciples\nhas intervened since, there is any such ambiguity as is found in other\ncases.... The author in general uses the formula, _according to them_,\nwhen he quotes from the school, and the formula, _he says_, when he\ngives the dicta of the Master. And in this particular case he manifestly\nquotes the dicta of Basilides, and no one who had not a theory to serve\nwould ever dream of doubting it. Basilides, therefore, about the year one\nhundred and twenty-five of our own era, had before him the Fourth Gospel.\u201d\n\n_The Epistles of Ignatius_, whether the longer or shorter or Syriac, may\nbe of too doubtful genuineness, or rather, the extent as to which they\nare genuine is too doubtful to be relied upon, although some of them\ncontain numerous quotations.\n\n[1] The Logic of Christian Evidences. By G. Frederick Wright, Andover,\nA.D. 1880, p. 190.\n\n[2] Or, as Dr. Abbott translated it, as \u201cthose who have written Memoirs\nof all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom we believe,\u201d etc.\nFourth Gospel, p. 21.\n\n[3] As quoted (p. 43) in The Supernatural Origin of Christianity. By\nGeorge P. Fisher, Professor of Church History in Yale College (A.D. 1870).\n\n[A] Chap. 3.\n\n[4] Judge Waite does not even refer to these quotations except to quote\nfrom Dr. Davidson in respect to Basilides in general, that \u201cHis supposed\nquotations from the New Testament in Hippolytus are too precarious to be\ntrusted.\u201d He does not seem to have known anything of Professors Arnold\nand Fisher, or Dr. Abbot, not to mention other very _respectable_ writers\nwithin the last ten years, who have regarded the use of the Fourth Gospel\nby Basilides as sufficiently attested.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nJUSTIN\u2019S USE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\n\nChrist\u2019s pre-existence, not declared in the other Gospels, is frequently\nreferred to by Justin.[1] John alone calls Jesus the Word; Justin often\nrefers to him as such. Justin regards the elevation of the brazen serpent\nin the wilderness as typical[2] of the crucifixion. He says it denoted\nsalvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his crucified\nson into the world; the idea of God\u2019s sending his Son into the world\nis peculiar to John. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a\ndove, at the baptism of Jesus, is mentioned only in the First and Fourth\nGospels. Justin (Dial. c. 88) says that when Jesus \u201ccame out of the\nwater, the Holy Ghost lighted on him like a dove, _as the Apostles of\nthis very Christ of ours wrote_.\u201d Justin (Dial. c. 88) cites, as the\nwords of John the Baptist, \u201cI am not the Christ, but the voice of one\ncrying.\u201d\n\nThis declaration, \u201cI am not the Christ,\u201d and this application to himself\nof the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the Baptist only in John\n(John i. 20, 23, and iii. 28). Hilgenfeld, the latest representative of\nthe T\u00fcbingen skeptical school, recognizes[3] here the use of the Fourth\nGospel by Justin. And Dr. Ezra Abbot, following Professor Drummond, gives\ntwenty[4] instances (including the express quotation) of the apparent or\nseeming use of this Gospel by Justin.\n\n_The express quotation_ as in John iii. 3, 5, is as follows: \u201cFor Christ\nalso said, \u2018Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom\nof heaven.\u2019 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born\nto enter into their mothers\u2019 womb is manifest to all.\u201d (Ap. c. 61.) This\nis as translated in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Dr. Abbot (p. 29)\ntranslates it \u201cExcept ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven.\u201d Matthew Arnold, \u201cExcept ye be born again ye shall\nnot enter into the kingdom of heaven.\u201d Our common version is, \u201cExcept\na man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;\u201d and in verse\n5, \u201cExcept a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into\nthe kingdom of God.\u201d The revised version, \u201cExcept a man be born anew,\u201d\nor \u201cfrom above\u201d (margin), \u201che cannot see the kingdom of God.\u201d There\nis a _substantial_ agreement in the quotation with John\u2019s Gospel, and\nunmistakable reference to the interview with Nicodemus, which is found\nonly in John. The most _rational_ inference is that it was from that\nsource.\n\nJustin, in this quotation, was as definite as when (Ap. c. 32) he wrote:\n\u201cMoses then, who was the first of the prophets, spake in these very\nwords, \u2018The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from\nbetween his feet, until he come for whom it is reserved; and he shall be\nthe desire of the nations, binding his foal to the vine, washing his robe\nin the blood of the grape.\u2019\u201d (Com. Gen. xlix. 10, 11.) He does not state\n_where_ the passage is to be found, and its divergence from Genesis is\ngreater than the difference in the language of Jesus, as quoted by Justin\nand recorded by John.\n\nJustin, in quoting from the Old Testament, usually gives the _name_ of\nthe prophet, _but nothing more_; just as he gives this quotation as the\nlanguage of Christ. He writes _Moses said_, or _Isaiah said_, and he also\nwrites _Christ said_.\n\nThe other Apostolic Fathers, in their quotations from the Old Testament,\ndo not usually give the name of the prophet, but only, \u201cIt is written,\u201d\n\u201cGod said,\u201d \u201cThe Spirit saith,\u201d \u201cThe Scripture saith,\u201d and often only\n\u201csaith,\u201d \u201cThe Scripture\u201d in such cases being implied. And, as a rule,\nthey do not quote with literal accuracy or a near approximation to it.\n\nIt has been objected, that if this quotation was actually from the Fourth\nGospel, more than a single quotation from it should be expected. Let this\nbe tested by the four epistles confessed to be genuine. There is not a\nsingle quotation by Justin from _either_ of these acknowledged epistles,\nand it is doubtful if there is a single reference to them, certainly not\nin his Apology.\n\nNor is this all. The epistle to the Galatians (and Renan says, \u201cThanks to\nthe Epistle to the Galatians!\u201d) is not referred to in any way by Clement,\nor in Barnabas, or Hermas; nor First Corinthians in Barnabas or Hermas\n(and but once in Diognetus); nor Romans in Hermas; nor Revelation in\nBarnabas, or Diognetus, or Polycarp, and but once by Clement.\n\nTo account for Justin\u2019s silence, it has been imagined, without the\nslightest evidence, that Justin was \u201canti-Pauline.\u201d But how are the\nomissions by other writers to be accounted for? How did it happen that\nClement made no reference to Galatians? It was not from hostility,\ncertainly, for he speaks of \u201cThe blessed Apostle Paul.\u201d Yet writing\nthis epistle from the church at Rome, to the church at Corinth, he has\nbut a single quotation from Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Romans, and but a\nsingle quotation from Paul\u2019s First Epistle to the Corinthians, and _no_\nreference to Galatians.\n\nThe well-known distinction of everyday application in courts of law and\nelsewhere, between positive and negative evidence, is to be kept in mind.\nWhether John\u2019s Gospel would be quoted by any writer acquainted with it,\nmight depend entirely upon his object in writing; and so of Galatians, or\nany of the books of the New Testament. While a single undoubted quotation\nproves the existence of that which is quoted from, non-quotation may\nprove nothing at all.\n\nJustin apparently has one quotation from the Fourth Gospel, with many\nimplied references to it. But if there were neither the one nor the\nother, to infer his ignorance of that Gospel from his silence would be\njust as sensible as to infer that a lawyer had never heard of Blackstone,\nor Kent, or Story, because he has not quoted from them.\n\nIf Justin in his Apology quoted once from Mark, and once from John, and\nnot at all from Acts, or Revelations, or Paul\u2019s Epistles, it was because\nhis subject did not call for any use of those writings, beyond the use\nwhich he made of Mark and John. And if (as was apparently the fact) he\nquoted Luke six times and Matthew eighteen times in his Apology, it was\ndoubtless because Matthew better served his purpose, or was more firmly\nfixed in his memory, from his having been born in Palestine, where\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel was published.\n\nA like explanation accounts for the fact that the Fourth Gospel is not\nquoted by Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians. Neither does he\nquote or cite from Revelations.\n\nThe result so far is this: The Fourth Gospel, apparently, is quoted by\nBasilides, and Justin, and Papias; and, in addition, there are many\nimplied references to it. There is about the same amount of evidence in\nrespect to Mark and the book of Acts. The evidence accumulates as to\nLuke\u2019s Gospel, and from Matthew, the quotations and citations become very\nnumerous.\n\nThat these quotations and citations were forgeries is an idea that cannot\nbe seriously entertained by anybody. There were originals from which\nthe quotations were taken; and presumptively, those originals were the\n\u201cMemoirs\u201d so often referred to by Justin; and _presumptively_ our Gospels\nwere those _Memoirs_, since they answer the description. And unless it\ncan be shown that _other_ writings _that will answer the description_\nwere then extant, this presumption is well nigh conclusive.\n\n[1] Ap. cc. 5, 23, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 68, 76, 85, 100,\n101.\n\n[2] Ap. c. 60: Dial. cc. 7, 94, 140.\n\n[3] Abbot, p. 45; Fisher, p. 39; Sears, \u201cThe Heart of Christ\u201d (A.D.\n1873), pp. 46-67.\n\n[4] Abbot, pp. 40-50.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nNO OTHERS PROVED.\n\n\nThe latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our\nGospels, is \u201cThe History of the Christian religion to the year two\nhundred.\u201d (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an\ninvestigation extending through several years, two of which were spent\nin the library of congress, \u201cwhich is peculiarly rich in the department\nof biblical literature.\u201d He claims that his volume \u201cwill be found to\nbe the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian\nreligion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented\nto the public.\u201d He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as\nstrong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the\nissue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, \u201cis\nof the highest importance.\u201d In this work, then, if anywhere, should\nthere be proof of _other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the\nrequirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of \u201c_forty\nGospels_,\u201d before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel\nis that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant\nApocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol.\nXVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1]\nDr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term \u201cGospel\u201d was\nin ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer\u2019s\nview of the Gospel, _i. e._, of the doctrine of Christ, or among the\nGnostics, which set forth their _gnosis_; _e. g._, among the followers\nof Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, \u201cThe Gospel is the knowledge of\nsupermundane things.\u201d Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss,\nthe well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary,\nwrites:[2]\u2014\n\n    \u201cI shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the\n    Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate,\n    etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted\n    by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical\n    Gospels.\u201d ... \u201cA knowledge of the original sources and the\n    literature of the subject would have saved him from this\n    pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius\u2019 article\n    on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace\u2019s Dictionary of\n    Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, _seq._;\n    and Holtzmann\u2019s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel\u2019s\n    Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 _seq._ As\n    neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who\n    have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated\n    to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or\n    disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer\u2019s Conversations-Lexikon\n    says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most\n    eminent scholars in Germany.\u201d (See note 2.)\n\nWith this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much\ntime should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation\nis given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by\nJustin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any\n_single_ passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages,\nwhich would be in keeping with Justin\u2019s mode. It corresponds quite\nnearly, though not precisely, with a _part_[3] of the description in the\nProtevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the\nuse of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin\u2019s\nApology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation,\nthere are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons,\nto have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. _One_ is, that Jesus made\nploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that\nit was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes.\n_Another_ is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], \u201cIt\nis not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our\nSaviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting\nof one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle\nwere kept.\u201d Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance\nwell known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence\nto mention, that the manger was in a cave, _i. e._, that the stable in\nwhich was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books\nfor such a fact. _Another_ is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to\n\u201cActs of Pilate\u201d as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning\nChrist\u2019s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According\nto the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion.\nIt is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin\nappeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether\nhe was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he\nappeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the \u201cMemoirs\u201d\nof Christ, \u201cdrawn up\u201d by an Apostle, or a \u201ccompanion\u201d of an Apostle.\nNothing purporting to be Pilate\u2019s report is extant. The Apocryphal book,\nknown as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to\ncontain[5] any such report. _Another_ is, that Justin says that Christ\nwas of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6]\nand which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in\nrespect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to the\n_census_. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it\nwas only to be taken in Judea.[7] But Justin does not so state. It also\nhappens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium\nonly says, \u201cAnd there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all\nin Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,\u201d saying nothing of Cyrenius.\nThis is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the\nway. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the\nnote.[8] Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not\nexclude the idea that it was more general.\n\nJudge Waite, following the anonymous author of \u201cThe Supernatural,\u201d and\nothers, also claims that Justin\u2019s statement that at the baptism of Jesus\n\u201ca _fire_ was kindled in the Jordan,\u201d must have been taken either from\nthe \u201cGospel of the Hebrews,\u201d or the \u201cPreaching of Paul.\u201d As to the former\n(as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that,\n\u201ccertainly there shone around the place a great _light_,\u201d which is not\nwhat Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this \u201cGospel\nof the Hebrews\u201d was in existence (other than as Matthew\u2019s Gospel was in\nexistence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was\nin use, at _any_ period, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing\nsect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical\nsects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly\nshow that it was never in _general_ use, or accepted by the churches\ngenerally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome\u2019s translation of it, has\nbeen in existence _for centuries_. From what is known of it, it seems\nto have been[9] the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, \u201cnot entire and perfect,\nbut corrupted and curtailed.\u201d It omitted the first two chapters. Some\nof the corruptions show its true character[10] so far as it varied from\nMatthew\u2019s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally\nbelieved, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect.\n\n\u201cThe Preaching of Paul\u201d was less known, and even of less account,\nthan the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it \u201cwas referred to by\nLactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.\u201d\nBut he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325.\nAs to its contents, Judge Waite only says that \u201cIt contained references\nto the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of\nthe baptism of Jesus.\u201d There is no good reason to suppose that it was\n_extant_ when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by\nthe churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of\nit, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): \u201cAmong\nthe spurious, must be numbered both the books called \u2018The Acts of Paul,\u2019\nand that called \u2018Pastor,\u2019 and \u2018The Revelation of Peter.\u2019\u201d\n\nEusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the\n\u201cGospel according to Peter.\u201d That this \u201cGospel\u201d was referred to by\nJustin in the passage before considered (_vide_ c. 4), is the fact _to\nbe proved_. The first _mention_ of it, was by Serapion[11], who became\nBishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found\na few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting\nMark\u2019s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it \u201cmany things\nsuperadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached,\nthat are foreign to it.\u201d This _bishop_ seems to have had no knowledge of\nits existence till that time. It favored the Docet\u00e6, from some of whom it\nhad come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it,\nand intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood\nto have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon\nbut another perversion of Tertullian\u2019s meaning. The passage relied upon\nis here given with such words in italics as must be _supplied_ to warrant\nthe use which has been attempted to be made of it: \u201cThe Gospel which\nMark published is affirmed to be\u201d _what is known as_ \u201cPeter\u2019s\u201d _Gospel_,\n\u201cwhose interpreter Mark was.\u201d This forced construction, would make Mark\nthe interpreter, _not_ of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time\nknown by some as _Peter\u2019s Gospel_. Not Strauss himself, nor even the\nauthor of \u201cThe Supernatural,\u201d so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian\nwrote was, that \u201cThe Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be\nPeter\u2019s; whose interpreter Mark was.\u201d Marcion mutilated Luke\u2019s Gospel,\nand Judge Waite says, \u201cTertullian called him _a hound_.\u201d If any one in\nhis day had perverted his language as to Mark\u2019s Gospel, so as to make it\nendorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian)\nsuppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have\nused a _less_ expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion.\nTertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed,\nthat Mark was Peter\u2019s _interpreter_, and in _that_ sense Mark\u2019s Gospel\nwas Peter\u2019s Gospel.\n\nThe next writer referred to for \u201cPeter\u2019s Gospel\u201d is Origen, A.D. 230.\nOrigen says: \u201cThere are some who say the brethren of Christ were the\nchildren of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary;\nand they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that _which\nis entitled_ (the italics are ours) \u2018The Gospel of Peter, or the Book\nof James.\u2019\u201d When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms,\ndeclares that our four Gospels \u201care the only undisputed ones in the whole\nChurch of God throughout the world,\u201d and that of these, \u201cthe second is\naccording to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he\nalso acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,\u201d the perversion of\nhis language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, \u201cis\nentitled to great weight,\u201d upon a careful examination of the subject,\nbelieves that this \u201cGospel\u201d was not a history or biography of Christ\u2019s\nministry at all, but only a _doctrinal_[12] treatise. _Not a single\nfragment of it has come down to us._ There is no evidence from any\nquarter that it was _generally_ received in the churches _at any_ period;\non the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not\nso received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and\nneither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites.\nIts very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to\nimpeach Eusebius\u2019 judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was\neven in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found\nby Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. _Hence_, if Justin,\nin the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by \u201c_him_\u201d meant Peter,\ninstead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which\nin a sense was understood to be Peter\u2019s, was the one intended; and the\ntrue construction of the words in question is of minor importance.\n\nJudge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to find\n_other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the\ncase. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany,\nsays,[15] \u201cThe attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine\nHomilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either\nin the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has\naltogether failed.\u201d Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra\nAbbot of Harvard College (who has already \u201ca distinguished Continental\nreputation\u201d), states,[16] after a thorough examination of the whole\nsubject, as some of the results: \u201cWe have seen that there is no _direct_\nevidence of any weight that Justin used either the \u2018Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews\u2019 (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according\nto Matthew) or the \u2018Gospel according to Peter.\u2019 That he should have\ntaken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of\nthese constituted the \u2018Memoirs\u2019 read generally at public worship in the\nChristian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.\u201d...\n\u201cStill less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other\nApocryphal \u2018Gospel\u2019 of which we know anything, constituted the \u2018Memoirs,\u2019\nwhich he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if\nthey were several.\u201d\n\nMr. Rowe\u2019s[17] judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but\nnot recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which _are_ recorded, in the\nproportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words,\nthat all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the\nGospels. \u201cIt is marvellous,\u201d he says, \u201cwhen we consider the nearness\nof the time when Justin lived to our Lord\u2019s ministry, that he should\nhave preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in\nour Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should\npresent the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which\ntraditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.\u201d\n\n[1] P. 16 of \u201cAuthorship of the Fourth Gospel,\u201d etc. (1880).\n\n[2] The _Daily Inter-Ocean_ of Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, \u201cThe\nAuthorship,\u201d p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by\nGeorge P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College\n(1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.\n\n[3] \u201cAnd the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time,\nbrought her the good news, saying, \u2018Behold thou shalt conceive of the\nHoly Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the\nHighest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people\nfrom their sins.\u2019\u201d After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as\nfollows: \u201cWherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, \u2018Thou shalt\ncall his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.\u2019\u201d\nThe last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin.\nThe Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: \u201cAnd she hearing, reasoned\nwith herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And\nshall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the\nLord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow\nthee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall\nbe called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus,\nfor he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the\nservant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to\nthy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the\npriest,\u201d etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to\nher lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that\nwhen the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with\nwater. It is not easy to believe that Justin\u2019s simple narrative came from\nsuch a source.\n\n[4] The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a\nmissionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.\n\n[5] The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and\ncrucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before\nPilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge\nWaite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the\nGospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been\nthe earlier one, _because_ of its brevity, and because it does not\ninclude _all_ the miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea\nof the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or\nthe compendium, the history.\n\n[6] Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1;\nxl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.\n\n[7] Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp.\n18-19.\n\n[8] Apology, c. 34. \u201cNow there is a village in the land of the Jews,\nthirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you\ncan ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius,\nyour first procurator in Judea.\u201d Dial. c. 78. \u201cThen he was afraid and\ndid not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was\ntaken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to\nBethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of\nthe tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.\u201d Joseph was both\nof the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there\nis no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as\nthe _first_ census that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was\nafterward governor.\n\n[9] See authorities in Note 2.\n\n[10] \u201cNow my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and\nbrought me to the great mountain even Tabor.\u201d \u201cJesus said unto him, go\nsell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow\nme. But the rich man _began to scratch his head_, and it did not please\nhim.\u201d Origin, _etc._, by Professor Stowe, p. 22.\n\n[11] Abbott\u2019s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.\n\n[12] Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite\u2019s History, p. 11.\n\n[13] Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.\n\n[14] The entire passage is as follows: \u201cAnd when it is said that he\nchanged the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written\nin the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed\nthe names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which\nmeans sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was\nhe by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under\nwhose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were\nconducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.\u201d The controversy\nis, whether the personal pronouns \u201cHe\u201d and \u201cHim\u201d refer to Jesus, or\nwhether \u201cHim\u201d refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times\n\u201cMemoirs of the Apostles,\u201d and five times, \u201cMemoirs,\u201d and not once,\n\u201cMemoirs of Christ.\u201d It is true we do not find \u201cMemoirs of Christ.\u201d But\nconfessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of\nor concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression\nMemoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were\nconcerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin\u2019s\nwritings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those \u201cwho have written\nMemoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.\u201d In the proper\nand highest sense they should only be spoken of as \u201cMemoirs of Christ.\u201d\n\nJudge Waite, after the author of \u201cThe Supernatural\u201d (p. 337), says, to\nrefer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is\nof but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the\nrule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of\nZebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.\n\n[15] As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also, _Inter-Ocean_ of\nFebruary 12, 1881.\n\n[16] Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104; _Inter-Ocean_ of February 12.\n\n[17] Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nPRESUMPTION OF PERMANENCY.\n\n\nIn general, says Mr. Phillips,[1] there is a presumption in favor of the\ncontinuance of what is once proved to have existed. It is a familiar\nprinciple of law, says Chief Justice Parker, that a state of things\nonce shown to exist is presumed to continue until something is shown to\nrebut the presumption. And this position, says Professor Greenleaf, is\nfounded \u201con the experienced _continuance_ or permanency of longer or\nshorter duration in human affairs. When, therefore, the existence of a\nperson, a personal relation, or a state of things, is once established\nby proof, the law presumes that the person, relation, or state of things\ncontinues to exist as before, until the contrary is shown, or until\na different presumption is raised from the nature of the subject in\nquestion.\u201d With other examples of the application of this presumption,\nhe mentions opinions and religious convictions: \u201cThe _opinions_ also of\nindividuals, once entertained and expressed, and the _state_ of _mind_,\nonce proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary\nappears. Thus, all the members of a Christian community, being presumed\nto entertain the common faith, no man is supposed to disbelieve the\nexistence and moral government of God, until it is shown from his own\ndeclarations.\u201d This presumption being founded in reason and experience,\nis of universal application. It is not conclusive, but stands \u201cuntil\nsomething is shown to rebut it.\u201d It is the basis of Hume\u2019s argument\nagainst miracles, but which he misapplies, making it conclusive instead\nof presumptive evidence. As a presumption, it is strictly applicable\nto the question in hand, and will be found to have great force. For,\nfrom this natural and reasonable presumption, it should be taken,\nunless the contrary is proved, that the accepted \u201cMemoirs\u201d of Justin\u2019s\ntime _remained_ in the churches. Hence if we can ascertain with entire\ncertainty _what_ \u201cMemoirs\u201d were accepted in the churches in the year 180,\nand no evidence of displacement and substitution appears, we shall have\n_most satisfactory evidence_ what \u201cMemoirs\u201d were the ones intended by him\nin his Apology.\n\n[1] Phillips on Evidence, 4th Am. Ed., 640: 17 N. H. Rep., 409: 1\nGreenleaf on Evidence, \u00a7\u00a7 41, 42.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE MEMOIRS OF THE YEAR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY.\n\n\nThere is undoubted proof that within forty years from the time Justin\nwrote his First Apology, our Four Gospels (and no others) with the Book\nof Acts, were universally received in the church, as we now receive\nthem. It comes from the writings of Agrippa Castor, Apollinaris, Bishop\nof Hierapolis, Apelles, Athenagoras, Basilides, Celsus, Clement of\nAlexandria, Eusebius, Heracleon, Iren\u00e6us, Jerome, Marcion, Melito, Bishop\nof Sardis, Origen, Pant\u00e6nus, Polycarp, Serapion, Tatian, Theophilus,\nTertullian, Valentine, The Letter of the Church of Vienne and Lyons,\nand the unknown authors of the Clementine Homilies, and the Muratori\nCanon\u2014Christians, Gnostics, Heretics, and Heathen, all concurring to\nprove universal reception, beyond a reasonable doubt. So strong is\nthis proof that even Strauss does not deny such reception by the _end_\nof the second century, and he admits that there is evidence of an\n_earlier_ date. He says: \u201cWe learn from the works of Iren\u00e6us, of Clement\nAlexandrinus, and of Tertullian, that, at the end of the second century\nafter Christ, our Four Gospels were recognized by the orthodox church\nas the writings of the Apostles and the disciples [companions] of the\nApostles, and were separated from many other similar productions, as\nauthentic records of the life of Jesus. The first Gospel, according to\nour Canon, is attributed [i. e. by the authors named] to Matthew, who is\nenumerated among the twelve Apostles; the fourth to John, the beloved\ndisciple of our Lord; the second to Mark, the interpreter of Peter;[1]\nand the third to Luke, the companion of Paul. We have, besides, the\nauthority of earlier authors, both in their own works, and in quotations\ncited by others.\u201d As a false witness sometimes admits a part, the better\nto conceal what is more important, so Strauss _admits_ a state of things\nas existing at the _end_ of the century, that, beyond dispute, should\nbe carried back to a time at least twenty years earlier. Thus Professor\nFisher, in his exhaustive work, says of John\u2019s Gospel (which is conceded\nto have been the last): \u201cWe choose to begin[2] with the unquestioned\nfact of the universal reception of the Fourth Gospel as genuine in the\nlast quarter of the second century. At that time we find that it was\nheld in every part of Christendom to be the work of the Apostle John.\nThe prominent witnesses are Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in\nAlexandria, and Iren\u00e6us in Gaul.\u201d And Professor Abbot[3] says: \u201cI begin\nwith the statement, which cannot be questioned, that our present Gospels,\nand no others, were received by the great body of Christians as genuine\nand sacred books during the last quarter of the second century.\u201d\n\nTheophilus of Antioch, _as early_ as A.D. 180, not only quotes from the\nFourth Gospel, as Scripture, but names John as its author, as follows:[4]\n\u201cAs the Holy Scriptures, and all who have the Spirit, teach us, among\nwhom John says, \u2018In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with\nGod;\u2019 signifying that God alone was in the beginning, and that the Word\nwas in him. And then he says, the Word was God, and all things were made\nby Him, and without him there was not anything made.\u201d Theophilus also\nwrote a Commentary upon the Gospels. Before this time, also, our Gospels\nand Acts had been included in a list[5] of canonical books received in\nthe churches. They were in their present order, and, as far as their\nauthorship is stated, are attributed to the persons whose names are\nnow assigned to them. And before[6] this date, Celsus (who anticipated\nStrauss by seventeen hundred years) had cited alleged contradictions in\nthe Gospels, and particularly as to there being one or two angels at\nthe sepulchre. He attempted to ridicule the idea that blood and water\ncame from Jesus\u2019 side\u2014a fact that is stated only in John. He refers\nto the fact that Christ \u201cafter his death arose, and showed the marks\nof his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced.\u201d Although he\ndoes not _name_ the authors of the books, yet his numerous quotations\ncorrespond with them, including Luke and John. And in respect to all of\nthe discrepancies, etc., he says: \u201cAll these things I have taken out of\nyour own books,\u201d i. e. Scriptures. \u201cWe need,\u201d says he, \u201cno after witness,\nfor you fall upon your own swords.\u201d His work has not come down to us\nexcept as contained in Origen\u2019s writings, which, however, quote so fully\nfrom it, that it is nearly reproduced. And ten years[7] before this time,\nTatian, who had been a disciple of Justin (but after Justin\u2019s death\nbecame heretical), wrote a Commentary or Harmony upon the Gospels. He\ncalled it Diatesseron, which means the Gospel of the Four. The celebrated\nSyrian, Father Ephr\u00e6m, who died A.D. 373, wrote a commentary on it.\nBar-Salibi, who flourished in the last part of the twelfth century, was\nalso well acquainted with Tatian\u2019s work; and says that it began with John\ni. 1: \u201c_In the beginning was the Word_.\u201d\n\nBefore this date, Heracleon, a disciple of the Gnostic Valentine, wrote\na commentary upon the Fourth Gospel. The work is known[8] to us through\nmany fragments, which Origen has woven into his own commentary on the\nsame Gospel.\n\nQuotations from the canonical Gospels _between_ the periods mentioned\nare very numerous. It is unnecessary to cite them, or to give other\nspecific proof of a state of things existing _as early_ as 180, as shown\nby most incontrovertible evidence, whatever doubt may be had as to some\nitems of this evidence. Indeed an earlier date might properly be assumed\nthan that taken as the basis of our argument. Thus Dr. Charteris, in his\nrecent work, says, in view of all the circumstances: \u201cWhen we pass the\n_middle_ of the century, and come to the works of Tatian, Athenagoras,\nand Theophilus (with a quotation by name) we are out of the region of\ncontroversy.\u201d (Canonicity, lxxxi.) There were a few persons called the\nAlogi, a nickname having the double meaning of \u201cdeniers of the doctrine\nof the Logos,\u201d and \u201cmen without reason,\u201d who denied John\u2019s authorship of\nthe Fourth Gospel. They were probably a few[9] eccentric individuals, who\nattracted no attention, and none of whose names are preserved. The fact\nthat they appealed to no tradition in favor of their views, denied John\u2019s\nauthorship of the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both to\nCerinthus, whom no one supposes could have been their author, shows that\nthey were persons of no critical judgment. They were _outside_ of the\nchurches of which Justin wrote. The reception of the canonical Gospels,\nto the exclusion of all others, was _universal_ in those churches.\n\n[1] Not the interpreter of \u201c_Peter\u2019s Gospel!_\u201d (Page 49-50, Vol. 1, of\n\u201cThe Life of Jesus,\u201d etc., 1860).\n\n[2] P. 39 of \u201cThe Supernatural Origin of Christianity,\u201d (1870), by Prof.\nFisher.\n\n[3] P. 13 of \u201cThe Authorship of the Fourth Gospel\u201d (1880).\n\n[4] P. 177 of Prof. Stowe\u2019s \u201cOrigin and History of the Books of the New\nTestament\u201d (1867); Strauss\u2019 Life of Christ, p. 52; Waite\u2019s History, pp.\n302, 354; p. 130 of Fisher\u2019s \u201cSupernatural Origin,\u201d etc.\n\n[5] A fragment of this writing was discovered by the Italian scholar\nMuratori, and from him is called the Muratori Canon. It is written in\nLatin, but is supposed to have been first written in Greek. The first\npart of the writing is wanting, so that it begins with Luke, which it\ncalls the \u201cThird book of the Gospel according to Luke.\u201d It was found in\nthe Ambrosian Library, at Milan, in a manuscript containing extracts from\nwritings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others. It professes to give a list\nof the writings that are recognized in the Christian Church. Judge Waite\n(p. 412) assigns A.D. 190 as its date. Prof. Curtiss says of it: \u201c_The\nmost eminent New Testament scholars_ in America, England and Germany,\nwith a few exceptions, hold that it was written in the last quarter of\nthe second century (the most setting the date at about 170-180 A.D.) Some\nof them are: Prof. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College; Drs. E. A. Abbott,\nCanon Wescott, W. A. Sanday, Credner, Weiseler, Bleek, Reuss, Hilgenfeld,\nand many others\u201d (_Inter-Ocean_, February 12, 1881). The Fragment\ncontains internal evidence of the time when it was written. In reference\nto the \u201cPastor\u201d it says: This \u201cdid Hermas write, _very recently, in our\ntimes_, in the city of Rome, while his brother Bishop Pius sat in the\nchair in the church of Rome.\u201d Now Pius was Bishop from A.D. 142 to 157.\nWaite\u2019s History, p. 232.\n\n[6] In reply to Judge Waite, who assigned A.D. 210 to Celsus, Professor\nCurtiss says that \u201cDr. Keim, who belongs to the most liberal German\nschool, and who made a very careful investigation of the subject (Celsus\nWahres Wort, Zurich, 1873), sets the date in the year 177 or 178, A.D.\u201d\nSee also Smith and Wace\u2019s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London,\n1877, vol. 1, p. 436; Fisher, p. 42; \u201cHeart of Christ,\u201d by Edmund H.\nSears, 1873, p. 148; Abbott\u2019s Fourth Gospel, etc., p. 58. See also\nSanday, p. 262, and Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris, 1880, p. 369. Origen,\nin one place, in answering his objections, speaks of him as \u201ca man long\nsince dead.\u201d\n\n[7] Pp. 52-53 of Abbot\u2019s Fourth Gospel.\n\n[8] \u201cTischendorf\u2019s Origin of the Four Gospels,\u201d p. 89.\n\n[9] Abbott\u2019s Fourth Gospel, pp. 18, 20; Fisher, p. 69.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nASCENDING THE STREAM.\n\n\nNow consider the tremendous force of the proved fact that, within\nforty years of the time when Justin wrote his First Apology, we reach\na period when it is no longer a debatable question whether our Gospels\nare \u201cthe Memoirs\u201d of Christ which were read with the Prophets in city\nand country. The presumption of _continuance_ attaches. It has before\nbeen proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the year one hundred and\nforty, there were accepted \u201cMemoirs\u201d of our Lord, which were read with\nthe Prophets in all the churches. There is no evidence whatever that\nthose Memoirs in the intervening forty years were dropped and others\nsubstituted for them; therefore it should be presumed that they were in\nthe churches in the year one hundred and eighty; and the Memoirs in the\nchurches at this latter period _are positively known and seen, to have\nbeen the Canonical Gospels_. They have come closer to us, and in the\nnearer vision we are able to determine their identity with the utmost\ncertainty. And the natural presumption that there was no substitution\nwithin the short interval of forty years, is immensely strengthened by\nthe difficulties attending any attempted substitution,\u2014difficulties so\ngreat that they must have left unmistakable evidence of conflict upon\nthe page of history. The churches were very numerous, and occupied a\nterritory of more than two thousand miles in extent from Syria to Gaul.\nEach church had its bishop or presbyter, and elders; and in each church,\nonce in seven days, were the Memoirs of our Lord read with the Prophets.\nThere were hundreds who, from their own recollections, and thousands\nwho, from their parents or instructors, at any given time within these\nforty years, had perfect knowledge what Memoirs were thus read in the\nyear one hundred and forty. Young men of twenty then, were only sixty,\nforty years later. Was there a substitution in those forty years, and\nthese bishops, and elders, and thousands of communicants every Sabbath\nof all ages, not know it; or knowing it had not objected; or objecting,\nand history have no record of it? Not a few of these were educated men;\nand indeed all the bishops and elders may be presumed to have been as\nwell versed in the accepted Gospels as in the writings of the prophets.\nIt is to be borne in mind that we are dealing now with the question\nof substitution within the short period of forty years. A _score_ of\nnames can be given of men living within that time or immediately after,\nwho, from their own recollection or from others, must have had perfect\nknowledge of the whole subject: Athenagoras, a philosopher at Athens\nabout the year one hundred and sixty; Caius, a presbyter at Rome about\nthe year two hundred; Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, _cir._\n173; Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the Alexandrian\nSchool in 187; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who died a martyr in 173;\nHegesippus, the historian (whose works are now lost), who died in 180;\nHermas, who was prominent toward the close of the century; Iren\u00e6us,\nBishop of Lyons; Justin himself, whose martyrdom was as late as the year\n165; Leonides, the martyr; Melito, Bishop of Sardis; the world-renowned\nOrigen, son of Leonides; Pant\u00e6nus; Polycarp; Polycrates, Bishop of\nEphesus; Pothinus the predecessor of Iren\u00e6us (and whose martyrdom was\nabout 167); Serapion, Bishop of Antioch; Tertullian, the eloquent Roman\nlawyer of Carthage; Theophilus, the predecessor of Serapion; and Victor,\nBishop of Rome.\n\nIt may be said, and with truth, that the Fourth Gospel, whenever\nintroduced, came in not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The\nevidence, however, is conclusive that by the year one hundred and eighty,\nit had obtained as permanent a footing as either of the other Gospels.\nIts reception was as hearty, and the tradition of its authorship as\nstrong, as in respect to the others. To infer that it was the forged\nproduct of the period now under consideration, or any other, is as\nif De Soto had concluded that the mighty stream which he discovered\nhastening to the Gulf, with deep and rapid current, so wide that a\nman could scarcely be seen from shore to shore, had its origin not in\nfar-off lakes or mountains, but in some miserable crocodile swamp of the\ncountry he was traversing, and but just out of sight. And _who_ forged\nthe Fourth Gospel and imposed it as John\u2019s upon this score of persons,\nand hundreds of others? Or did these men conspire together, to deceive\nthemselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us\nfrom _that_ age, or any other, who was _capable_ of such an undertaking?\nWhat _forger_ wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those\nwith the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of\nhis crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable\nprayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any _sane man_ should\nattribute either of these to a _criminal forger_ would be incredible, if\nwe were not confronted with the fact. And what sort of a man was this\nforger of the Fourth Gospel? We have Baur\u2019s conception of him as \u201cA man\nof remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm\nadoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world!\u201d\nAnd Baur thinks it _easier_ to believe (without proof) in the existence\nof this remarkable genius and elevated character, who would _invent_\nfictitious discourses, _falsely_ attribute them to the Christ whom he\n_adored_, and _forge_ the name of the beloved disciple, than to believe\nwith the whole body of the Christian Church, that the discourses and\nutterances were those of our Lord![1] If John did not write the Fourth\nGospel, _who did_? Not one of those who deny his authorship, can give\nan answer to this question. It is no answer to say that many in the\nsecond century believed that Hermas (whom Paul mentions in his Epistle\nto the Romans), wrote the Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas. Such was not the\nuniversal sentiment. The work was never generally received as Scripture.\nOn the contrary, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, while placing\nthe Four Gospels in the list of canonical books universally received,\nsays of \u201cThe Pastor,\u201d that it was written \u201cvery recently in our times\u201d\nby another Hermas, a brother of the Bishop of Rome, and that it was\nread in \u201csome of the churches,\u201d not as Scripture but for \u201cedification,\u201d\nthe same as the Epistle of Clement. It was rejected by Tertullian, not\nonly as Apocryphal, but as hurtful. Nor is it any answer, to say that\nthe so-called Epistle of Barnabas was early attributed to Barnabas the\nLevite. In the first place, it is by no means certain that this tradition\nwas unfounded. From the little we know of Barnabas, it would be rash to\nconclude that he could not have written it. If uninspired, he _may_ have\nwritten just such a book. In the second place, no one ascribed it to him\ntill the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it was ranked by Eusebius\namong the \u201cspurious\u201d writings, which, however much known and read in\nthe church, were never regarded as authoritative. Eusebius also places\nThe Pastor Hermas in the list of writings whose authorship is disputed.\nThe Fourth Gospel rests upon an entirely different basis. There was but\n_one_ tradition in respect to it, and from our first knowledge of it, it\nwas regarded as authoritative, and its authorship was undisputed; for\nthe slight exception of the few individuals, called the Alogi, is of\nno account. It was included in the commentaries and harmonies to which\nreference has been made; and such works would not have been written until\nthe books upon which they were based had been long enough in the churches\nfor a felt need of commentaries upon them. It was quoted as Scripture\nby Theophilus, and John its author was expressly named as moved by the\nHoly Ghost. In the Muratori Canon, it was placed as Scripture in the\nlist of Canonical books, universally received. And that it could not\nhave come in after the year one hundred and forty, or have been received\nunless it was genuine, will be still more obvious from a more particular\nconsideration of some of those who accepted it. Pant\u00e6nus, who was at the\nhead of the Alexandrian school in the year one hundred and eighty, was\n(says Eusebius) distinguished for his learning. Before his conversion he\nwas a Stoic philosopher. After that, and before he became the head of the\nCatechetical school, he traveled extensively as an Evangelist. He went as\nfar as the Indies, where he found that the Apostle Bartholomew, who had\npreceded him, had left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Pant\u00e6nus could\nnot have been ignorant of the \u201cMemoirs,\u201d which were accepted in Justin\u2019s\ntime, and he lived until the year two hundred and twelve. We have no\n_direct evidence_ from _him_; but Clement, his pupil and successor, and\nnoted for his learning, could not have been ignorant of the opinions\nof Pant\u00e6nus; and from Clement there is the strongest testimony. He\nflourished between A.D. 165 and 220, and became head of the Alexandrian\nSchool in A.D. 187. Origen, his successor, with his great genius and\nacquirements, and extensive travel, and from his father Leonides, and his\npredecessors Clement and Pant\u00e6nus, must have been fully informed of the\n\u201cMemoirs\u201d which were in the churches in the year one hundred and forty.\nAnd he says, that he has \u201cunderstood _from tradition_, respecting the\nFour Gospels, _which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of\nGod throughout the world_,\u201d that the first was by Matthew, the second by\nMark, \u201cwho composed it as Peter explained to him,\u201d the third by Luke, the\ncompanion of Paul, and \u201clast of all\u201d John \u201cwho reclined upon the breast\nof Jesus,\u201d has left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write\nso many that the whole world could not contain them. Tertullian, the\ncelebrated lawyer, says, \u201cOf the Apostles, John and Matthew published\nthe faith to us.\u201d In defending the Gospel of Luke against the mutilation\nof the heretic Marcion, he positively affirms that all the churches\nfounded by the Apostles accepted, not Marcion\u2019s abridgment of Luke, but a\nwell-known form which had been \u201c_received from its first publication_;\u201d\nand that the other Gospels had been received from the same sources in\nauthenticated copies. \u201cIn his abundant writings,\u201d says Norton,[2] \u201cthere\nis not a chapter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, from which\nhe does not quote,\u201d and from most of them his quotations are numerous.\nTertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160, and from his conversion,\nabout the year one hundred and eighty-five, he entered with great\nearnestness and ability into a vindication of Christianity, and the\ndiscussion of various questions connected with it. This able advocate\ncould not have been misinformed of the usages of the churches less than\nhalf a century previous to the time when he entered upon his work.\n\nThe evidence of Iren\u00e6us is still more conclusive. He was born in Syria\nabout A.D. 120, and he was therefore twenty years old when Justin wrote.\nHis teacher was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and his immediate predecessor\nat Lyons was Pothinus. Polycarp, at his martyrdom, was asked to save\nhis life by denying Christ. \u201cNo,\u201d he said, \u201ceighty and six years have I\nserved him and he never did me any injury; how, then, can I blaspheme\nmy King and my Saviour?\u201d _Pothinus_, at _his_ martyrdom, _cir._ 177,\nwas more than ninety years old. The lives of these two men reached far\nback into the first century. They were at, or past, middle life when\nJustin wrote, and presbyters of important churches; and it is utterly\nincredible that they should not have known what \u201cMemoirs\u201d were read in\ntheir churches in Justin\u2019s time. And it is _equally incredible_ that\nIren\u00e6us, the disciple of the one and the immediate successor in office\nof the other, and _himself_ _twenty years old_ when Justin wrote, should\nnot have been as well informed upon this subject. Yet Iren\u00e6us quotes[3]\nfrom our Gospels and Acts, as Scripture, ascribes their authorship\nto Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and says that such was the accepted\ntradition in all the churches. After referring to the others, he says of\nthe Fourth Gospel: \u201cAfterwards John, the disciple of our Lord, the same\nthat lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel while he was yet at\nEphesus, in Asia\u201d (Eu. v. 8). And again[4]: \u201cAll the Elders testify, who\nwere conversant with John, the disciple of our Lord, in Asia, that he\ndelivered these things.\u201d About A.D. 180, in a treatise against heretics,\nhe appeals to the canonical Gospels with as much confidence that they\nare all well known and accepted by Christians, as any would do at the\npresent day. Tischendorf[5] says the number of passages where Iren\u00e6us has\nrecourse to the Gospels is about four hundred, and about eighty of these\nin John. Sanday[5] estimates the quotations from John in this treatise\nat seventy-three. But Clement, and Origen, and Pant\u00e6nus, and Polycarp,\nand Pothinus, and Tertullian, were not better informed upon this subject\nthan Serapion, who so promptly suppressed the heretical Gospel of Peter,\nor than Theophilus, his immediate successor, who was the first after\nPapias (other than the author of the Muratorian Fragment) to mention any\nof the four Gospels by name, or than the author of this Fragment, or than\nmany intelligent officers and members of the numerous churches from the\nEuphrates to the Seine.\n\nWith such evidence and from such sources, and the entire absence of any\nevidence of _substitution_, it may well be regarded as morally certain,\nthat none occurred. What was probable, from the _seeming_ use of the\nCanonical Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries, has become _a moral\ncertainty_. The Memoirs which, in the year one hundred and eighty, were\nuniversally accepted, _were the same_ that forty years before were read\nwith the Prophets, in city and country, in all the churches every Sabbath\nday. Of this there can be no doubt. The Memoirs of the year one hundred\nand eighty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS; and the Memoirs of the year one\nhundred and forty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS. And we take our stand\nwith Justin, with these Gospels in our hands, only forty years from the\ndeath of John, the beloved disciple, and at the close of a hundred years\nfrom the crucifixion of our Lord. And still we ascend the stream.\n\n[1] Wright\u2019s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43.\n\n[2] Norton\u2019s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p.\n187.\n\n[3] Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35.\n\n[4] Stowe\u2019s Origin, etc., p. 176.\n\n[5] Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSTILL ASCENDING THE STREAM.\n\n\nThe evidence thus far has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the\nwriting of Justin\u2019s First Apology, the Canonical Gospels were read\nwith the Prophets in city and country, on \u201cthe day called Sunday,\u201d as\nauthentic Memoirs of our Lord. Assuming the date[1] of this Apology to\nhave been A.D. 138 or 139, the time was a little over one hundred years\nfrom the Crucifixion, and less than eighty years from the death of Mark\nand Luke, and all the Apostles other than John, and only forty years from\nhis death. How long were these periods as they affect the argument from\nthe universal reception of the Gospels in Justin\u2019s time, and from the\nuniversal tradition in their favor which accompanied such reception? The\nwriter has within two days (in April, 1881) met with three persons who\nsaw Lafayette on his visit to New England in 1824. One of them distinctly\nremembers the sentiment[2] which Lafayette gave at Concord, and another\nshook hands with him. There were hundreds of Revolutionary soldiers\npresent, some of whom the General recognized and called by name, although\nhe had not seen their faces for more than forty years. This was in 1824.\nWhittier\u2019s poem describes one of these soldiers, as he now remembers him,\nat the time of Monroe\u2019s tour in 1817, _sixty-four years ago_:\n\n    \u201cOnce a soldier, blame him not,\n    That the Quaker he forgot,\n    When to think of battles won,\n    And the red coats on the run,\n          Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.\u201d\n\nAnd throughout the country there are thousands now living[A] who well\nknew men who were in active life during the War of the Revolution. In the\n_Granite Monthly_ for December, 1880, was published the Diary of Rev.\nTimothy Walker of Concord, for the year 1780, and there were earlier\nDiaries kept by him which have been preserved by his descendants. The\nDiary of Matthew Patten of Bedford, from 1750 to 1790, is in the custody\nof Charles H. Woodbury, Esq., of New York. The Congregational church at\nConcord, of which Timothy Walker was the first pastor, November, 1880,\ncelebrated its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There are several\ntowns in New Hampshire, as Londonderry, Dover, Exeter and Portsmouth,\nthat were settled earlier than Concord; and some of them as early as\n1623. The landing of the Pilgrims was _two hundred and sixty years ago_.\nIt seems but as yesterday. A century from the Crucifixion was no longer\nthan a century now; and as an event, to be remembered, the Crucifixion\nwas as much greater than the Landing of the Pilgrims as the glory of\nthe noonday sun is above that of the feeblest star in the most distant\nheavens. The time that has elapsed since Timothy Walker wrote Diaries\nwhich are now in existence is as long as from the Crucifixion to Justin\u2019s\nApology; more than thirty years longer than from the martyrdom of Peter\nand Paul to Justin\u2019s Apology; and sixty years longer than from John\u2019s\ndeath to Justin\u2019s Apology. The churches in Justin\u2019s time were not dealing\nwith writings from a dim and misty past, or of limited or infrequent\nuse. None were as ancient as Walker\u2019s Diary; the last had not seen half\nits years; they were in all the churches, and read every Sabbath day.\nThe argument which proves that there was no substitution between 140\nand 180 is as much more forcible to prove that there was no substitution\nbetween the years 100 and 140, or between the years 60 and 100, as those\ntimes were nearer the great events which the Gospels recorded. If, for\nexample, there were accepted Memoirs of our Lord in the churches in\nthe year 100, from the presumed _continuance_ of a state of things the\nexistence of which has been proved,[3] it should be _presumed_ that they\nremained in the churches till Justin\u2019s time, there being no evidence to\nthe contrary. And so there would be the same (or greater) difficulties\nin the way of displacement and substitution, between the year 100 and\nthe year 140, as between the year 140 and the year 180. Justin and his\ncontemporaries had from their own recollection,[4] or from others,\nwhether parents, teachers, presbyters or bishops, as great facilities for\nknowing what Memoirs were accepted in the churches forty years before,\nas had Iren\u00e6us and his contemporaries in respect to the period of forty\nyears before one hundred and eighty. And there was a succession and\ncontinued life in the churches from 100 to 140, the same as from 140 to\n180. This reasoning is applicable to Clement and his contemporaries, and\nshows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not\nhave displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous\nperiod. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin\u2019s\nApology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master,\nand how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him,\nwhich they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that\nChristians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a\nresponsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted\nMemoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by\npresbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman\nEmpire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences\nof it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of\ndisplacement and substitution, it is _morally certain there was none_.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came\nin not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the\nfirst century. _Who dared_ to forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so\nsoon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches,\nat the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production? _Who_,\nduring that period, was _capable_ of composing it? And how were hundreds\nof presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to\nreceive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple\nwho was in life within the personal[4] recollections of many? It is a\nfact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can\nbe assailed on historical or traditional grounds. _There is but one\nhistory or tradition_ concerning them. The objections to them are either\nnegative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history\nor tradition.\n\nThe first _use_ of the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in\nstatements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of\nteachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The first _description_ of\nthem after Papias, is that of \u201cMemoirs\u201d of Christ, \u201cdrawn up\u201d by Apostles\nand companions of Apostles. The first mention of them _by the names of\nthe writers_, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now\nbear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel\nwas ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the\nfourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The\nstanding objection that none of them is mentioned _by name_ till the time\nof Theophilus, and Iren\u00e6us, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not\nof the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels\nwere not mentioned by name, neither were any[6] others; and surely we are\nnot expected to believe that there were _no originals_, from which the\nmany quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken.\nThis objection proves too much. For it proves, if it proves anything,\nthat there were _no_ Gospels or writings to answer to the quotations,\nwhich, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it\nis not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias,\ncertainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably\nbefore the year 140, gave the _names_ of Matthew and Mark respectively,\nas their authors, the latter being \u201cthe interpreter of Peter.\u201d\n\n[1] Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date\nof Justin\u2019s First Apology. Verissimus became C\u00e6sar in 139, but he is not\naddressed as C\u00e6sar, but as \u201cphilosopher.\u201d In reply to this, Mr. Waite\nsays, that the same is true of the Second Apology, \u201cwhich is admitted\nby all to have been written after 139.\u201d In the first place, there is\nconsiderable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and\nsome critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to\nthe First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First.\n(See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second\nplace, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was\nnot by _Justin_. He only gives it as the language of _one Lucius_, in\nnarrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken\nplace before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but\ntwenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in\n139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the\nyear 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by\nwhich to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did\nnot come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him\nas being \u201ceven at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe\nin some God greater than the Creator.\u201d But Justin meant to express his\nabhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as \u201ca man of Pontus,\u201d and\nagain (in c. 58) as \u201cMarcion of Pontus,\u201d and says the devils put him\nforward. He nowhere describes him as being _of_ Rome or _at_ Rome. In\nhis extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus.\nJudge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said\nthat Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the\nerror for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146,\nor 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using\nround numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There\nis nothing therefore in Judge Waite\u2019s arguments to change the opinion in\nwhat he concedes to be \u201cthe very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and\nStrong,\u201d and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears,\nFisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See\nalso Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not\nessential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written\nin the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as\nit lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First\nApology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.\n\n[2] \u201cThe memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.\u201d\n\n[A] Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at\nthe house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of\nOswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who\ncalled he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to\nthe addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for\nyears after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of\nage, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday\nhe wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered\nwith vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at\nthat time but in his 8th year. See _Congregationalist_, Jan. 25, 1882.\n\n[3] See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.\n\n[4] Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or\nseventy years of age, who have been Christ\u2019s disciples from childhood.\n\n[5] Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called\nthe Alogi, or men \u201cwithout understanding,\u201d there is no allusion to the\ndenial of John\u2019s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before\nthe latter part of the fourth century.\n\n[6] As to the controverted reference in Justin\u2019s Apology to \u201cMemoirs of\nHim,\u201d see c. 4, and c. 7, note 14. That, if correctly interpreted by\nJudge Waite, could only have been Mark\u2019s Gospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nIN THEIR PROPER REPOSITORIES.\n\n\nCertain propositions have been established by facts and arguments that\ncannot be successfully controverted:\n\n(_a_) The advent of Christ and its stupendous results.\n\n(_b_) The formation of numerous churches which by the end of the first\ncentury were in all parts of the Roman Empire, with presbyters or bishops\nand elders in every church, and many thousands of communicants.\n\n(_c_) They regarded him with the greatest reverence and affection,\nobeying his commands as their Lord and Master, paying him divine honors,\nand for his sake joyfully yielding up their lives.\n\n(_d_) Of his disciples and followers, twelve, called Apostles, were\nunderstood to have special authority from him in the Church.\n\n(_e_) From the nature of the case we should look for the reception in\nthese numerous churches, of Memoirs of their Lord which they would\n_deem_ authentic, and at so early a period, that they would be able to\n_determine_ whether they were authentic or not.\n\n(_f_) To such Memoirs, once accepted, they would be so strongly attached\nthat they could not be displaced and others substituted for them, in\nhundreds of churches in all the Roman Empire, without such controversy as\nwould have left indubitable evidence of it.\n\n(_g_) As far back as history goes, doctrines[1] were taught, facts\nasserted, and quotations made, corresponding with the Canonical Gospels,\nand such use was continued until a time when there is a positive\nidentification of them by name. Within this period there was one writer\nmaking numerous quotations and references, who declared that the writings\nfrom which he quoted, and to which he referred, were \u201cMemoirs\u201d of Christ\n\u201cdrawn up\u201d by Apostles or companions of Apostles.\n\n(_h_) There is no proof of the existence of writings _other_ than\nthose Gospels answering to his description, or corresponding with the\nquotations; and finally within forty years of his first reference to\nthese \u201cMemoirs\u201d they are clearly seen to be the Canonical Gospels.\n\n(_i_) From first to last there is no evidence whatever of displacement of\nGospels previously accepted, and the substitution of others for them in\nthe churches generally.\n\n(_j_) The Fourth Gospel is of such a character, and was in use so soon\nafter the death of its author (and who is also stated as its author in\nthe Gospels itself), as to make the idea of attempted and successful\n_forgery_ in the highest degree improbable.\n\n(_k_) And these Gospels within less than eighty years from the death of\nthe Apostles other than John, and within forty years of _his_ death, were\nread with the Prophets in the churches, in city and country, every Lord\u2019s\nday, _and accepted as Apostolic_.\n\n(_l_) From the earliest period they were where they should be if\nauthentic, and where they could not have been, unless _accepted_ as\nauthentic.\n\nSome illustrations have already been given in chapter eleven of the brief\ninterval between the Apostles and Justin Martyr. Let any intelligent\nreader of sixty, from his own recollection, or any young person, from\nthe recollections of others with whom he is acquainted, determine for\nhimself. The writer was admitted to the Bar almost forty years ago; he\nhas within a few months seen an original deed[2] of land in Londonderry\n(the home of his ancestors) executed one hundred and fifty years ago;\nhe has in his possession certified copies of certificates of marriages\nand births, in his own genealogical record\u2014going back from one to two\nhundred years, in one instance two hundred and thirty years, and these\ncertificates would be received as _evidence_ in any Court. They would\nbe received, because made by the proper custodian of public documents,\nfound in the proper repository for them. The presumption of law in such\ncase is the judgment of charity. It presumes that documents found in\ntheir proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, are genuine.\nA deed forty years old, followed by a possession agreeing with it, is\nadmitted in evidence without other proof of its execution. Our Gospels\nin Justin\u2019s time were where they _should_ have been, if authentic. The\nChurch was the proper repository for authentic Memoirs of its Founder.\n_Our Gospels were there._ They were in their proper repository. And upon\nevery principle that rules in the administration of justice, or in the\ncommon affairs of life, it must be presumed that they were _rightfully_\nthere. Their rejection is _not_ \u201cthe judgment of charity.\u201d It reverses\nthe maxim that fraud is not to be presumed. It charges forgery, of\nwhich there is no evidence, upon persons whom it finds it impossible\nto discover and identify. It imputes ignorance and indifference to\nmultitudes who had every opportunity for knowing the truth, and who were\nwilling to suffer all things for their convictions of the truth. It\npresses, as of vital consequence, trivial objections and alleged errors\nin chronology, geography and history, which (if made out) would not for\na moment be thought sufficient to successfully impugn the authenticity\nof any secular work as well supported by external evidence. It is\nunnecessary to further consider such objections.[3] It is no exaggeration\nto say, that the various theories and speculations of those who deny\nthe genuineness of the Gospels are, in the main, but ingenious attempts\nat the solution of the problem: \u201cGiven, the impossibility of miracles,\nwhat may be supposed to be the true history of Jesus Christ?\u201d The\nonly consistent answer that could be made, would be that upon such an\nhypothesis, it is impossible to determine what was his life or character.\nBut, given, the possibility of miracles (and if there is a God they\nmust be possible), there is no reasonable doubt of the authenticity of\nthe Gospels, and the book of Acts. They come to us from their proper\nrepositories, and must be presumed to be rightfully there. They are\nproved to have been in those repositories within but a short period from\nthe death of the Apostles. They were accepted as Apostolic, and as having\nbeen drawn up by Apostles or companions of Apostles. If such undoubted\nreception, and use, and tradition, at so early a period, and thence\nuntil now, cannot be _trusted_, no credit can be given to _any_ writings\nor history from ancient times. They _can_ be trusted. The stream which\neighteen hundred years ago was issuing from Apostolic times and the hills\nof Palestine, has flowed onward, enriching and blessing the nations.\n\n[1] Mr. Waite assumes that Clement did not hold to a literal\nresurrection. Clement\u2019s language admits of no such construction, although\nin writing to Christians who understood all about it, he was not as\ndefinite upon this point, as Justin in _his_ address to a different\nclass. Clement refers to the resurrection in c. 24: \u201cLet us consider,\nbeloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a\nfuture resurrection, of which he has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the\nfirst fruits by raising him from the dead.\u201d And again in c. 42, after\nsaying that the Apostles were commissioned, he adds: \u201cHaving therefore,\nreceived their order, and being fully assured by the resurrection of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the Word of God, with full\nassurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom\nof God was at hand.\u201d The force of this language is not controlled by any\nmeans, by reference to the day\u2019s following the night, and the springing\nup of the fruits of the earth, from the sowing of the seed.\n\n[2] The deed dated June 16, 1731, was by David Morrison, one of the\ngrantees in the Charter of Londonderry of 1722, to his brother-in-law,\nDavid McAlister. This deed with another from the same grantor to William\nMcAlister dated February 24, 1746, are now in the possession of Jonathan\nMcAlister, Esq., a descendant of David and an owner of the original\ngranted land.\n\n[3] One other correction should be made. Judge Waite arbitrarily assigns\nCerinthus to the year 145. He gives no reason or authority for it. It is\nthe testimony of all antiquity that Cerinthus was contemporary with the\nApostle John, and that John died about the year 100. Iren\u00e6us, upon the\nauthority of Polycarp, says that John, being about to enter a bath and\nfinding Cerinthus within, drew back saying: \u201cLet us even be gone lest the\nbath should fall to pieces,\u2014Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, being\nwithin.\u201d See Vol. II., Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong, p. 190.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nINTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS.\n\n\nAs stated in former chapters, this is to be presumed till the contrary is\nshown. There is, however, strong confirmation from many sources.\n\n_First._\u2014The writings of the Apostolic Fathers present to our view the\nChrist of the Gospels, in his advent and life, ministry and teaching,\ndeath and resurrection. In particular, his resurrection from the dead is\ncited by Clement (A.D. 97) as an earnest of that of his followers, and as\na proof that he came forth from God. The greatest of miracles, and the\ncentral fact of Christianity, appears in the earliest writings (outside\nof the New Testament), the date of which can be determined. Judge Waite,\nin his \u201cwonderful hundred[1] years of silence by Christian writers\u201d\nconcerning the miracles of Christ, is oblivious of what he had before\nstated, that aside from the Gospels, there are left of the first century\n\u201conly the Epistles of Paul, the one Epistle of Clement of Rome, some\nslight notices by Jewish and heathen writers, and the few legends and\ntraditions preserved in the writings of the Fathers.\u201d Such an argument\nfrom silence, _where there are no writings extant_, is not befitting _a\njudge_.\n\n_Second._\u2014The earliest quotations substantially agree with the Canonical\nGospels. Some of those by Justin Martyr have been given in chapters\nfive and six, and those by Clement may be found in the Note.[2] These\nquotations by Apostolic and Christian Fathers, afford ample[3] means for\ncomparison, and no variations appear to indicate any changes to affect\nthe character or teachings of our Lord. Professor Fisher says[4] of\n_Justin\u2019s_ references, that they embrace \u201cnot more\u201d than two sayings of\nJesus that have not substantial parallels in the four Evangelists. The\nfirst is, \u201cIn what things I shall apprehend you, in these will I judge\nyou,\u201d which is found also in Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus.\nThe second is, \u201cThere shall be schisms and heresies,\u201d a prediction\nreferred also to Christ by Tertullian. These sayings may have come from\n_tradition_. It seems not improbable that they were current expressions,\nembodying what Jesus taught[5] respecting the standard by which men shall\nbe judged according to the light which they have received, and divisions\nin the same household. (See cc. 6 to 8 _ante_).\n\n_Third._\u2014The facts in Christ\u2019s history referred to by the Fathers,\nwith very rare exceptions (the most of which were stated and explained\nin chapter seven), correspond with the Evangelists. The exceptional\nfacts are such as would naturally have been derived from tradition,\nand they in no way change the life or character of our Lord as they\nappear in the Gospels. The marvel is, that they should be so few and\nunimportant, considering that some of the writers lived at a time when[6]\n\u201ctraditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.\u201d\n\n_Fourth._\u2014Marcion\u2019s Gospel (written as early as the year 145), except in\nintentional omissions and mutilations, for which he was sharply called to\nan account by Tertullian, presents a substantial agreement with Luke\u2019s\nGospel. Judge Waite claims that it was earlier than Luke\u2019s; but the\nalmost unanimous verdict of scholars is against him. Indeed, Professor\nFisher, in the March number of the _Princeton Review_ for 1881 (p. 217),\nsays: \u201cThat Marcion\u2019s Gospel was an abridgment of our Luke is _now\nconceded on all hands_, even by the author of \u2018Supernatural Religion.\u2019\nDr. Sanday has not only demonstrated this by a linguistic argument, but\nhas proved by a comparison of texts that the Gospel of the Canon must\nhave been for some time in use, and have attained to a considerable\ncirculation, before Marcion applied to it his pruning-knife. There is\nno reason to doubt that he took for his purpose a Gospel of established\nauthority in the Church.\u201d Professor Curtiss also says that \u201cthe weight\nof scholarship is overwhelmingly in favor of the priority of Luke.\u201d\nAnd he quotes from the last edition of the \u201cSupernatural Religion,\u201d\nthe admission referred to by Professor Fisher. Its anonymous author\nsays that Dr. Sanday\u2019s very able examination \u201chas convinced us that our\nearlier hypothesis is untenable; that the portions of our third Synoptic,\nexcluded from Marcion\u2019s Gospel, were really written by the same pen which\ncomposed the mass of the work; and, consequently, that our third Synoptic\nexisted in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion.\u201d\nDr. Sanday[7] shows, as he expresses it, that Marcion\u2019s Gospel stands\nto Luke\u2019s \u201centirely in the relation of _defect_. We may say entirely,\nfor the additions are so insignificant\u2014some thirty words in all, and\nthose for the most part supported by other authority\u2014that for practical\npurposes they are not to be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty\nwords inserted, and also some slight alterations of phrase, Marcion\u2019s\nGospel presents simply an _abridgment_ of our St. Luke.\u201d That Marcion\u2019s\nGospel was not one of Justin\u2019s \u201cMemoirs,\u201d is plain from his calling\nhim a wolf,[7] \u201csent forth by the devil.\u201d Although Marcion\u2019s Gospel\nis not in existence, except as reproduced from the works of Tertullian\nand Epiphanius, its agreement with Luke (with the exceptions which they\npointed out) becomes important evidence that Luke is to-day as it was in\nthe year one hundred and forty-five.\n\n_Fifth._\u2014Our Gospels and Acts before the close of the second century of\nour era were translated into other languages, and the Syriac, Coptic\nand Latin versions which have come down to us with some imperfections\nand slight variations, are in substantial agreement with our present\nversion in all that is material. A translation of a given date presumably\nrepresents a text of greater age than itself. Hence the manuscripts from\nwhich these translations were made were older than the year two hundred,\nand probably older than the year one hundred and fifty.\n\n_Sixth._\u2014The early and continued multiplication of copies affords\nstrong evidence. Those who copied from originals deemed authentic would\ncertainly endeavor to make exact copies. As these Memoirs were read in\nall the churches, and, doubtless, in Christian families and Christian\nschools, they soon became very numerous. There was fraternal intercourse\nbetween the churches. Any substantial difference in the copies would\nbe noticed. Any such differences would be transmitted in copies made\nfrom these copies, and so on, to the manuscripts which have reached\nus. The number of copies before the tenth persecution (commenced A.D.\n300, and lasting ten years) must have reached many thousands.[8] So\ncomplete was then supposed to be the extinction of Christianity, that\ncoins were struck and inscriptions set up, recording the fact, that the\n\u201cChristian superstition\u201d was now utterly exterminated, and the worship\nof the gods restored by Diocletian, who assumed the name of Jupiter, and\nMaximian, who took that of Hercules. This persecution, in addition to\nthe destruction of life, was specially[9] directed to the destruction of\ncopies of the Scriptures.\n\n_Seventh._\u2014Constantine, their successor, in the year 331, caused fifty\ncopies of the Scriptures to be made for Byzantium, under the care of\nEusebius of C\u00e6sarea, the church historian. The manuscript discovered by\nthe celebrated Tischendorf, in 1859, at the convent of St. Catherine,\non Mount Sinai, is believed to be one of those copies, and to be the\noldest[10] Greek manuscript in existence. _If_ one of the fifty, it is\nmore than fifteen hundred years old. It is called the Sinaitic Codex.\nThe second rank belongs to the Vatican Codex. Its date is probably not\nlater than the fourth century. The next in the order of time is the\nAlexandrian Codex. Its date is the latter part of the fourth century or\nthe beginning of the fifth century. The Vatican has been in the Vatican\nLibrary since 1445. The Alexandrian was sent, in 1628, by the Patriarch\nof Constantinople, to Charles I., and is now in the British Museum. The\nSinaitic was presented by its discoverer to the Emperor of Russia. There\nis no doubt whatever that these three manuscripts were written back of\nthe \u201cdark ages,\u201d and at a time when the true text could be known with\ngreat exactness, and was comparatively free from errors. With these,\nthere are fifty manuscripts that are a thousand years old. There are, it\nis estimated, more than seventeen hundred manuscripts of the whole, or\nportions, of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the\nsixteenth century. Providence, says Tischendorf, has ordained for the\nNew Testament more sources of the greatest antiquity than are possessed\nby all the old Greek literature put together. The number of manuscripts\nof the Greek Classics, says[11] Professor Stowe, is very small compared\nwith the Greek Testament manuscripts, and the oldest of them scarcely\nreaches nine hundred years. There are such differences between the\nSinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian manuscripts as indicate that no two\nof them were taken from the same original. A little reflection will\nconvince any one, that while no single copy may be literally exact from\nits original, the multiplication of copies adds greatly to substantial\naccuracy as the result of the whole. For although there is a tendency\nto a repetition of _some_ errors, by different copyists from the same\noriginal, as where successive sentences end with the same word, yet, in\ngeneral, different copyists would make different errors, one in one part\nof the instrument, and the other in another, and, where the copies are\nnumerous, they mutually correct each other. So it happens that in the\ndifferent manuscripts of the New Testament, with different readings of\nmany thousands (counting all trifles, like the omission to dot an _i_\nor cross a _t_ in English chirography, as different readings), there is\nsubstantial agreement. It is a fact to be emphasized, says[12] Professor\nFisher, \u201cthat the Scriptures are almost utterly free from wilful\ncorruption;\u201d and he endorses the opinion of the great critic, Bentley,\nthat the real text \u201cis competently exact in the worst manuscripts now\nextant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted\nor lost in them.\u201d And examining the subject in hand from a lawyer\u2019s\nstandpoint, the _worst_ manuscript, or translation, or version, is\nsufficient for the purposes of the argument. And to cite once more the\ngreat authority of Professor Greenleaf,[13] to the genuineness of the\nFour Gospels: \u201cThe entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is received\nas authority in all the courts of Continental Europe, upon much weaker\nevidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text has\nbeen preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects beyond any moral\npossibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been\npreserved only by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing\nschool to watch over and preserve it from alteration.\u201d\n\nAnd now (1882) the New Revision, both of the text and of the translation,\nby scholars who have no superior, and the careful product of ten years\u2019\nlabor, has been long enough before the world to know the results. Not\na single fact or witness to the Resurrection is lost, and not a single\ndoctrine is changed, while many passages are better understood.\n\n[1] He puts the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, A. D. 130, but it is\ngenerally placed earlier.\n\n[2] \u201cBe merciful that ye may obtain mercy; forgive that it may be\nforgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge so\nshall ye be judged; as ye are kind so shall kindness be shown to you;\nwith what measure ye mete with the same it shall be measured to you\u201d (c.\n13). Matt. vi. 12-15; Matt. vii. 2; Luke vi. 36-38. \u201cThis people honoreth\nme with their lips, but their heart is far from me\u201d (c. 15). Matt. xv. 8;\nMark vii. 6. \u201cWoe to that man! It were better for him that he had never\nbeen born, than that he should cast a stumbling block before one of my\nelect, yea it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about\nhis neck, and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he\nshould cast a stumbling-block before any of my little ones\u201d (c. 46).\nMatt. xviii. 6; Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark ix, 42; Luke xvii. 2.\n\n[3] The entire Gospel could be reproduced from those writings, including\nIren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.\n\n[4] The _Princeton Review_ for March, 1881, p. 201.\n\n[5] Matt. x. 34-36; Luke x. 13-15; Luke xii. 47-53.\n\n[6] Bampton Lectures for 1877, p. 221, by the Rev. C. A. Row, M. A.,\nPembroke College, Oxford, Prebendary of St. Paul\u2019s Cathedral.\n\n[7] Ap. I., cc. 22, 58. See also Sanday\u2019s Gospels of the Second Century,\np. 214, and \u201cCanonicity,\u201d by A. H. Charteris, D. D., 1880, pp. 76, 393.\n\n[8] Norton estimates the number by the close of the second century at\nsixty thousand, which may be a large estimate.\n\n[9] Vol. VII. of McClintock and Strong, p. 966; Neander\u2019s Church History,\nVol. I., p. 148. Neander says that Feb. 22, A.D. 303, on one of the\ngreat pagan festivals, at the first dawn of day, the magnificent church\nof Nicomedia (then the imperial residence) was broken open, the copies\nof the Bible found in it were burned, and the whole church abandoned to\nplunder and then to destruction. The next day was published an edict\nthat all assembling of Christians for the purpose of religious worship\nwas forbidden; churches were to be demolished to their foundations; all\nmanuscripts of the Bible should be burned; those who held places of honor\nand rank must renounce their faith, or be degraded; those belonging\nto the lower walks of private life to be divested of their rights as\ncitizens and freemen; slaves were to be incapable of receiving their\nfreedom so long as they remained Christians; and in judicial proceedings\nthe torture might be used against all Christians of whatsoever rank. \u201cIt\nis quite evident,\u201d says Neander, \u201cthat the plan now was to extirpate\nChristianity from the root.\u201d But it was the darkness which preceded the\ndawn, for this was the _last_ of the Pagan persecutions.\n\n[10] A facsimile steel engraving forming the frontispiece to\nTischendorf\u2019s New Testament, gives specimens of the Greek text in which\nthese three manuscripts are severally written. The difference in the\nstyle of the text is one great means by which experts determine the age\nof the manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are written in large, square,\nupright capitals; and they are called Uncials. The later manuscripts are\nwritten in flowing scripts; they are called Cursives. The proportion\nof Uncial to Cursive manuscripts is about one to ten. The Cursive was\nintroduced in the tenth century.\n\n[11] Origin and History of the Books of the New Testament, by Prof. C. E.\nStowe, A.D. 1867, pp. 31, 62.\n\n[12] In Scribner\u2019s Monthly for February, 1881, p. 617.\n\n[13] An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the rules\nof Evidence administered in Courts of Justice, etc. By Simon Greenleaf,\nLL.D., Royal Professor of Law in Harvard University (A.D. 1846), p. 28.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.\n\n\nThe question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration.\nIf uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the\ndetermination of Christ\u2019s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may\nhave been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of\nthe limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life,\nteachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published\nto the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry\nupon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one\nwho is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for\na moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each\nwriter narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms,\nit would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they\nwere independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same\noccurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of\nthem, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe\nthat we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise.\nNeither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters\nappear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered,\nin different terms. We are _sure_ there was no collusion. We are sure we\nhave the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge\nWaite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels \u201care not merely copied one from\nthe other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical\nscholars.\u201d And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject,\nnot less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations\nattending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will\nstate the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it\nin precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and\nthe testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been\ncommitted to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more\nwitnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack\nof correct observation, or some misrecollection,\u2014not only the omission\nof a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses.\nThe whole transaction is to be gathered _from all_ the witnesses. And\nthe law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all\ncases to prove the _substance_ of words alleged to have been spoken, or\nthe substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial\nerrors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be\ndisregarded. Now it is _conceivable_ that the Evangelists, under the\nguidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent)\nsubject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming\nto these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence,\nwhether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as\ninspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1]\nor contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their\nhonesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our\nconfidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his\ncapacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct\naccount of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve\n(and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible\nmeans of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer,\nmay be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his\nmost intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony.\nHe gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: \u201cAnd he that saw bare\nrecord, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that\nye might believe\u201d (c. xix. 35). \u201cAnd many other signs truly did Jesus\nin the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book;\nbut these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,\nthe Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name\u201d\n(c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the\ndisciple \u201cwhom Jesus loved,\u201d and what followed, it is said: \u201cThis is the\ndisciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things;\nand we[2] know that his testimony is true\u201d (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel,\nobviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in\nthem, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned\nin it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of\nthe parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the\nmiracles recorded in them, _i. e._ the feeding of the five thousand,\nand the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles\nnot recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus),\nnumerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and\nfacts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as\nevidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4]\nis elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful\nand deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the\nuniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart,\nenriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord\nand the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to\nthe Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under\nsuch influences.\n\nIt affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of\nour Lord\u2019s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period,\nthan could have been ascertained from the Synoptics.\n\nAlthough Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in\nits life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where\nPeter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant\nupon Peter\u2019s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the\nincidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels.\n\nLuke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion\nof Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn\nup with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for\nhis writing, and the sources of his information. \u201cMany have taken in\nhand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most\nsurely believed among us.\u201d These things, he says, \u201cwere delivered unto\nus by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of\nthe Word.\u201d He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (\u201chaving\nhad perfect understanding of all things from the very first\u201d) for the\nsatisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know\n\u201cthe _certainty_ of those things,\u201d wherein he had been instructed. No\nhistorian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more\nexcellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise\nwhich in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or\nqualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as\nmuch credit as Josephus?\n\nIn comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should\nbe constantly borne in mind, that _omission_ (except under special\ncircumstances) _is not contradiction_. The facts of history, like the\nconclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the\ntransaction deemed to be as shown upon _all_ the evidence. _Positive_\ntestimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the _negative_\ntestimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.\n\nIt is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected\nhistories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little\nregard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order.\nNeither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from\nChrist\u2019s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are\nto be gathered _from them all_. Mark begins with the Baptist at the\nriver Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred\nthat they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of\nJesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the\nShepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men,\nthe slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents.\nBut in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his\nsilence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have\nbeen ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year\n37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention\nthose which had come to his knowledge.\n\nLuke\u2019s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence\nrelating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the\nsame is true of the First and Second Gospels. _It is no impeachment of\ntheir credibility._ Every historian makes such use of materials that he\ndeems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the\nless trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it\nis of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be\ntraced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral\nexistence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no\nothers were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature\nof the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when\nit disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.\n\nThe Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is\nsimple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances\ncalculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the\ngiving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating\ntheir own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of\ngovernment, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are\nsuch as would never be found in false witnesses. \u201cA false witness,\u201d says\nMr. Greenleaf, \u201cwill not willingly detail any circumstances in which his\ntestimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there\nis danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts\nequally circumstantial.\u201d\n\nIt would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the\nmultitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a\nfew of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions;\nand their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude\nimmaterial errors.\n\nWith such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are\nindependent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life\nof Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same _original_ for the\nlikeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact\nthat not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept _all_\nthe Gospels, if _either_.\n\nFrom internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were\nwritten before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written\nbefore Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year\n62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were\nall written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the\ntestimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.\n\n[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of\nexposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary\nquestion of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The _Princeton Review_ for\nJanuary, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is\nimprobable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very\nearly period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing\nas a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue\n(c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus,\nwho was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points,\nfound no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office\nwhich Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a \u201cprocurator.\u201d Or\nLuke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the\ntitle which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office\ntwice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not\nany instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament,\nalthough the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that\nthe instances of alleged _contradictions_ may be reduced to five, and\nthat there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for\nreasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.\n\n[2] Many suppose that the \u201cwe\u201d are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why\ndid they not sign? The \u201cwe\u201d preceded by the unmistakable reference to\nJohn and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is\nas likely to have been John.\n\n[3] \u201cSynoptics\u201d\u2014a word often used by writers at the present day to\ndesignate the first three Gospels.\n\n[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure\nGreek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that\nthe Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr\nrefers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ,\nwell argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the\nhighly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he\npoints out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression.\n\n[5] Three years, and possibly four.\n\n[A] Its omission of Peter\u2019s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30,\nis an exception.\n\n[6] Wright\u2019s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton\u2019s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p.\n188; Wescott\u2019s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE APOCALYPSE AND THE FOUR EPISTLES.\n\n\nWhile all Infidels, from Celsus before the year 180 to Waite, in 1881,\nhave agreed that \u201ceither Jesus was not really dead, or he did not\nreally rise again,\u201d some[1] of them have assumed the one, and some the\nother alternative. Strauss, with Celsus, doubts the reality of the\nresurrection, rather than the death. Schleiermacher, on the other hand,\nheld that Jesus returned again to life from a state of lethargy; and this\nview, although not the position generally taken by skeptics, is still\nheld by a very few.\n\nThere have been two institutions in the Christian church, the Lord\u2019s\nSupper and the Lord\u2019s day, that have testified from the beginning that\nJesus was really dead, and did really rise again from the dead. They\ndisplaced the Jewish Passover and the Jewish Sabbath, both strongly\nentrenched in the law of Moses and long established custom. Such\nsubstitution can be accounted for, only upon the hypothesis of the\nfullest conviction of the death and resurrection of our Lord. The Lord\u2019s\nday is referred to by Paul in First Corinthians (c. xvi.) under the\ndesignation of \u201cthe first day of the week,\u201d and is mentioned by John\nin Revelation (c. i. 10), where he says, \u201cI was in the Spirit on the\nLord\u2019s Day.\u201d The Lord\u2019s Supper has great prominence given to it by Paul\nin the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians. Those to whom he writes\nare admonished not to eat \u201cof that bread,\u201d or drink \u201cof that cup,\u201d in\nan unworthy manner, \u201cFor as often as ye eat this bread and drink this\ncup, ye proclaim the Lord\u2019s death till he come.\u201d As to the origin of\nthis sacrament, he says, \u201cI have received of the Lord that which I also\ndelivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was\nbetrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake and said,\nTake, eat; this is my body broken for you; this do in remembrance of\nme: and after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped,\nsaying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye as oft as\nye drink it, in remembrance of me.\u201d This Epistle was written as early as\nthe year[2] 57, or within 27 years after the Crucifixion. It is not to be\ndoubted that such a command would be observed from the first formation\nof any church. Both the death and resurrection of Christ appear in the\nbook of Revelation. He is called \u201cThe first begotten of the dead\u201d (c.\ni. 5), \u201cHe that liveth and was dead\u201d (c. i. 88), \u201cThe Lamb as it had\nbeen slain,\u201d before whom the four living creatures and the elders (as\nrepresenting the whole Church) fall down, saying, \u201cThou art worthy to\ntake the book, and to 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\u201d (c. v. 6 to 10). And John says that he was in\nexile, \u201cfor the Word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ\u201d\n(c. i. 9). What was this \u201ctestimony,\u201d other than that which Luke says\nin Acts (c. iv. 2) was given by Peter and John when the Sadducees were\n\u201cgrieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus Christ\nthe resurrection from the dead;\u201d or other than that, given by Peter in\nthe presence of John, (c. iii. 15) that the Jews had \u201ckilled the Prince\nof Life, whom God hath raised from the dead; _whereof we are witnesses_.\u201d\nEven from the book of Revelation[3] alone, were there no other proof,\nshould we conclude that _John_ testified that Jesus died and rose again.\n\nThis was the burden of _Paul\u2019s_ preaching and the inspiration of his life.\n\nNor do we stop with Paul. From his writings we know that all the Apostles\nand the whole Church from the beginning, maintained the same grand theme\nwith all the strength of conviction of which men are capable. He had been\npreaching three years prior to the first visit to Jerusalem referred\nto in Galatians (c. i. 18). At this visit he had \u201creturned again,\u201d to\nDamascus. His leaving Damascus was probably the time when he was let\ndown from the wall in a basket, as stated in Second Corinthians (c. xi.\n33), and the city was then held \u201cunder Aretus the King.\u201d Fourteen years\nafter his conversion or his escape (it is uncertain which), he went up\nto Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with him. The precise date\nof his conversion is unknown, but was approximately[4] in the year 36.\nHe writes of the last visit mentioned in Galatians, \u201cthat when James,\nCephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was\ngiven unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship;\nthat we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.\u201d\nFrom that time, then, if not before, with the full recognition of all\nthe Apostles, he became distinctively the Apostle to the Gentiles. And\nat the first visit mentioned, he saw James, the Lord\u2019s brother, and also\nPeter, and abode with him fifteen days. Afterwards, he went into the\nregions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches\nof Judea, but they had heard, \u201cThat he which persecuted us in times past\nnow preacheth the faith which once he destroyed;\u201d and he says, \u201cthey\nglorified God in me\u201d (c. i. 18-24). He says in the thirteenth verse, \u201cYe\nhave heard of my conversation in time past, in the Jews\u2019 religion, how\nthat beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.\u201d\n\nAs there is no doubt what \u201cthe faith\u201d was, which he preached after his\nconversion, so there is no doubt what \u201cthe faith\u201d was \u201cwhich once he\ndestroyed.\u201d Within three years after the commencement of his ministry, he\nsaw James the Lord\u2019s brother, and abode with Peter fifteen days; and at\nthe expiration of the fourteen years, _all_ the Apostles were ready to\ngive him the right hand of fellowship. As there is no doubt what \u201cfaith\u201d\n_he_ preached (which was the same which he had destroyed), so there is\nnone as to what faith the _others_ preached, and _had_ preached from the\nbeginning. _His conversion was within six years of the Crucifixion._\nAs he from that time preached Jesus and the Resurrection, there is no\ndoubt but that Jesus and the Resurrection were preached during the six\nyears before his conversion. Hence, from Paul\u2019s four Epistles (whose\ngenuineness is beyond controversy), we are inevitably carried back to\nthe first ministry of _any_ of the Apostles, for the time when the\ndoctrine of the Resurrection was _first_ proclaimed. This conclusion is\nreached without recourse to the testimony of either of the Evangelists;\nand believers may say with Renan, though in a different spirit, \u201cThanks\nto the Epistle to the Galatians!\u201d If from this Epistle the _precise_\ncommencement of the ministry of Peter and John cannot be determined, it\nmust be inferred that it was before, and apparently some time before,\nPaul\u2019s conversion, which, as has been seen, was _within six years_ of the\nCrucifixion. For this reason, as well as many others, the importance of\nPaul\u2019s testimony can hardly be overestimated.\n\nBut in order that its full force may be better apprehended, it may be\nuseful to present it more in detail, as: In Romans \u201cGod commendeth his\nlove toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us\u201d\n(Rom. v. 8); \u201cChrist being raised from the dead, dieth no more\u201d (Rom.\nvi. 9); \u201cChrist that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even\nat the right hand of God\u201d (Rom. viii. 34); \u201cDeclared to be the Son of\nGod, with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection\nfrom the dead\u201d (Rom. i. 4); \u201cThe word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in\nthy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt\nconfess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart\n_that God hath raised him from the dead_, thou shalt be saved\u201d (Rom. x.\n8, 9); And to the Galatians\u2014\u201cPaul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by\nman, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who _raised him from the\ndead_\u201d (Gal. i. 1); And to the Corinthians\u2014\u201cNow if Christ be preached\nthat he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no\nresurrection of the dead!\u201d \u201cBut if there be no resurrection of the dead,\nthen is _Christ_ not risen;\u201d \u201cAnd if Christ be not risen, then is our\npreaching vain, and your faith is also vain;\u201d \u201cYea, and we are found\nfalse witnesses of God because we have _testified_ of God that he raised\nup Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not\u201d (1\nCor. xv. 12 to 16); \u201cFor I delivered unto you FIRST OF ALL that which\nI also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the\nScriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day\naccording to the Scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the\ntwelve; after that he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once,\nof whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen\nasleep; after that he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles; and\nlast of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time; for I am\nthe least of the Apostles and am not meet to be called an Apostle because\nI persecuted the Church of God\u201d (1 Cor. xv. 3-10).\n\nWe know not with what body Jesus appeared to Paul six years after his\nascension; nor with what body or just when his saints shall rise. But\nwhen Paul says that Christ, having died for our sins, was _buried_ and\nrose again the _third day_, and was seen by those enumerated, it would\nbe a most violent perversion of language to infer that it was not a\n_material_ resurrection. His flesh had not then seen corruption, and he\nhad not yet ascended. The state of things had changed at the time he was\nseen by Paul, and hence the mode of his appearance was different. Paul\ncould not have been ignorant that the Apostles were persuaded that they\nbeheld and handled the corporeal body of their risen Lord, and if he\nhad entertained a different idea of the character of the appearances to\nthem, he could not have written as we have quoted. As will be shown in\nsubsequent chapters, he had \u201creceived,\u201d a corporeal resurrection, and so\nhe \u201cdelivered.\u201d\n\nThese four Epistles of Paul were written about A.D. 58, or within\nless than thirty years from the Crucifixion. By them, two things are\nestablished beyond dispute. _First_, the doctrine of the Resurrection,\nwhether true or false, is not a _myth or legend_, in any sense in which\nthose words are commonly understood, or in any sense in which they\nshould ever be used. Nor are the appearances or _supposed_ appearances\nof our risen Lord, mentioned by Paul (whether they be regarded as real\nor not), _myths or legends_. The _doctrine_ of the Resurrection was not\nthe product of a subsequent age; it was received from the beginning. Nor\nwere the _appearances_ of our risen Lord, which were the basis of that\ndoctrine, the product of a subsequent age. A skeptic, if he will or must,\nmay say that the doctrine is not true, and that the appearances which\nwere accepted as evidence of it were not real; but he cannot without an\nabuse of language say that the one, or the others, are _myths or legends_.\n\n_Second_, the Apostles and early disciples most intensely believed the\ndoctrine to be true, and the appearances to be real. Even Strauss is\ncompelled to admit their sincerity. He concedes that the Epistle to the\nCorinthians is undoubtedly genuine. And he says that on its authority,\n\u201cOne must believe that many members of the primitive church who were\nyet living at the time when this Epistle was written, especially the\nApostles, were convinced that they had witnessed appearances of the risen\nChrist.\u201d (Strauss\u2019 Life, etc., p. 832.) And this is generally conceded by\nall skeptics at the present day who have any claim to be even tolerably\ninformed upon the subject of the Resurrection, and any disposition to\ndeal with it in any spirit of fairness. This narrows our inquiry very\nmuch. Thus far we rest on solid ground. We start with the fact fully\nestablished, that we are not dealing with myths, or legends, concerning\na remote transaction. We know precisely what convictions in respect to\nthe Resurrection were entertained at the very time of the transaction,\nby those best qualified to judge; and we also know many of the facts,\nupon which these convictions were based. We may say, if we choose, that\nthe supposed appearances were not real; but we cannot say they are an\n_afterthought_. They must have been entertained from the very beginning,\ncertainly as early as the day of Pentecost. The Apostles believed with\nmost intense earnestness, that they had seen their _Risen Lord_, and had\nreceived from him their Commission to disciple all nations, baptizing\nthem into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\n\nTheir honesty being conceded, the only question remaining is, _were\nthey deceived_? Mistake on their part could only have been in one or\ntwo things; either that he did not die upon the cross, or else that\nhe was not alive afterward. And here it is important to observe, that\nthe Evangelists do little more than give to some extent the times and\ncircumstances of transactions already declared, in the Epistles, to have\noccurred. Of course those transactions as they were understood when the\nEpistles were written, _had_ their times and circumstances. Paul declared\nwhat he had \u201creceived,\u201d\u2014that Jesus _died_ and was _buried_. The Gospels\nstate the time and the attending circumstances. Paul declared, as he had\n\u201creceived,\u201d\u2014that Christ _rose again the third day_. The Gospels state\nthe circumstances. Paul declared, as he had \u201creceived,\u201d\u2014that Jesus after\nhe rose on the third day, was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, after\nthat by about five hundred brethren, after that by James, and then again\nby all the Apostles. The Gospels and the first chapter of Acts state the\ncircumstances of some, though not of all, of these several appearances.\nFrom what we know already from Paul\u2019s Epistles, further information\nfrom some source should be expected; and the Evangelists afford that\ninformation. We must believe that they state the _circumstances_, as they\nwere understood when Paul wrote his Epistles, and as they were understood\nwhen the Resurrection was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost. As\nthe principal facts, _i. e._ the Resurrection and subsequent visible\nappearances till the Ascension, were not an afterthought, neither are\nthe _circumstances_ attending them as recorded by the Evangelists, an\nafterthought. In respect to these circumstances, we can see and know\nwhat the Apostles _supposed_ they saw, and heard, and knew.\n\nThe Evangelists, therefore, by stating circumstances not specified by\nPaul, enable us to determine more certainly, whether the Apostles were\ndeceived. And what they state of Christ\u2019s predictions of his death and\nhis resurrection, may also help us to determine whether the Apostles were\ndeceived.\n\n[1] Strauss\u2019 Life of Jesus, Vol. II., pp. 843-4; Godet\u2019s Com. on St.\nLuke, A.D. 1881, p. 511.\n\n[2] Conybeare and Howson\u2019s Life, etc., of Paul, p. 962.\n\n[3] Judge Waite will not admit John\u2019s authorship, and he cites Eusebius\ncc. 3-39, as having attributed the Apocalypse to John the Presbyter.\nThis may indicate a present \u201ctendency\u201d by skeptical writers to shift\ntheir ground. Eusebius, however, only states that there were two, John\nthe Apostle, and John the Presbyter, and that \u201cit is probable that the\nsecond, if it be not allowed that it was the first, saw the Revelation\nascribed to John.\u201d Justin Martyr had long before (Dial., c. 81) in\nexpress terms given John the Apostle as the author; and such is the\ngeneral verdict of scholars.\n\n[4] Conybeare and Howson, pp. 438, 961, 964.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nHIS PREDICTIONS CONCERNING HIMSELF.\n\n\nIn the account of Christ\u2019s crucifixion by Matthew and Mark, it is\nrecorded that they which passed by railed on him, saying,\u2014\u201cThou that\ndestroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save thyself\u201d; and\nthat witnesses had testified to the same accusation, but did not agree.\nThe disagreement seems to have been, that some (Mark xiv. 58) testified\nthat he said,\u2014\u201cI will destroy this temple that is made with hands and\nin three days I will build another made without hands,\u201d and the others\n(Matthew xxvi. 61) \u201cI am able to destroy the temple of God and to build\nit in three days.\u201d The Evangelists properly characterize both classes\nas _false_ witnesses. Jesus had not said, \u201c_I will_ destroy,\u201d nor \u201cI\nam _able_ to destroy,\u201d but, \u201cDestroy (_thou_) this temple.\u201d It was not\na destroying by _him_, but by _them_; and it was the temple of his own\nbody. It was the earliest, and in some respects the most striking of his\npredictions of his death and resurrection. It was on the occasion of his\ncleansing the temple at the first Passover. The Jews demanded of him,\n\u201cWhat sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things?\u201d Jesus\nsaid, \u201cDestroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d The\nJews therefore said, \u201cForty and six years was this temple in building,\nand wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of\nhis body. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead his disciples\nremembered that he spake this, and they believed the Scripture and the\nword which Jesus had said.\u201d (John ii. 13 to 22.)\n\nIt must have been soon after this Passover, and certainly before John\nthe Baptist was cast into prison, that Jesus said to Nicodemus, that,\nas Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son\nof Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal\nlife. (John iii. 14, 15.) Nicodemus does not appear again, until his mild\nprotest to the rest of the Sanhedrim,\u2014\u201cDoth our law judge a man except\nit first hear from himself, and know what he doeth?\u201d[1] They answered\nand said unto him, \u201cArt thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out\nof Galilee ariseth no prophet.\u201d He was silent. (John viii. 45 to 52.)\nBut when Jesus had been put to death as a malefactor, no longer afraid,\nhe comes with Joseph of Arimathea, bringing a mixture of myrrh and\naloes, about a hundred pounds weight, and they gave the Crucified One a\nprincely burial. (John xix. 39, 40, 41.) What had wrought this change in\nNicodemus? The lifting up upon the cross, was to _him_ assured proof that\nJesus was a true \u201cprophet, and more than a prophet.\u201d\n\nOn more than one occasion in his early ministry, Jesus in reply to a\ndemand for a sign from heaven had said, \u201cThere shall no sign be given\nbut the sign of Jonah the prophet; for as Jonah was three days and three\nnights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days\nand three nights in the heart of the earth.\u201d (Matthew xii. 38 to 40;\nLuke xi. 29.) That he should be there only three days and three nights\nimplied his resurrection. To any objection that he was not in the tomb\nany part of three nights, the customary[2] use of language among the Jews\nis a sufficient answer. In the _Talm hieros_, it is said that a day and a\nnight together make up a period; and a part of such a period is counted\nas the whole. It is a received[3] rule among the Jews that a part of a\nday is put for the whole. Yet that the prediction was expressed in such\nterms, is strong evidence of the truthfulness of the record. As Godet\nwell says, \u201cWho would ever have dreamed of _falsely_ putting in the mouth\nof Jesus the expression three days and three nights, when in actual fact\nthe time spent in the tomb did not exceed one day and two nights?\u201d\n\nJesus, when called to account for healing on the Sabbath day, answered:\n\u201cMy Father worketh even until now, and I work.\u201d For this cause,\ntherefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only\nbroke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself\nequal with God. In reply Jesus said: \u201cFor as the Father raiseth the dead,\nand quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will ... Verily,\nverily, I say unto you, The hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall\nhear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live....\nMarvel not at this, for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the\ntomb shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done\ngood, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto\nthe resurrection of judgment.\u201d (John v. 1 to 29.)\n\nIn his discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum, concerning the manna, he\nsaid to the Jews: \u201cThe bread which I give is my flesh (that is, my life),\nfor the life of the world.... For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood\nis drink indeed.... Many therefore of his disciples when they heard,\nsaid, \u2018This is a hard saying; who can hear it?\u2019 But Jesus knowing in\nhimself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, \u2018Doth this\ncause you to stumble? _What_ then if ye behold the Son of man ascending\nwhere he was before.\u2019\u201d (John vi. 30 to 63.)\n\nHis first distinct announcement that he should be put to death and\nbe raised from the dead, was upon Peter\u2019s confession,\u2014 \u201cThou art the\nChrist the Son of the living God;\u201d and it doubtless was in consequence\nof this confession. It was after John the Baptist had been put to\ndeath, and after the third Passover, but before the time had come for\na public declaration of his Messiahship; for he charged the disciples\nthat they should tell no man that he was the Christ. The place was in\nthe coast of Cesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan. With\nverbal differences, the same account substantially is given by each\nof the Synoptics, and as follows: \u201cFrom that time began Jesus to show\nunto his disciples, how that he must go into Jerusalem and suffer many\nthings of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and the third day\nbe raised up.\u201d (Matthew xvi. 21.) \u201cAnd he began to teach them that the\nSon of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and\nthe chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days\nrise again.\u201d (Mark viii. 31.) \u201cThe Son of Man must suffer many things\nand be rejected of the elders and the chief priests and scribes and be\nkilled, and the third day be raised up.\u201d (Luke ix. 22.) Such is the\ntestimony of these three witnesses. They agree also, that he warned the\ndisciples not to anticipate worldly glory, but the reverse. Peter, from\n_his_ conception of the Messiahship, treated Christ\u2019s predictions of his\ndeath as but gloomy forebodings, and began to rebuke him, saying, \u201cBe it\nfar from thee, Lord; this shall never be unto thee.\u201d But he turned and\nsaid unto Peter, \u201cGet thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block\nunto me: for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.\u201d\n(Matthew xvi. 23; Mark viii. 33.)\n\nSix or eight days after these transactions Jesus took with him Peter\nand John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray; and he was\ntransfigured before them. As they were coming down from the mountain\n\u201che commanded them to tell the vision to no man until the Son of Man be\nrisen from the dead.\u201d (Matthew xvii. 1, 2; Mark viii. 2 to 9; Luke ix.\n28 to 36.) Mark adds (doubtless from Peter), that they kept that saying,\nquestioning among themselves, what the rising again from the dead should\nmean.\n\nElijah\u2019s appearance suggested to them the question, \u201cWhy do the scribes\nsay that Elijah must first come?\u201d To which Jesus replied, \u201cElijah is come\nalready, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they listed.\nEven so shall the Son of Man also suffer of them.\u201d Then understood the\ndisciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist (Matthew xvii. 10\nto 13). Mark (ix. 12 to 14) puts the reference to the Son of Man in the\nform of a question: \u201cAnd how is it written of the Son of Man that he\nshould suffer many things and be set at naught? But I say unto you that\nElijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed,\neven as it is written of him.\u201d In either form his own death is predicted.\n\nAfter the transfiguration he went to Capernaum, passing through Galilee.\n\u201cAnd while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, \u2018The Son of Man\nshall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and\nthe third day he shall be raised up.\u2019 And they were exceeding sorry.\u201d\n(Matthew xvii. 22, 23.) \u201c\u2018The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands\nof men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three\ndays he shall rise again.\u2019 But they understood not the saying, and were\nafraid to ask him.\u201d (Mark ix. 30 to 32.) \u201c\u2018Let these words sink into\nyour ears: for the Son of Man shall be delivered up into the hands of\nmen.\u2019 But they understood not this saying, and it was concealed from them\nthat they should not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about\nthis saying.\u201d (Luke ix. 44, 45.) It is not necessary to suppose that\nit was otherwise concealed than by their dullness of apprehension, and\npreconceived opinions.\n\nAt the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus said to the officers whom the\nPharisees had sent to take him: \u201cYet a little while am I with you, and\nI go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me and shall not find me: and\nwhere I am ye cannot come.\u201d (John vii. 32 to 35.)\n\nHe said the same to the Pharisees or the \u201cJews,\u201d the day following the\nfeast as he taught in the temple; and they said, \u201cWill he kill himself,\nthat he saith whither I go ye cannot come?\u201d In reply, after repeating his\nprevious declaration, he said, \u201cWhen ye have lifted up the Son of Man,\nthen shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but\nas the Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is\nwith me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are\npleasing to him.\u201d (John viii. 21 to 30.)\n\nIn the parable of the good shepherd spoken soon after the Feast, Jesus\nsays: \u201cI am the good shepherd ... and I lay down my life for the\nsheep.... Therefore doth the Father love me because I lay down my life\nthat I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me, but I lay it\ndown of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it\nagain. This commandment received I of my Father.\u201d (John x. 11 to 18.)\n\nHe said to Martha, \u201cI am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth\non me, though he die yet shall he live.\u201d (John xi. 25.)\n\nAs he was going up to Jerusalem to the Passover at which he was to\nsuffer, he again repeated his announcement to his disciples. \u201cBehold we\ngo up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief\npriests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall\ndeliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, to scourge, and to crucify; and\nthe third day he shall be raised up.\u201d (Matthew xx. 18, 19.) \u201cBehold, we\ngo up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief\npriests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall\ndeliver him unto the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall spit\nupon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days\nhe shall rise again.\u201d (Mark x. 33, 34.) \u201cBehold we go up to Jerusalem,\nand all the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished\nunto the Son of Man; for he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and\nshall be mocked, and shamefully entreated, and spit upon; and they shall\nscourge and kill him; and the third day he shall rise again. And they\nunderstood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them; and\nthey perceived not the things that were said.\u201d (Luke xviii. 31 to 34.)\n\nImmediately after (as it would seem), the mother of James and John came\nwith them with the request, that the sons might sit one on his right\nhand, and one on his left hand, in his kingdom. The ten were moved with\nindignation. But Jesus said, \u201cThe Son of Man came not to be ministered\nunto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many.\u201d (Matthew\nxx. 20 to 28; Mark x. 45.)\n\nSix days before the Passover, he came to Bethany, where Lazarus was whom\nhe had raised from the dead, and they made him a supper in the house of\nSimon; and Mary (the sister of Lazarus) anointed his head and feet with\nvery precious ointment. This excited the anger of Judas. Jesus said, \u201cWhy\ntrouble ye the woman, for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye\nhave the poor always with you; but me ye have not always, for in that she\npoured this ointment upon my body she did it to prepare me for burial.\nVerily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the\nwhole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for\na memorial of her.\u201d (Matthew xxvi. 6 to 13; Mark xiv. 3 to 10; John xii.\n2 to 8.)\n\nImmediately after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on the first day of\nthe week of his crucifixion, he was told that certain Greeks desired to\nsee him. It was to him a sign of his glorification among the Gentiles,\nand, therefore, of his death. He answered, \u201cThe hour is come that the Son\nof Man should be glorified. Verily, verily I say unto you, except a grain\nof wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but\nif it die, it beareth much fruit.... Now is my soul troubled; and what\nshall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I\nunto this hour.... And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all\nmen unto myself.\u201d But this he said signifying by what manner of death he\nshould die.\u201d (John xii. 20 to 22.)\n\nThe parable of the wicked husbandman (to be found in all the Synoptics)\nrepresents them as killing the son and heir, by whom, as the context\nshows, our Lord was intended. And Jesus said, \u201cDid ye never read in the\nScriptures:\n\n    \u2018The stone which the builders rejected,\n    The same was made the head of the corner;\n    This was from the Lord,\n    And it is marvellous in our eyes.\u2019\n\nTherefore, say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from\nyou, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.\nAnd he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces; but on\nwhomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.\u201d (Matthew xxi. 42\nto 45; Mark xii. 1 to 12; Luke xx. 9 to 10.)\n\nAnd every day he was teaching in the temple; every night he went out and\nlodged in the Mount of Olives till the third day of the week (Tuesday)\nwith which his public ministry ended; and then he departed from the\ntemple, never to return.\n\nWhen he had finished his teaching in the temple, he said unto his\ndisciples, \u201cYe know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son\nof Man is delivered up to be crucified.\u201d (Matthew xxvi. 2.)\n\nPeter and John, as he had directed, made ready the Passover, and when the\nhour was come, he sat down, and the Apostles with him. And he said unto\nthem, \u201cWith desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I\nsuffer.\u201d (Luke xxii. 7 to 15.)\n\nAll the Evangelists state, that Jesus at the Passover supper said to the\ntwelve, \u201cOne of you shall betray me\u201d; and two of the Evangelists say that\nhe designated the traitor, by the giving of the sop. (Matthew xxvi. 21 to\n25; Mark xiv. 18 to 21; Luke xxii. 21 to 23; John xiii. 21 to 35.)\n\nAfter giving him the sop, Jesus said to Judas, \u201cThat thou doest do\nquickly;\u201d and he having received the sop, went out straightway to carry\nout that which he had before agreed; _and it was night_. (Luke xxii. 2 to\n6; John xiii. 26 to 30.)\n\nAfter Judas had gone out, Jesus said, \u201cNow is the son of man glorified,\nand God is glorified in him; and to Peter he said, Whither I go thou\ncanst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow afterwards.\u201d (John xii.\n36, 37.)\n\nTo the institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper, there is the testimony of\nthe three Synoptic Gospels, and that of Paul; four witnesses; and its\nconstant observance from that time to the present. It was to commemorate\nhis death to the end of the world,\u2014\u201cTake, eat, this is my body.... Drink\nye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant which is shed for\nmany unto remission of sins.\u201d (Matthew xvii. 26 to 28.) \u201cTake ye; this\nis my body.\u201d \u201cThis is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many.\u201d\n(Mark xiv. 22 to 25.) \u201cThis is my body which is given for you; this do in\nremembrance of me.... This cup is the new covenant in my blood, _even_\nthat which is poured out for you.\u201d (Luke xxii. 18 to 22.) \u201cThis is my\nbody, which is for you; this do in remembrance of me.... This cup is the\nnew covenant in my blood; this do as oft as ye drink _it_ in remembrance\nof me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim\nthe Lord\u2019s death till he come.\u201d (1 Corinthians xi. 23 to 28.)\n\nTo his saying that he would go before them into Galilee after his\nresurrection, there are _two_ witnesses. It was after they had sung\ntheir hymn, and had gone out unto the Mount of Olives. \u201cAll ye shall be\noffended in me this night; for it is written I will smite the shepherd,\nand the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am\nraised up I will go before you into Galilee.\u201d So, Matthew. Mark\u2019s account\nis: \u201cAnd Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended; for it is\nwritten, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered\nabroad. Howbeit after I am raised up I will go before you into Galilee.\u201d\n(Matthew xxvi. 31, 32; Mark xiv. 27, 28.)\n\nThat Peter should thrice deny that he knew him, is proved by _all_ the\nEvangelists. \u201cVerily, verily, I say unto thee, that this night before\nthe cock crow[4] thou shalt deny me thrice.\u201d (Matthew xxvi. 34, 35.) \u201cI\ntell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt\nthrice deny that thou knowest me.\u201d (Luke xxii. 34.) \u201cVerily, verily, I\nsay unto thee, the cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.\u201d\n(John xiii. 38.) Mark (probably from Peter himself) says that when Peter\nsaid, \u201cAlthough all should be offended, yet will not I,\u201d Jesus said to\nhim, \u201cVerily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, _even_ this night, before\nthe cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.\u201d \u201cBut he spake exceeding\nvehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like\nmanner said they all.\u201d (Mark xiv. 26 to 31.)\n\nYet in the discourse which followed, Jesus again says, \u201cBehold the hour\ncometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own,\nand shall leave me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is\nwith me.\u201d (John x. 31, 32.)\n\n\u201cYet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold\nme; because I live ye shall live also.\u201d (John xiv. 19, 20.)\n\n\u201cPeace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you; not as the world\ngiveth I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be\nfearful.\u201d\n\n\u201cYe heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved\nme ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father, for the Father\nis greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that\nwhen it is come to pass ye may believe.\u201d (John xiv. 27 to 31.)\n\n\u201cGreater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for\nhis friends. Ye are my friends if ye do the things which I command you.\u201d\n(John xv. 13, 14.)\n\n\u201cBut now I go unto him that sent me, and none of you asketh me, Whither\ngoest thou? But because I have spoken these things unto you sorrow hath\nfilled your heart.\u201d (John xv. 5, 6.)\n\n\u201cA little while and ye behold me no more, and again a little while and ye\nshall see me.\u201d (John xv. 16.)\n\n\u201cVerily, verily, I say unto you, that ye shall weep and lament, but the\nworld shall rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be\nturned into joy.\u201d (John xvi. 20.)\n\n\u201cAnd I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to\nthee.\u201d (John xvii. 11.)\n\n\u201cAgain the high priest asked him and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ,\nthe Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am, and ye shall see the Son\nof Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of\nheaven.\u201d (Mark xiv. 62.)\n\nTo Pilate he said, \u201cI am a king\u201d; and \u201cThou wouldst have no power against\nme, except it were given thee from above.\u201d (John xviii. 33 to 37; xix.\n11.)\n\nTo the penitent thief he said, \u201cVerily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt\nthou be with me in paradise.\u201d (Luke xxiii. 43.)\n\nWhen he had cried with a loud voice HE SAID, \u201cFATHER, INTO THY HANDS\nI COMMEND MY SPIRIT.\u201d (Luke xxiii. 46.) And all the Evangelists, four\nwitnesses, say that he \u201cgave up,\u201d or \u201cyielded up,\u201d the ghost.\n\nThere is as much evidence of these utterances (and they are not _all_ of\nhis predictions, in some form, of his death and resurrection), as there\nis of any of his sayings upon any subject, and they are so interwoven\nwith the entire narrative that is impossible to set them aside, and\nleave anything to which we can safely assent as historically true of all\nhis recorded acts and words. There is no alternative, except to believe\nthat he uttered these predictions, or else to arbitrarily set aside\nthe testimony of the four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul. It is\nimpossible to save their character as honest witnesses, and deny that\nJesus at various times, and in different ways, foretold his death and the\ncircumstances attending it, and also his resurrection, and that after he\nwas raised from the dead, he would go before them into Galilee. Not that\nwe have the _precise_ words, neither more nor less, that he uttered. In\nno instance do any two of the five witnesses give _precisely_ the same\nwords. Their testimony is in accordance with what usually[A] occurs, with\nhonest witnesses. The witness says, \u201cI cannot give the exact words, or\nall of them.\u201d He is told to give the substance of what was said; and he\ndoes so to the extent of his recollection, using some of the same words,\ndoubtless, but in the main expressing the idea in language of his own.\nYet there is sufficient certainty, for the court or jury, in matters\nof the greatest concern. It is, in the highest degree, unreasonable to\ndemand more of the Evangelists. It is also to be borne in mind that\nneither of them professes to give all of our Lord\u2019s sayings; and John,\nwriting much later than the others, purposely omitted many things as\nhaving been already sufficiently stated.\n\nIf, then (as it cannot be doubted was a fact), Jesus plainly foretold\nhis death, why did it take his disciples by surprise? The answer to\nthis question may be that not till within six months of the close of\nhis ministry were they thus told; those months were crowded with his\nteachings and miracles, multitudes were following him; he had just before\nentered Jerusalem as they might expect their Messiah would do, amidst the\nhosannahs of thousands; and they were so filled with their visions of his\nglory, and their false conceptions of the predicted Messiah, whom they\nbelieved him to be, that they could not understand him. Their mistake\nunder the circumstances was a natural one. (See also _post_, c. 19.)\n\n[1] Canon Farrar\u2019s Life of Christ, c. 13; Lange, ditto, Vol. II., p. 29;\nJohn ii. 13-22, and iii 22-25. Here, and in all _subsequent_ references,\nthe citations are from the Revised Version of the New Testament, unless\notherwise stated.\n\n[2] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note, citing Stier, ii, 171.\n\n[3] Lange, Vol. II., p. 273, note; Godet on Luke, p. 265; Whitby, as\nquoted by Scott, on Matthew xii. 40; Genesis i. 5; Daniel viii. 14, with\nGenesis vii. 4 and 17; Deuteronomy xiv. 28, with xxvi. 12; 1 Samuel xx.\n12, with v. 19; 2 Chronicles x. 5, with v. 12; Matthew xxvi. 2, with\nxxvii. 63 and 64; Luke ii. 21, with i. 59; 1 Kings xx. 29; Esther iv. 16;\nGreenleaf on the Evangelists, etc., 268, 269 and notes.\n\n[4] The cock crows about midnight and about three in the morning, which\nwas the beginning of the fourth watch. Galicinium (Cock-crowing) standing\nalone means the latter time; so that the same time is referred to by all.\nGreenleaf\u2019s Testimony, etc., p. 436, and citations.\n\n[A] See _post_, c. 19.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nORDER OF EVENTS.\n\n\nWhatever difficulties may exist as to minor points, all the facts\nnecessary to a correct decision of the question of the Resurrection\nmay be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the order of their\noccurrence.[A]\n\nThat Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is the testimony of\nall history. That his crucifixion was the day before the Jewish Sabbath\nis proved by all the Evangelists, and the constant observance of the\nFirst Day of the week as the Lord\u2019s Day.\n\nHaving been condemned to death, and his execution entrusted to Roman\nsoldiers, there is the strongest presumption that the sentence was fully\nexecuted. This presumption is confirmed by all the Evangelists, by Paul\nin all his Epistles, and by the constant teaching of all the Apostles.\nOn the day of Pentecost, Peter boldly said, Ye men of Israel, Jesus of\nNazareth being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge\nof God, \u201cye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay;\u201d and no one\ncalled in question the fact of his death. Again, at the healing of the\nlame man, he declared, \u201cYe denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked\nfor a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of Life;\u201d\nthis charge he repeated before the Sanhedrim; and there was no denial.\nWhen Peter and John, after their release from prison, were brought before\nthe Council, one charge against them was: \u201cYe have filled Jerusalem with\nyour teaching, and intend to bring this man\u2019s blood upon us.\u201d Stephen,\nwhen brought before the Council, declared, \u201cYe have now become the\nbetrayers and murderers ... of the Righteous One.\u201d If there could have\nbeen the slightest doubt of the actual death of Christ, the Council would\nhave furnished the evidence.\n\nJohn solemnly declares that \u201cone of the soldiers, with a spear, pierced\nhis side, and straightway there came out blood and water.\u201d It was a\nthrust by a Roman soldier to make the fact of death absolutely certain.\nIt was such a result as would have followed, if, from excessive labors\nand extreme agony, there was a collection of water about the heart,\nor if from like causes, and as Dr. Stroud and other eminent surgeons\nsuppose,[1] the cause of his death was a rupture or breaking of the heart.\n\nAnd, finally, not less than forty times, on different occasions, and in a\nvariety of ways, had Jesus foretold his death. He instituted a Sacrament\nto commemorate it; he said to the penitent thief: \u201cThis day shalt thou be\nwith me in Paradise;\u201d and in the extreme moment, \u201cFather, into thy hands\nI commend my Spirit.\u201d It is not possible to accept the hypothesis of his\nreturn to life from a state of lethargy, without destroying _his_ moral\ncharacter, as well as that of his disciples. Where was he, when Peter and\nStephen were charging home his death upon the guilty Jews? Where was he,\nwhen Stephen suffered martyrdom for his sake, and when his apostles and\ndisciples were preaching his death and resurrection?\n\nEven Strauss is constrained to say \u201cThe whole country-side knew that he\nwas dead.\u201d\n\nHe was buried. So says Paul, and[2] all the Evangelists. As the day of\nthe crucifixion was drawing to its close, that the bodies should not\nremain on the cross[2] upon the Sabbath (for that day[2] of the Sabbath,\nwas a high day), the Jews asked of Pilate that the legs of those who had\nbeen crucified might be broken,[2] and they be taken away. The soldiers\nbrake the legs of the others, but not of Jesus, for they found that he\nwas already dead; and his death was assured by one of the soldiers.\nThereupon Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man and a counsellor, begged the\nbody of Jesus. Pilate, after he knew from the centurion that he was\ndead, commanded it to be delivered. Joseph, with Nicodemus, wound it in\nfine linen with spices, and laid it in his own new tomb, hewn out in the\nrock, rolled a great stone \u201cto,\u201d or \u201cagainst\u201d the door, and departed.\nThe sepulchre was \u201cnigh at hand,\u201d otherwise, there would not have been\ntime for the burial before the coming in of the Sabbath. The next[3] day\nthe chief priests and Pharisees or some of them, obtained from Pilate a\nguard, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone (Matthew xxvii. 62,\n66).\n\nThe objection that they could not have known that Jesus had said, \u201cAfter\nthree days I will rise again,\u201d is well answered by Alford: \u201cNot the\nsaying, but its meaning was hid from his disciples.\u201d Judas knew it, and\nmay have informed the chief priests and Pharisees of it; and they may\nhave known it from other sources, for it was not spoken in secret. Nor\nwith their perverse rejection of him while they could not deny his works,\nis it improbable that they might have some apprehension of the necessity\nof a guard? We are not to judge them from our standpoint, but from\ntheirs. They did _not_ believe that he was the Messiah (Acts iii. 17; 1\nCorinthians ii. 8). They said and doubtless believed, after a fashion,\n\u201cHe deceiveth the people\u201d and \u201ccasteth out devils through the prince\nof the devils.\u201d Their guilty fears were the occasion of this increased\ncertainty of his resurrection. The mention of a guard by Matthew\n(although not by the other Evangelists), is in perfect keeping with his\nprevious occupation, which had led him to make, and observe, precautions\nagainst fraud. It was, in his view, as in ours, an important fact that\ntheir precautions against imposition had reacted upon themselves. His\nnarrative is unimpeached. It was published early, and his statement of\nthe appointment of a guard was not contradicted.\n\nThe facts must stand that Jesus died, and was buried; and at the\ninstance of his bitterest foes, soldiers guarded his tomb against the\nlittle company of his frightened followers.\n\nAt a very early hour on the first day of the week it was known that the\nstone had been rolled away, and the body of Jesus was not in the tomb.\nSuch is the testimony of all the Evangelists. This great fact is at the\nthreshold of our inquiry. It must be accounted for. The Christian\u2019s\nexplanation is that Jesus rose from the dead, and an angel of the Lord\ndescended and rolled away the stone. The account which the soldiers were\ninduced to circulate was, that his disciples came by night and stole him\naway while they slept. This story was current among the Jews when Matthew\nwrote[4] his Gospel, and when, nearly a hundred years after, Justin\nMartyr wrote to Trypho the Jew. It ought not to be difficult to determine\nwhich explanation is the true one.\n\nAs soon as Mary Magdalene (who was of the company of women who came first\nto see the sepulchre), saw that the stone was rolled away, she ran to\nPeter and John, saying, \u201cThey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb\nand we know not where they have laid him.\u201d (John xx. 2.)\n\nThe other women[5] entered into the sepulchre, and found not the body of\nJesus, but saw two angels, one of whom said to them, \u201cHe is not here, he\nis risen; but go your way and tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth\nbefore you into Galilee, there shall ye see him as he said unto you.\u201d\n(Why should the Apostles be told that Jesus would go before them into\nGalilee, if he was to show himself to them that very day at Jerusalem?\nBoth to prepare them for the interview at Jerusalem, and in order that\nthe tidings might be carried to all the disciples, the most of whom were\nin Galilee.)\n\nThey departed quickly with fear and great joy, and told these things unto\nsuch of the Apostles as they found in the city; but \u201cthese words appeared\nin their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.\u201d (Luke xxiv. 11.)\n\nAs soon as Peter and John knew from Mary Magdalene, of the open\nsepulchre, they ran both together, but John outran Peter and came\nfirst to the tomb; \u201cand stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen\nclothes lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh,\nfollowing him, and enters into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen\nclothes lying and the napkin that was upon his head, not lying with\nthe linen clothes, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in\ntherefore the other disciple also, which came first to the tomb, and he\nsaw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must\nrise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again unto their own\nhome.\u201d (John xx. 1-10.)\n\nSuch is the circumstantial account given by John of the state of things\nat the tomb, as they found it before Jesus appeared to any one, and\nbefore they had received any information that he had risen from the dead.\nThe body was not there. It could hardly have been removed by friends, and\nthey both be ignorant of it. Had it been taken by enemies? There were the\nlinen clothes, and there, rolled up in a place by itself, was the napkin.\nWho had arranged them thus? \u201cAll had been done calmly, collectedly.\nNeither earthly friends nor earthly foes had done it; the one would not\nhave stripped the garments from the body, the other would have been at\nno pains so carefully to arrange[6] and deposit them.\u201d So John must have\nreasoned and, perhaps recalling what Jesus had said, he _believed_. He\nbelieved from what he _saw_, and not from the Scriptures, for as yet he\nknew not from them, that the Christ \u201cmust rise again from the dead.\u201d It\nis not probable that he then avowed his conviction. He trusted that Jesus\nwould, in due time, reveal himself to them all.\n\nThe particulars of his appearance to Mary Magdalene appear in the Fourth\nGospel. She was not expecting to see him, and, blinded by her tears,\nshe knew not that it was Jesus until he spoke her name, doubtless in\na familiar tone. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew,\n_Rabboni_, which is to say, Master. She _would_ have clung to him. Jesus\nhad told his disciples before his crucifixion that he was to go to the\nFather. But this event was yet in the future; and when she would detain\nhim, Jesus saith to her, Touch me not (or Take not hold on me) for I am\nnot yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren and say to\nthem, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and my God, and your\nGod. This would remind _them_ of what he had told them; and would remind\n_her_, as Peter afterwards was reminded, that she would best manifest\nher love by willing service. She obeyed. But those to whom she told it,\nwhen they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.\n(Mark xvi. 17.)\n\nThe other women after delivering the message of the angels, returned.\nAnd behold Jesus met them saying \u201cAll Hail.\u201d And they came and took hold\nof his feet and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not:\ngo tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they\nsee me. (Matthew xxviii. 9, 10.) Matthew, speaking in a general way,\ndoes not distinguish this appearance from that to Mary Magdalene, but\nblends the two together. The salutation was different, and the message\nand the circumstances were different. Nor is it, as Strauss (p. 813)\nvainly imagines, any objection to the hypothesis of separate appearances,\nthat it involves \u201ca restless running to and fro of the disciples and\nthe women;\u201d for under the intense excitement it could hardly have been\notherwise.[7]\n\nJesus joined himself to two of the disciples on their journey to Emmaus,\ndiscoursed to them by the way, and made himself known in the breaking\nof bread. One of them was Cleopas, the other (his name not given) is\nsupposed[8] to have been Luke. When they left Jerusalem, the woman had\nreported the message from the angel. Peter and John had returned from\nthe tomb, but no one had seen the Risen Lord. The time of their leaving\nwas before Mary Magdalene had told that she had seen the Lord. The day\ntherefore must have been considerably advanced before Jesus appeared to\nher.\n\nIt was toward evening, when Jesus sat down with them to meat. Their eyes\nwere opened and they knew him, and he \u201cvanished out of their sight.\u201d\n\nAnd they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the\neleven gathered together and them that were with them, saying, \u201cThe Lord\nis risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.\u201d\n\nThis, as we learn from Paul, was the first appearance to any of the\nApostles. The time and place are not mentioned. We only know that it was\nbefore the arrival of the two disciples. Emmaus[9] was about eight miles\nfrom Jerusalem. The narrative seems to indicate that the event had but\njust occurred.\n\nThe two disciples rehearsed the things that had happened. As they spake,\nJesus himself stood in the midst of the disciples, and said, \u201cPeace be\nunto you.\u201d But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they\nbeheld a spirit. He said unto them, \u201cWhy are ye troubled, and wherefore\ndo reasonings arise in your heart? See my hands and my feet, that it is I\nmyself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye\nbehold me having.\u201d And when he had said this, he showed them his hands\nand his feet; and while they still disbelieved for joy and wondered, he\nsaid unto them, \u201cHave ye here anything to eat?\u201d and they gave him a piece\nof broiled fish. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke xxiv.\n35-43.)\n\nBut Thomas, who was not with them, having said, \u201cExcept I shall see in\nhis hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of\nthe nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe,\u201d Jesus\neight days after stood in their midst and said, \u201cPeace be unto you.\u201d\nThen saith he to Thomas, \u201cReach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and\nreach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless,\nbut believing.\u201d Thomas answered and said unto him, \u201cMy Lord and my God.\u201d\nJesus saith unto him, \u201cBecause thou hast seen me thou hast believed;\nblessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.\u201d (John xx.\n24-29.)\n\nAfter these things Jesus manifested himself at the Sea of Tiberias, to\nPeter, Thomas, Nathaniel, James, John and two others. It was on this\noccasion that he three times asked Simon Peter, \u201cLovest thou me?\u201d and he\nsignified to him by what death he should glorify God. This is said to be\nthe _third_ time that he manifested himself to the disciples, _i. e._, to\nthe Apostles when they were together. (John xxi. 1-23.)\n\nThen he appeared (says Paul) to above five hundred brethren at once,\nof whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep.\nPaul is speaking only of manifestations to Apostles or some of them.\nThe Apostles surely were not absent from this great assembly. All the\ncircumstances indicate that it was the meeting which he had provided[10]\nfor, before his crucifixion, and that it occurred on a mountain in\nGalilee.\n\nThen he appeared to James. Paul is our authority. Neither time,\nnor place, nor circumstance is given. It is strong confirmation of\nthe genuineness of our writings that there is no disclosure of the\nparticulars of the interview with either Peter, the first of the\nApostles, or with James, our Lord\u2019s brother. Jesus doubtless had\nsomething to say to each for himself alone, and none of the sacred\nwriters have lifted the veil.\n\nAt the end of the forty days he led the Apostles out over against\nBethany, gave them his final charge, and lifted up his hands and blessed\nthem. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he parted from them, and\nwas carried up into heaven. (Luke xxiv. 50-53; Acts i. 1-12.)\n\nSuch are some of the proofs of his resurrection. Their sufficiency as\nevidence of it, and its logical results, remain to be considered.\n\n[A] And hence there is no occasion to inquire whether the Evangelists\nagree precisely as to the details (as far as given) of his arrest, or\ntrial, or crucifixion. That he was arrested and tried and crucified is\nadmitted on all hands.\n\n[1] Alford on John\u2019s Gospel. Lange, Vol. III., pp. 333, 334. Stroud on\nthe Physical Cause of the Death of Christ. Friedlieb, p. 167. The Last\nDay of Our Lord\u2019s Passion, by Rev. Wm. Hanna, LL.D., c. 13, and Appendix.\nBarnes\u2019 Notes, Vol. II., p. 386.\n\n[2] 1 Corinthians xv. 3, 4; Acts xiii. 28, 29; Deuteronomy xxi. 22, 23;\nJohn xix. 31-39; Luke xxxiii. 50-54; Mark xv. 42-46; Matthew xxvii. 57-60.\n\n[3] It does not appear that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim,\nand the act may have proceeded from the more violent members of it. The\ntime may have been during their Sabbath, or at its close, which would\nhave been in season. Lange, Vol. III., p. 343; Farrar, c. 62.\n\n[4] Matthew xxviii. 15; Dialogue, c. 108.\n\n[5] Mary, the mother of James, Salome, Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod\u2019s\nsteward, and other women from Galilee who beheld the sepulchre and\nwhere he was laid. They may not have come all at the same time, but in\ndifferent companies. Matthew xvii. 55, 56, and xxviii, 1-7; Mark xv. 40,\n41, 47, and xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiii. 49, 55, 56, and xxiv. 1-10; John xx. 1;\nLange, Vol. III., pp. 362, 368.\n\n[6] The Forty Days after Our Lord\u2019s Resurrection, by Rev. William Hanna,\nLL.D., p. 53.\n\n[7] The words \u201cas they went to tell his disciples,\u201d in our common\nversion, are wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts. Their\nomission in the Revised Version removes a difficulty. The true text does\nnot state _when_ it was, that Jesus met them.\n\n[8] Lange, Vol. III., p. 383.\n\n[9] All attempts to identify this with certainty, out of the numerous\nvillages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, have failed. See Lange, Vol. III.;\nRobinson, Vol. III., pp. 146-150; Barnes\u2019 Notes, Vol. II., p. 107.\n\n[10] 1 Corinthians xv. 6; Matthew xxviii. 7, 10, 16; Mark xvi. 7, 15, 18;\nLange, Vol. III., p. 411; Farrar, c. 62; Hanna\u2019s Forty Days, c. 8, p.\n185; c. 9, p. 229; Geikie, c. 64.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (FALSE ASSUMPTIONS).\n\n\nEvidence which ought to convince a reasonable man should be deemed\nsufficient.\n\nThe standing objection from the days of Celsus, that Jesus should have\nshown himself after his resurrection to his enemies, is unreasonable. It\nis as if one should refuse to believe the transfiguration, the raising of\nthe daughter of Jairus, or the agony in the garden, because not witnessed\nby the multitude, and by only Peter, James, and John of the Apostles.\n\nHis humiliation and sufferings were ended. Not again was he to be mocked,\nand scourged, and crucified. Those who had wilfully rejected him, would\nhave been no more convinced than before. They had said he cast out\ndevils through the prince of devils. They had plotted to put Lazarus\nalso to death, whom he had raised up before their eyes. They had bribed\nthe soldiers to report that his body had been stolen. They would have\nproclaimed that he was not dead, or else that his return to life was by\nthe agency of Satan. To return to those who had put every insult upon\nhim, and were ready to renew the attack, could only have been to their\nswift destruction, and the time for this had not come.\n\nAnd even if some of them had believed, it would have added nothing to the\nproof. Any one who now refuses to accept the genuineness of the Gospel,\nor the credibility of the writers, or, accepting both, refuses to believe\nupon the testimony of his disciples, would not be convinced by any amount\nof evidence. There would remain every question of credibility, and, in\naddition, that of personal identity, as to which only those intimately\nacquainted with him were fully qualified to judge.\n\nThe proofs will be found sufficient by those who are disposed to lay\naside preconceived adverse opinions, and believe the fact when it is\nproved.\n\n\nPROOF IS POSSIBLE.\n\nThe event _may_ have occurred. By this is meant that it cannot be said\nthat its occurrence is, in the nature of things, an impossibility.\n\nThe existence of the Lord God Almighty, the Jehovah of the Scriptures,\nmay be real, as accepted by the reason and conscience of most men in\ncivilized nations. It may have been within his power to raise his Son,\nJesus Christ, from the dead; and there may have been sufficient reasons\nfor the exercise of this power. He may have been able to do this, without\nviolating, or suspending, any law of his universe. The resurrection may\nhave been as conformable to law as the death of the body. The law of\ngravitation is neither violated nor suspended, but merely overcome, in\nnumberless instances every day, by the introduction of what is, under the\ncircumstances, a greater force; and it may be a universal _law_ that the\ngreater force (other things being equal) shall overcome the less. If it\nwere true that the like had never occurred, it cannot be maintained that\nGod has not in any instance done something which he had not done before,\nand of which consequently there had been no previous experience. \u201cMen,\u201d\nsays Dr. Taylor,[1] \u201care continually reaching results which the forces of\nnature, left to themselves, never could have caused; and if this be so\nwith men, why should we deny to God the possibility of intervening in a\nsimilar way, and so producing effects that are not merely supernatural,\nbut superhuman?\u201d And why, we ask, should we deny to him the possibility\nof doing something which he has not done before; \u201cMy Father _worketh_\nhitherto,\u201d said Jesus, \u201cand I work.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe[2] affirmation of the impossibility of a miracle carries with\nit the elimination of God out of the universe.\u201d There is no escape\nfrom this conclusion; and consequently there are those who admit the\npossibility[3] of miracles, even while denying that they can be proved.\n\nThe event, then, _may_ have occurred. _It is a question of evidence_.\n\nAgain, if Christ did rise from the dead, he would give his disciples\nsufficient evidence of it. He could give to the bodily senses and\nperceptive powers which they had as other men have (and which\n\u201cexperience\u201d tells us, may be trusted when they have a fair chance), such\nproofs of his resurrection that they could believe it, and rationally\nbelieve it. This may be said to be almost a truism. To concede that\nGod could, and did, raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and deny that he\ncould, or would, afford evidence of it, if not an utter absurdity, is in\nthe highest degree unreasonable, and we are not trying to convince any\nbut reasonable men. To what end should he perform this miracle, and yet\nafford no evidence of it? The question right here is not whether _we_\nhave sufficient evidence for our assurance, but whether his _disciples_\ncould reasonably be convinced of his resurrection, assuming that it\nreally took place.\n\nThen if _they_ might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon\nevidence furnished _them_, those to whom they declared it, and we to\nwhom their testimony has come, may _also_ believe it. If they were not\nbound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous\nexperience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached,\nnor we ourselves, bound to reject it.\n\nIn other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming\nthat satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples,\nit is not _impossible_ that sufficient evidence of both of these facts\nmay be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and\nrise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or\npersons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events.\nYet to this absurdity must Hume\u2019s famous argument from experience come.\n\nIf Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his\ndisciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the\ntestimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom\nthat testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it\nwould be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief\nin the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and\ntheir contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled\nin the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true.\nHence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection _may_\nhave occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of\nit as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible\nfor the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence.\n\n\nWHAT ARE THE PROOFS?\n\nThe fact of Christ\u2019s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and\ndisciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of\nPentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed\nby Paul, that Christ \u201cdied,\u201d and was \u201cburied,\u201d and was \u201craised on the\nthird day;\u201d and by Luke that \u201che showed himself alive after his passion,\nby many proofs,\u201d appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for\nforty days, \u201cand speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;\u201d and\nby Peter, \u201cwhom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because\nit was not possible that he should be holden of it:\u201d and \u201cYe killed the\nPrince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.\u201d\n\nThe evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it\nto be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so\npreached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and\nthey had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the\nchurch these eighteen hundred years.\n\nHow do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within\nfifty days after the crucifixion? _Some_ have claimed that his death\nwas not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by\nthe evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by\nPaulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been \u201ctreated with\ncontempt.\u201d[5] \u201cThe whole country-side,\u201d says Strauss,[6] \u201cknew that he\nwas dead.\u201d Roman executioners made sure work. Pilate refused his consent\nto any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus\nwas dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from\nmere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This\nhypothesis may be put aside.\n\n_Others_ have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they\npreached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and\nagainst every motive, and \u201camidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh\nand blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety,\nhonesty and benevolence.\u201d Conscience and common sense revolt against such\na theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor\nMilligan,[7] \u201cbeen abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment\u2019s\nattention is due.\u201d\n\nThe _final_ refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions.\nBy this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical\nillusions, or mere hallucinations.\n\nSome, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this\ncountry, claim that the doctrine preached was _not_ that Christ\u2019s _body_\nwas raised up, but that his _spirit_ came back from Hades, or the place\nof departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception\nis an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the\nEvangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas\u2019 argument that we are never told that Jesus\nrose \u201cfrom death,\u201d far less \u201cfrom the grave,\u201d but always \u201cfrom the dead,\u201d\ndoes not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be\nunwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, \u201cWhy seek ye the living\namong the dead? he is not here but is risen,\u201d they were not looking\nfor him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted,\ndistinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David,\n\u201cforeseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his\nsoul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God\nraise up.\u201d\n\nNow, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to\nbe tested? By the _whole_ evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing\nthe rest? Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just\nas it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and\nadopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if\nthere _are_ any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that\ncould not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They\n_suppress_, or _supply_, as best suits their theory.\n\nThus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem,\nalthough the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom\nStrauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as\ngoing to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the\nsepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that\n\u201cthe disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,\u201d does _not_\nsay that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same\nchapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying\nhim. And so in the Fourth Gospel, \u201cthe disciple whom Jesus loved\u201d is\nsaid to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him\n\u201cBehold thy mother!\u201d They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the\nFeast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being \u201can holy\nconvocation.\u201d Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not\nleave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law.\nMark also, in giving the direction, \u201cGo tell his disciples and Peter,\u201d\n\u201cHe goeth _before_ you into Galilee,\u201d implies that they had not yet gone\ninto Galilee.\n\nThey also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene\u2019s\nfaith. _This is pure fiction._ Peter and John knew that the tomb was\nempty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention\nher statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which\nshe had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive,\nand had been seen of her, \u201cdisbelieved;\u201d and Luke[11] (referring to all\nthe women) says that their words \u201cappeared in their sight as idle talk,\nand they disbelieved them.\u201d There is not the slightest allusion to Mary\nMagdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles,\nor either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan\u2019s boast,[12] that\n\u201cthe glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.\u201d Indeed it\nmight appear to us that there should have been some reference to her.\nThe explanation, probably, is twofold: Among the Greeks,[13] women were\nnot competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith\nupon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others,\nthey being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for\nJudas, Peter[14] said that the choice must be made from those \u201cwhich\nhave companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out\namong us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was\nreceived up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his\nresurrection.\u201d And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus.\n\nThey also assume that the Apostles were in a state of mind conducive to\nmisleading fancies. The reverse of this is true. It must, however, be\nconceded that the idea of a restoration to life of one who had been dead\nwas not strange to them; for three[15] such instances were recorded in\ntheir Scriptures, and they had witnessed three miracles of the kind. But\nthese were in respect to persons who, after they were raised up, lived\nand died as other men; and they were brought to life by some visible\nagency, as by a prophet in the name of the Lord, or Jesus by his own\nword. The resurrection which the disciples came to believe was, on the\ncontrary, to a temporary sojourning with them, and then an ascension\nbefore their eyes; and it was accomplished by no visible hand.\n\nAnd although Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection, they could\nnot understand the one, any more than the other, because they could\nnot conceive how that their Messiah could suffer death at the hands\nof his enemies. The evidence upon this point is most conclusive; and\nits scope was admirably put by Gilbert West,[16] four generations ago.\n\u201cThis, therefore, being their settled notion of the Messiah, can we\nwonder their former faith in him should be extinguished, when they saw\nhim suffering, crucified, and dying, and, instead of saving others, not\nable to save himself? To prepare them for these events he had indeed\nmost circumstantially foretold[17] his own sufferings, death, and\nresurrection; but the Apostles themselves assure us that they did not\nunderstand those predictions till some time after their accomplishment;\nand they made this confession at a time when they were as sensible of\ntheir former dullness, and undoubtedly as much amazed at it as they now\npretend to be who object to it against them; so that their veracity\nupon this point is not to be questioned.... They had conceived great\nexpectations from the persuasion that he was the Christ of God; but these\nwere all vanished; their promised deliverer, their expected king, was\ndead and buried, and no one left to call him from the grave as he did\nLazarus. With his life, they might presume, ended his power of working\nmiracles; and death, perhaps, was an enemy he could not subdue, since it\nwas apparent he could not escape it, and hence their despair.\u201d\n\nAnd hence we say, when the third day was ushered in there was no one of\nall his disciples at the sepulchre to welcome him. Those who loved him\nmost, came but to embalm his body. Mary Magdalene beheld _not_ her risen\nSaviour, but an empty tomb; and her hurried tidings were _not_ that he\nis risen, but, \u201cThey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we\nknow not where they have laid him.\u201d When Jesus even speaks to her, she\nat first supposes him to be the gardener, and says, \u201cIf thou hast borne\nhim hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.\u201d\nPeter and John beheld no vision, but only \u201cthe linen clothes lying, and\nthe napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but\nrolled up in a place by itself.\u201d The other women do not see Jesus until\nafter they have found that the sepulchre is empty, and have been told by\nthe angels, \u201cHe is risen, even as he said: COME SEE THE PLACE WHERE[18]\nTHE LORD LAY.\u201d The two disciples, some hours after, had heard, not that\nhe had been _seen_, but that certain women who were early at the tomb\nfound not his body, and were told by angels that he was alive; and that\nthe absence of the body had been confirmed by those of their company who\nvisited the tomb. And finally, the Apostles, instead of _expecting_ to\nsee him, refused to believe upon the testimony of the women, and were\nonly convinced by the evidence of their own senses.\n\n[1] Taylor on the Gospel Miracles (1881), p. 17.\n\n[2] Id., p. 25.\n\n[3] \u201cWe do not say a miracle is impossible; we say there has been no\ninstance, up to this time, of a proved miracle.\u201d\u2014Renan\u2019s Life of Jesus,\netc., p. 57.\n\n\u201cWhat I insist on is, that a miracle cannot be established by human\ntestimony.\u201d\u2014Ingersoll, _North American Review_ for November, 1881, p.\n514. The skeptical author of _Supernatural Religion_ in defending himself\nagainst the criticism that upon his theory his historical argument is\nunnecessary, in his preface to the sixth edition, says: \u201cThe preliminary\naffirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are\nantecedently incredible. The counter allegation is that although miracles\nmay be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place.\nIt is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent\nincredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain\nmiracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the\nevidence for the Gospels. Indeed many will not acknowledge the case\nto be complete until other witnesses are questioned. This would leave\nthe question of Christ\u2019s Resurrection to be determined as a matter of\nevidence; and of course evidence enough to induce a reasonable conviction\nwould be sufficient to overcome the antecedent improbability.\u201d But he\ndare not trust himself or his readers to an examination of the evidence\nupon this basis. For when he is pressed with the testimony of the\nApostles to the Resurrection, and is compelled to concede their honesty,\nhe says (p. 1050), \u201cThe belief that a dead man rose from the dead and\nappeared to several persons alive is at once disposed of upon abstract\ngrounds.\u201d That is, his pretended examination of the evidence is a sham,\nand when he cannot meet it, it is at once disposed of \u201cupon abstract\ngrounds!\u201d\n\n[4] See chap. xvii. pp. 101-2, _ante_, pp. 101, 102.\n\n[5] Milligan on the Resurrection of Our Lord, p. 76; Strauss, Vol. II.,\npp. 846-866.\n\n[6] The Old Faith and the New (1875), p. 80.\n\n[7] On the Resurrection, etc., p. 80.\n\n[8] The Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 464; Waite\u2019s History, etc., p.\n26.\n\n[9] See chap. xv, p. 85, _ante_, p. 85.\n\n[10] Mark xvi. 11.\n\n[11] Luke xxiv. 11.\n\n[12] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan (1866), p. 61.\n\n[13] Adams\u2019 Roman Antiquities, p. 284; Condition of Women, by L. Maria\nChild, Vol. II., p. 3.\n\n[14] Acts i. 15, 21, 22.\n\n[15] 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.; 2 Kings xiii. 21; Matthew ix.; Luke\nvii.; John xi.; Hebrews xi. 35.\n\n[16] Gilbert West on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of\nJesus Christ. Boston, 1834 (first published in England in 1747), p. 67.\n\n[17] See chap. xvi, p. 89, _ante_, p. 89.\n\n[18] \u201cThe cerements were there, but the body was gone. Whither? Had it\nbeen stolen and hidden? Who would have been the thieves? Friends or\nfoes? Not friends; for how could their faith be made heroic for their\ncrusade against the world\u2019s unbelief by a theft and a carcase? Not\nfoes; for it was their interest to prevent the disappearance of the\nbody, that there might be ocular demonstration of the falsity of the\npredicted resurrection. The fact of the actual resurrection of our Lord\nis a rock-of-ages that never can be moved.\u201d\u2014Commentary on Mark, by James\nMorrison, D.D. (1882), p. 445.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE).\n\n\nHolding, then, the objectors to the historical record, and keeping in\nmind that the question is narrowed down to the hypothesis of visions on\nthe one hand, or to a true resurrection on the other, _what evidence had\nthe Apostles and immediate disciples that they were not deceived_?\n\nFirst and foremost, they had the empty tomb. They knew[1] that the body\nwas neither left on the cross, in violation of the Jewish law, nor\nthrown to the \u201cdust-heap,\u201d in violation of the Roman law which required\na delivery to the friends as soon as claimed, but was placed in the\nsepulchre, as attested by all the Evangelists, as also by Paul. They knew\nthat _they_ had not taken it away, and that if the Jews had, they would\nhave been but too ready to produce it when, only a few days after, it\nwas boldly proclaimed, that that Jesus whom they had crucified, God had\nraised from the dead. It was the absence of the body that first arrested\nthe attention of the women, and also of Peter and John, and which, with\nthe orderly arrangement of the grave clothes, induced a conviction of\nthe truth in the mind of John, before Jesus appeared to any, and sent\nPeter to his home \u201cwondering.\u201d And these same facts (the good faith of\nthe disciples themselves being undoubted), can never be explained, in any\nrational way, otherwise than by the fact of the Resurrection. There is a\ngreat truth in Professor Keim\u2019s expression[2] that: \u201cIt is upon an empty\ntomb that the Christian Church is founded.\u201d\n\nThey had _further_ proof, in subsequent appearances to individuals\nsingly, to the collective body of Apostles, and to the multitude of\nbelievers, under circumstances that satisfied them, and should convince\nus, that they were not deceived.\n\nThere are several things to be considered, in determining whether they\nwere deceived. First, in respect to time. There were no appearances\ntill after the fact that the tomb was empty was fully understood, _nor\ntill some hours after_. This lapse of time has been overlooked by most\nwriters; and, from want of attention to it, inconsistencies as to\noccurrences at the sepulchre, as to the number and appearance of angels,\nthe companies of women, the persons composing them, the messages received\nand carried, and the appearances to them, of our risen Lord, have been\nimagined, that are easily explained, upon the very natural hypothesis of\nseveral transactions of like character during the six hours or more[3]\nwhich elapsed before the journey to Emmaus. At that time no one had seen\nthe Lord; for it cannot be doubted that his appearance would be reported\nas soon as possible after its occurrence. When Jesus joined the two\ndisciples, their eyes were \u201cholden,\u201d until in a long discourse he had\nprepared them for a revelation of himself. Peter must have meditated some\nhours upon the absence of the body, before Jesus showed himself to him.\nIt was not till after this, and after the return of the disciples from\nEmmaus, that he said to the others, \u201cPeace be unto you.\u201d Then a whole\nweek, before he returns. Then, probably after a longer interval (for they\nreturned to Galilee), he shows himself at the Sea of Tiberias. Then,\nafter some days, to above five hundred brethren, at a place to which they\nhad been directed to go by the angels, and by Jesus both before and after\nhis resurrection. Then to James. And then at Jerusalem to the Apostles,\nwhom he led out over against Bethany; and while he blessed them, he\nparted from them and was carried up into heaven.\n\nIn all this, we see how they were prepared to exercise a sober and\nintelligent judgment, so that neither they, nor we, should be in doubt\nwhether what they beheld was their risen Lord, or a phantom of their own\nimagination.\n\nAnd will any one tell us, right here, what better proof Jesus _could_\nhave given his disciples, of his Resurrection? If the evidence was\nsufficient for them, it may be sufficient for us, unless we are prepared\nto say that the miracle shall _be repeated whenever it is challenged_!\nWas it essential to a reasonable conviction on their part that the\nScribes and Pharisees should also be convinced? (Nicodemus, and Joseph of\nArimathea, _were_ convinced.) It must be admitted that the disciples, of\nall others, were qualified to judge, if any persons could be qualified.\nWhat force could the belief of the Sanhedrim have added to the testimony\nof their own senses?\n\nAssume, as a hypothesis, the reality of Christ\u2019s resurrection, we again\nask, What proof of it _should_ have been given his disciples that was\nnot given? They had the same kind of proof, during forty days, that\nthey had before his crucifixion. He walked with them, talked with them,\ninstructed them, ate before them, and with them (Acts. x. 41), called\nthings to their remembrance, opened to them the Scriptures, and gave them\ntheir great commission to disciple all nations; and, to preclude all\nquestioning, said, \u201cSee my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle\nme and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me have.\nAnd when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.\u201d And to\nThomas, eight days after, he said, \u201cReach hither thy finger and see my\nhands; and reach thy hand and put it into my side: and be not faithless\nbut believing.\u201d\n\nWe do not accept Origen\u2019s[4] view that Jesus after his resurrection\nand before his ascension \u201cexisted in a body intermediate, as it were,\nbetween the grossness of that which he had before his suffering and the\nappearance of a soul uncovered by such a body,\u201d although it now has the\nsupport of able writers. The general[5] sentiment of the Church from the\nbeginning has been against it. It is not warranted by the record, and\nit involves more mysteries and difficulties than it escapes. We fully\nagree with Judge Waite[6] that, according to the Canonical Gospels, \u201cThe\nvery body in which Jesus was crucified, and which was buried by Joseph\nof Arimathea, is raised from the dead, appears to the disciples, is not\nonly seen but felt, and Jesus himself, in the flesh, as he was before he\nwas crucified, calls for fish to eat to satisfy his disciples that he\nwas not a spirit; that his body was not spiritual, but material and human\nlike theirs;\u201d and also with a very different man (Mr. Barnes), who, with\nhis usual good sense, says: \u201cIt was necessary _first_ to establish the\nproof of his resurrection, and that could be done _only_ by his appearing\n_as he was_ when he died;\u201d and also with Drs. McClintock and Strong in\ntheir invaluable Cyclopedia, that: \u201cAccording to the Scriptures the\ndisciples were assured by the testimony of their own senses that the body\nof Christ after his resurrection was the same identical body of human\nflesh and bones which had been crucified and laid in the sepulchre.\u201d\n(Vol. VIII., A.D. 1879.) Peter\u2019s testimony (as recorded in Acts x. 41)\nthat Jesus after he was raised up was made manifest, not to all the\npeople, but unto witnesses that were chosen before of God, even to us\n\u201cwho did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead,\u201d seems just\nas decisive as the Canonical Gospels. And so of John\u2019s testimony (1 John\ni. 1), \u201cthat which we beheld, and our hands handled.\u201d\n\nOur Lord was in the tomb less than thirty-six hours, and his flesh \u201cdid\nnot see corruption.\u201d His body, apparently, was as human as that of\nLazarus after he was raised. The criticism that it is not said that there\nwas _blood_ seems frivolous, for there could be no living flesh or bones\nwithout blood-vessels and blood. Although for the time he forbade Mary\nMagdalene to touch, or rather to detain him, he permitted the other women\nto take hold of his feet, and directed the Apostles to handle him. Mary\nMagdalene saw him as a man, and supposed him to be the gardener, until he\ncalled her by name. The two disciples conversed with him as a man; and\nthat they did not know him was only because their eyes were \u201cholden.\u201d His\nsudden disappearance after the repast, and equally sudden appearance in\nthe midst of the Apostles, at most present no greater difficulties than\nhis transfiguration, his walking upon the sea, his passing through his\nenemies when they were about to throw him down the cliff (all before his\ncrucifixion), or the opening of the prison doors to two of the Apostles.\nThe doors, even if bolted and barred, may have opened as to Peter, or\nthose present may have been so preoccupied that a perfectly natural but\nsilent withdrawal in the one case, and entrance in the other, were simply\nunnoticed.\n\nAs the man Christ Jesus, he rose from the dead, and angels, as porters,\nhaving rolled away the stone, he came forth in visible human form, and\nwith the same body that was crucified. He would have been seen by his\ndisciples, if they had been \u201cwatching and waiting\u201d for him, and by the\nguard, if they had not become \u201cas dead men;\u201d perhaps in order that they\nmight not behold him, for he had said, \u201cYet a little while and the world\nbeholdeth me no more.\u201d (John xiv. 19.)\n\nAs the man Christ Jesus, he showed himself to his disciples forty days;\nand then, with a body, until then, of flesh and blood, as human as that\nof Elijah, before _he_ was taken up, ascended into the heavens.\n\nThus, in his rising from the dead, and in the change _at his ascension_,\nhe typified both the dead who shall be raised, and the living who shall\nbe \u201cchanged.\u201d\n\nAnd any conception of him as less corporeal from his resurrection to his\nascension than before, does not conform to the record, and, by so much\nas it makes him less corporeal and tangible, it impairs the force of the\nevidence.\n\nEach one of the Apostles had as much evidence that Jesus was alive after\nhis crucifixion, as he had that Peter or John or Thomas was alive, and\nevidence of just as high a character. And this proof by facts addressed\nto their own intelligence and bodily senses of sight, and hearing, and\nfeeling, was continued forty days. There is no conflict in the evidence\non this point.\n\nEvery lawyer knows that omission is not contradiction. Even when\nwitnesses profess to give the whole, it rarely or never happens that\nsome will not state something which others omit, and not unfrequently a\nwitness is called to testify to a part only, and does not undertake to\ngive the whole.\n\nThis is the precise truth in respect to the Evangelists. Not one of\nthem professes to state all that occurred after the crucifixion, or all\nthe instances of our Lord\u2019s appearing to his disciples. Each writes for\nthe particular object he has in view. And there is a great liability\nto mistake, if one forgets that it is true in narratives in respect to\ntransactions subsequent to the crucifixion, as well as before, that there\nis often a passing from one event to another with nothing to indicate but\nthat they were immediately connected in point of time, when, in fact,\nthere was a considerable interval between them.[A]\n\nOf the ten specified instances of his appearing, Matthew speaks of\ntwo, Mark of three, Luke of three, John of four, and Paul of five, or\nseven;[7] but neither contradicts the other, nor Luke\u2019s statement in his\nsubsequent \u201ctreatise,\u201d that Jesus showed himself alive after his passion\n\u201cforty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.\u201d\n\nThe instances were sufficiently numerous, the time long enough, and the\nacts tangible enough, to afford as undoubted proof as that which they had\nof the existence and bodily presence of each other. Peter might as well\nhave doubted the denial of which he had so bitterly repented, as to have\ndoubted that it was his Master who said unto him the third time, \u201cSimon,\nson of John, lovest thou me?\u201d and all of them might as well have doubted\nthat they had ever listened to his teaching, as to have doubted the\ncommission which they received from him.\n\nThe evidence that was personal to themselves we cannot have. We know they\nhad it, and were capable of judging concerning it, and we can see that\nit was of a character that might be justly deemed conclusive.\n\nThere is, besides, much that is common to us with them. The judgment was\nnot of one but of many, and not from a single appearance to one of their\nnumber, but from many appearances to different persons, at various times,\nand under circumstances most favorable to a true apprehension, usually in\nopen day; and it would be passing strange if each and all were deceived\nby their own senses.\n\nThese appearances were never repeated after the ascension. None of the\ndisciples under any excitement ever again saw their Lord as the man\nChrist Jesus walking the earth as before; or saw him coming to the earth,\nalthough they all believed that he would speedily return in like manner\nas they beheld him going into heaven. Stephen saw him not upon the earth,\nbut \u201cstanding on the right hand of God.\u201d Paul saw him, and \u201cwas not\ndisobedient unto the heavenly vision\u201d (Acts xxvi. 19). John saw him, in\nvision, not only as \u201cthe Son of Man\u201d in glorious array, but as \u201cthe Lion\nof the tribe of Judah,\u201d and also as a \u201cLamb standing as though it had\nbeen slain,\u201d in the \u201cmidst of the throne\u201d (Revelation i. 12-20, and v.\n5-8).\n\nTheir subsequent experience is consistent, if they had been dealing with\nrealities. But if all their interviews during those forty days were a\ndelusion, and the ascension a delusion, it is wholly inexplicable that\ntheir imagination or senses never played them false afterward. They\nbelieved that he would soon return, just as strongly as they believed\nthat he had ascended, and yet they never saw him returning, or as having\nreturned.\n\nIf delusions created the faith, how much more should the faith multiply\nthe delusions, and such appearances (as Godet[8] has well put it) \u201cgo\non increasing as the square of the belief itself.\u201d Yet at the very time\nwhen they should have multiplied, if they were _not_ real, they ceased\naltogether!\n\nWe have, as the disciples had, our Lord\u2019s predictions[9] of his death\n_and_ resurrection (for the two events were generally referred to in the\nsame discourse), and the prophecies concerning him.\n\nThe greatest obstacle to their acceptance of his resurrection was their\ninability to comprehend his death if he were indeed the true Messiah. And\nhence we find that Jesus in the walk to Emmaus, opens to the disciples\nthe Scriptures concerning himself, and says, \u201cBehoved it not the Christ\nto suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?\u201d We may well suppose\nthat with other prophecies, he interpreted to them what Daniel had\nsaid (c. ix. 26) that \u201cafter three score and two weeks, shall Messiah\nbe cut off, but not for himself;\u201d and that wonderful chapter in Isaiah\n(the fifty-third) so descriptive of his passion, that it seems \u201cas if\nwritten at the foot of the cross;\u201d and all the sacrifices for fifteen\nhundred years; and that it was not possible \u201cthat the blood of bulls\nand goats should take away sins;\u201d and as Moses lifted up the serpent\nin the wilderness, even so was the Son of Man \u201clifted up.\u201d And so to\nthe Apostles he explained the Scriptures, and said to them, \u201cThus it\nis written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead\nthe third day.\u201d (Luke xxiv. 45, 46). He reminds them what he had said,\nthat all things must needs be fulfilled which were written in the law\nof Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning himself (Luke\nxxiv. 44). The angels say to the women, \u201cTell his disciples and Peter\nhe goeth before you into Galilee, and there shall ye see him as he said\nunto you\u201d (Mark xvi. 7); and also, \u201cRemember how he spake unto you when\nhe was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up\ninto the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise\nagain\u201d (Luke xxiv. 6, 7). And we find that when the disciples understood\nthe mystery of his death, they joyfully accepted the proofs of his\nresurrection; and Peter, who had said, \u201cBe it far from thee, Lord, this\nshall never be unto thee\u201d (Matthew xvi. 23), on the day of Pentecost\ncould explain that Jesus (whom God had \u201craised up, having loosed the\npangs of death\u201d), was delivered up to be crucified and slain \u201cby the\ndeterminate counsel and foreknowledge of God\u201d; and that David spake of\nhis resurrection. (Acts ii. 22-31.)\n\nNot only do the prophecies point to his resurrection, but as already[9]\nshown, Jesus himself foretold it as well as the manner and circumstances\nof his death; and it is more rational to accept it, than to believe\nthat such an One as is portrayed in the Gospels was either false or\nmistaken. \u201cWhich of you convicteth me of sin?\u201d has found none to accept\nthe challenge in eighteen hundred years! On the contrary, as Dr. Taylor\nhas said,[10] \u201cBefore the portraiture which the Evangelists have painted,\nmen of every age have stood in rooted admiration.\u201d And as J. S. Mill\nconcedes,[11] \u201cIt is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the\nGospels, is not historical: for none of his disciples or their proselytes\nwere capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to him, or imagining the\nlife and character revealed in the Gospels.\u201d\n\nHis resurrection was a moral necessity from his own character as\ndelineated in the Gospels, even our enemies themselves being judges.\nHis could not have been \u201cthe richest of human lives,\u201d as declared by\nHooykaas,[12] nor his utterances \u201cthe most beautiful moral teaching that\nhumanity has received,\u201d as avowed by Renan, if his power to lay down his\nlife and \u201cto take it again\u201d were at the best a mere delusion.\n\nHis predictions of his death and resurrection, as we have before shown,\nare so interwoven with the entire narrative, that it is impossible to set\nthem aside and leave anything to which we can assent as true, of all his\nrecorded acts and words; and there is no alternative except to believe\nthat he uttered them, or else to arbitrarily set aside the testimony of\nthe four Evangelists, as well as that of Paul.\n\n_That the Christ of the Gospels_ should rise from the dead, as he said,\n_is in the highest degree probable_. Only by his resurrection could he\nvindicate himself from the charge of blasphemy. Without it, the cross was\na gibbet, a monument of folly if not of crime. Without it, the sacrament\nwhich he instituted on the eve of his crucifixion, keeps in perpetual\nremembrance the falsity of his pretensions, his impotency to save himself\nfrom his enemies. Without it, the taunt of those who mocked him, \u201cHe\nsaved others, himself he cannot save,\u201d was merited. Without it, while one\nmight pity him for his sufferings, we should the more sympathize with the\nSanhedrim in protecting the people from a visionary enthusiast, if not\na wilful impostor, and inflicting (although by irregular methods) the\npenalty for blasphemy expressly commanded by the Mosaic Law.\n\nIt cannot be too strongly stated that there is no middle ground. If he\nwas what he claimed, his resurrection was already assured. If he was not\nwhat he claimed, he could not have been the exalted character eulogized\nby those who deny his resurrection, and before which the world bows in\nreverence.\n\nIf he was what he claimed, we can see a grand and all-sufficient reason\n_why_ God (if there _be_ a God) should by miracle give the highest\npossible authentication to his mission.\n\nHe said, \u201cI am the light of the world;\u201d and the world was in darkness. He\nsaid that he came forth from God, and he ought to show his credentials.\nHe said he was the Son of God, and that he always did those things that\npleased Him; which he could not do, if he set up claims destitute of\nfoundation. He said, \u201cAs Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,\neven so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth, may\nhave in him eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His\nonly begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but\nhave eternal life.\u201d\n\nThe great central truths which he declared in all his teachings, were the\n_fact_ of sin, the need of a Saviour, and that he is a Saviour.\n\nIf sin, as all experience testifies, is universal, always downward,\nand its end when finished death, the redemption of multitudes[B] of the\nhuman race from its power to holiness, and bliss, and endless progress,\nas \u201cheirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,\u201d was an object _worthy_ of\ndivine interposition, and only an atheist should look upon such a miracle\nof redemption as impossible or improbable.\n\n    \u201c\u2019Twas great to speak a world from naught,\n    \u2019Twas greater to redeem.\u201d\n\nChrist\u2019s resurrection being established, the darkness over the land, the\nrending of the veil, the coming[13] out of the tombs, the ministry of\nthe angels in the garden before his betrayal, and at the sepulchre, the\nearthquake, the rolling away of the stone, and the fear that came upon\nthe watchers, were fitting accompaniments of the transactions which they\nsurrounded.\n\nNor, if some of them are not mentioned by other historians, are they\noverthrown, for omission is not contradiction, in history any more than\nin courts. Why should Josephus, who was not born till some years after\nthe crucifixion, and not a Christian, be expected to mention them? And\nas to Greek and Roman writers, even Renan[14] says that \u201cit is not\nsurprising that they paid little attention to a movement which was going\non within a narrow space foreign to them. Christianity was lost to their\nvision upon the dark background of Judaism.\u201d\n\nAnd so his being seen by Stephen the first martyr, by John in the\nApocalypse, and by Paul on the way to Damascus, are in harmony with the\nrecord of his resurrection and ascension, and may be said to confirm them.\n\nYet it may be questioned if Paul would have been so absolutely certain\nthat Jesus (against whose followers he was breathing out threatening\nand slaughter) said to him, \u201cSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?\u201d but\nfor the previous appearances. If he would, he does not rest the case\nupon the one to himself. He gives the others first, and then adds, \u201cAnd\nlast of all ... to me also.\u201d While there is a mutual support, the most\nsolid basis for _our_ belief is, in the incontrovertible and tangible\nappearances which preceded Paul\u2019s conversion; and when John would declare\nthe _certainty_ of their faith, he says, \u201cThat which we have heard, that\nwhich we have seen with our eyes, that which we have beheld, and our\nhands handled.\u201d (1 John i. 1).\n\nAnd viewing the indubitable proofs of his resurrection, in their relation\nto the prophecies concerning him, the necessity for his advent, his\npredictions concerning himself, his character and works and teachings\nfrom his incarnation to his ascension, the lives and deaths of his\nApostles, the wonderful enlargement of his little church, when the\nApostles \u201cwith great power gave their witness of the resurrection of the\nLord Jesus,\u201d and its equally wonderful continuance, extension, moral\ninfluence, inspirations and hopes, they rise to the sublimity of moral\ncertainty.\n\nThese things cannot rationally be accounted for unless there is a God,\nand if there is a God, as all courts of justice everywhere assume, and\nuniversal conscience declares, to refuse assent to the conclusion to\nwhich they necessarily lead,\u2014the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the\ndead,\u2014cannot be the exercise of right reason.\n\nLeast of all should lawyers, accustomed to weigh evidence, refuse to\nbelieve upon the testimony of others. As Gibson, the great chief justice\nof Pennsylvania, said: \u201cGive Christianity a common law trial; submit the\nevidence _pro_ and _con_ to an impartial jury under the direction of a\ncompetent court, and the verdict will assuredly be in its favor.\u201d\n\nWe have not the witnesses before us; but it is every day\u2019s practice to\nprove historical facts by any approved and general history, and such\nare our Gospels and Epistles; and they are confirmed by sacraments and\ninstitutions that continue to our times, and will continue to the end of\nthe world.\n\nNor does the sufficiency of the proofs depend upon any question of the\n_precise_ extent of the genuineness of the Gospels, or their _exact_\nagreement. Men accustomed to weigh evidence know that it is enough if\nthe substance of the issue is proved, and that a literal agreement is\nnever to be expected in honest witnesses. In all the great facts of\nthe Resurrection, the Gospels and the Epistles concur. This has been\nfound satisfactory to such standard authors in the legal profession as\nBlackstone and Kent and Story, such masters of the rules of evidence as\nStarkie and Greenleaf, and such giants as Lord Brougham, John Marshall,\nTheophilus Parsons, Jeremiah Mason and Daniel Webster, and many others\nboth of the dead and the living, and no historical event rests on a\nfirmer basis.\n\nSome of its logical results will be suggested in the concluding chapter.\n\n[1] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101, and Godet\u2019s Defence, etc., 1881, p. 106.\n\n[2] As quoted by Godet, p. 49.\n\n[3] See _ante_, c. 17, p. 101.\n\n[4] Origen against Celsus, Book II., c. 42.\n\n[5] See editor\u2019s note to Lange\u2019s Life of Christ; McClintock and Strong,\nVol. VIII., p. 1055; Abbott\u2019s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, p. 804;\nBarnes on John xx. 21; Scott on John xx. 19.\n\nAn able article by Professor Robinson of the Union Theological Seminary,\nN. Y., on the Nature of Our Lord\u2019s Resurrection-body will be found in the\n_Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845, p. 292. He thus distributes the opinions\non the subject: \u201cOn this subject three different opinions have prevailed\nmore or less at various times in the church. Some have held that the\nbody of Christ was changed at the resurrection as to its _substance_, so\nthat it was in its substance a different and spiritual body. Others have\nregarded the Lord as having had after the resurrection the _same_ body as\nbefore, but glorified; or, as the earliest writers express it, changed as\nto its qualities and attributes. The third and larger class have supposed\nthat the body with which Christ rose from the dead was the same natural\nbody of flesh and blood which had been taken down from the cross and laid\nin the sepulchre.\u201d\n\nThis article we had not read until after writing chapter 19, but our\nconvictions are confirmed by his thorough discussion of the subject. He\nconcludes that the evidence of the reality of our Lord\u2019s human body,\nfrom the Resurrection to the Ascension, is even stronger than that for\nany other forty days, since Jesus was specially careful to assure his\ndisciples of the fact.\n\n[6] History, etc., p. 335.\n\n[A] For example, it is an entire misconception of Luke\u2019s Gospel to\nconclude from it that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection;\nand his account in Acts makes this certain, it being conceded that both\nworks were by the same writer.\n\n[7] Paul seems to have grouped appearances. We may paraphrase thus: \u201cAnd\nthat he was seen of Cephas; then of the twelve _on three occasions_.\u201d\n\n[8] Defence, etc., p. 105.\n\n[9] See _ante_, c. 16, p. 89.\n\n[10] The Gospel Miracles, etc., p. 48.\n\n[11] As quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 41.\n\n[12] The Bible, etc., p. 51; Renan, p. 135.\n\n[B] See Rev. vii. 9-17.\n\n[13] Those who came out of the tombs \u201cafter his resurrection,\u201d it may be\npresumed, had recently deceased (for they were recognized, as it would\nseem), and they appeared only to those who, like Simeon and Anna the\nProphetess, had been looking \u201cfor the consolation of Israel;\u201d and not\nto those who had rejected him. Their coming was so overshadowed by the\nprincipal events to which it was merely an incident, that it is mentioned\nonly by Matthew, and even he gives no information of who they were, or\nanything of their subsequent history.\n\n[14] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan, p. 227.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nLOGICAL RESULTS.\n\n\nOf these we mention only the following:\n\n_First._\u2014Since the proofs of Christ\u2019s Resurrection are incomparably\ngreater than those of any other miracle, and its consequences are beyond\nconception more glorious, it is the part of wisdom to force the issue\nupon it. The decisive battle of the world in respect to the miraculous\nin Christianity is to be fought right here, and all other engagements\nare mere skirmishes. It is well it is so. Christ\u2019s Resurrection is our\nGibraltar. If we cannot hold this position, we cannot hold any. But we\ndo hold it, and with it the whole field of controversy upon the subject.\nLet any one who doubts or denies the reality of miracles, meet the\noverwhelming proofs of this the greatest of all miracles. If he cannot do\nit, he should yield; and it is no dishonor to be vanquished by the truth.\nIf, after examining these proofs, he still imagines that he can overcome\nthem, he is beyond the reach of argument.\n\n_Second._\u2014As it is the central fact of Christianity, the keystone in\nthe arch of the Christian Faith, those who reject it have no right to\nthe Christian name. Strauss is so far to be commended that, when by his\nmyths and sophistries he had brought himself to deny the one, he had the\nmanliness not to appropriate the other. And of those of his fellows who\nstill cling to it for its supposed advantages, he sarcastically says:\n\u201cReasons they may have, but reason they have none.\u201d Chadwick, Hooykaas,\nMiln, Savage and others,[1] who talk of their \u201cChurch of the Future,\u201d\nmay well follow his example. If they refuse, there is as little sense\nas piety in a recognition, or _quasi_ recognition, of them as ministers\nof the Gospel, when at the best they are only popular lecturers to mere\nsocial or literary, if not infidel clubs, that choose to be called\nChurches or Religious Societies. This no doubt is distasteful to those\nwho are looking for the time when all sects shall fraternize on a common\nlevel of skepticism and indifference. But if we have any colors we should\nstand by them. Fidelity to truth and to the Master requires a separation\nuncompromising and complete from all who deny Him. It is safe to be as\ntolerant as Jesus and his Apostles. (See John viii. 21; 2 Corinthians vi.\n14, 15; Revelation i. 4, 5; 1 Corinthians xv. 16, 17, 18; 1 John ii. 12,\n23; 1 Peter i. 3, 4; 2 Peter ii. 1, 2; Revelation ii. 6; Acts v. 30-33;\nActs iv. 11, 12.)\n\n_Third._\u2014It authenticates his mission and vindicates his claims to the\nutmost. By it God affixed the seal of his approval, and evermore declares\nas by a voice from heaven, \u201cThis is my beloved Son in whom I am well\npleased: hear ye Him.\u201d\n\nHis teachings are no longer opinions to be accepted or rejected as they\nmeet with our approval, but authoritative and final. They are not the\nspeculations of sages and philosophers, either of olden or recent times,\nto be weighed in the balance of human reason, but everlasting truth to be\nreceived and obeyed without doubting or questioning.\n\nSince Christ\u2019s resurrection is assured, Webster well declared,[2] as\nevery man in the exercise of right reason must, \u201cI hold it my duty to\nbelieve, not what I can comprehend or account for, but what my Master\nteaches me.\u201d\n\nBy this, of course, it is not intended that we are not to exercise our\nreason as to the genuineness of the teachings ascribed to him, or their\nproper meaning, or, in other words, as to textuality, inspiration,\ntranslation, and interpretation. In each of these departments there\nis and will be ample room for the greatest research, and the ripest\nscholarship. In respect to all these, is doubtless true now, as when\nspoken by Robinson, that, \u201cThe Lord has more truth yet to break forth out\nof his holy word.\u201d\n\nBut when in a teachable spirit, we know what Jesus taught, it is the end\nof controversy.\n\n_Fourth._\u2014A necessary consequence from his Resurrection must be an\nundoubted assurance that we have the means of knowing what his teachings\nwere, so far as they are essential to our guidance in this life and\npreparation for that which is to come. The very idea of a revelation is\nthat it shall be so made known, that it can be understood, trusted in,\nand obeyed, by those to whom it is given, and for whom it is intended,\nso far at least, as shall be necessary for the regulation of their own\nconduct.\n\n_Beyond this_, we cannot claim, as a logical result of Christ\u2019s\nResurrection, and do not now inquire. And we find that through all the\nyears since our Lord\u2019s ascension, while the church has had essential\ntruth, and there has been substantial[3] agreement in different copies\nand versions, there have always been and still are, unsolved questions of\ngenuineness, translation, interpretation, and inspiration. In respect to\nthe last, Ingersoll\u2019s demand[4] that if the writers of the Gospels were\ninspired there should be but one account, or, if more than one, there\nshould be _no_ contradiction, is unwarrantable; and his own concession\nproves it. \u201cAs a rule,\u201d he says, \u201cwhere several persons testify to the\nsame transaction, while agreeing in the main points they will disagree\nupon many minor things, and such disagreement upon minor matters is\ngenerally considered as evidence that the witnesses have not agreed\namong themselves upon the story they should tell. These differences in\nstatement are accounted for from the facts that all did not see alike,\nand that all did not have the same opportunity for seeing, and that all\nhad not equally good memories. But when we claim that the witnesses\nwere inspired, we admit that he who inspired them did know exactly what\noccurred, and consequently there should be no contradiction in the\nminutest detail.\u201d This is very poor logic. For although \u201cHe who inspired\u201d\ndid know exactly what occurred, there may have been the best of reasons\nfor not inspiring a full record of all that occurred, or an exact record\nin all respects of what is recorded; and it must be presumed that such\nan inspiration would be given as would be most conducive to the end in\nview. And a like answer disposes of his confident assertion, that \u201c_one_\ninspired record of all that happened ought to be enough.\u201d _He_ would have\nDivine wisdom sacrifice everything else for the sake of uniformity and\nprecise accuracy in incidental and immaterial matters. In other words he\nwould tithe \u201cmint and anise and cummin,\u201d at the expense of \u201cweightier\nmatters.\u201d The Gospels were separately written at different times,\naccording to the needs in the first instance of the particular classes\nfor which they were immediately intended, and ultimately for the wants of\nthe whole world. Each by itself was as complete and accurate as it was\nbest it should be; and the whole taken together are as full and exact,\nas it is best they should be. And looking beyond the particular classes\nto whom they were first given, to all generations and peoples, it was of\nsupreme importance that they should be _believed_; and in order to this,\nthat they should be so written as not to carry suspicion of collusion\nor fabrication upon their face. Mr. Ingersoll knows that the testimony\nof four witnesses agreeing in the main points, while differing in minor\nmatters, is more satisfactory than the testimony of one. If there were\nnothing to be counted but numbers, the evidence would be four times\nas strong. It is more than four times as strong. For, as Mr. Starkie\nsays,[5] and every lawyer knows, \u201cThe credibility of testimony frequently\ndepends upon the exercise of reason, on the effect of _coincidences in\ntestimony_, which, if collusion be excluded, cannot be accounted for\nbut upon the supposition that the testimony of concurring witnesses\nis true; so much so that their individual character for veracity is\nfrequently but of secondary importance.\u201d But to have this effect it is\n_indispensable_ that _collusion_ be excluded. And it is of vastly greater\nconsequence that we be certain that we have (as it is conceded we have)\nindependent accounts of the crucifixion than it is, for instance, that\nthe inscriptions over the cross as given by the four Evangelists should\nprecisely agree, or that either should have been the exact words that\nwere written. In fact, while they all agree that the accusation was \u201c_The\nKing of the Jews_\u201d (which is all that is material), no two of them agree\nwith each other. But as Professor Greenleaf says, no greater certainty\nis called for. \u201cThe same[6] verbal exactness is not necessary in\nhistorians whose aim is religious instruction, as in recorders of public\ninscriptions.\u201d\n\nIf but one account, there would be the absence of that personality\nand variety, which we now have, and more especially the want of that\nconclusive proof which comes from independent witnesses.\n\nIf the Gospels had been written as Mr. Ingersoll says they should have\nbeen if inspired, the objections against them, if not insurmountable,\nwould have been tenfold stronger. And why should not Divine wisdom so\ninspire as to secure the best possible results? And although two of the\nwriters were Apostles, and to the Apostles was the Holy Spirit given to\nteach them \u201call things,\u201d and bring to their remembrance \u201call things\u201d\nwhich Jesus had said unto them (John xiv. 26), this does not necessarily\nimply an exact transmission of all the words spoken. Regard should be had\nto the substance of things in this, as in other matters, and not to mere\nverbal accuracy, except in those rare cases in which it is important to\nknow the precise language used.\n\nIt may safely be affirmed that there is _no_ discrepancy in relation to\nany essential fact, or important doctrine or duty. And it is just this\ndegree of certainty and accuracy, that we should expect from our Lord\u2019s\ntrue Messiahship as proved by his Resurrection.\n\n_Fifth_.\u2014By it, we know that he had power to impart to his Apostles to\nwhom he entrusted the establishment of his church, and to Paul whom he\nespecially selected as an Apostle to the Gentiles, inspiration and the\ngift of miracles. As the Father sent him into the world, even so he sent\nthem into the world (John xviii. 18); and what things soever they should\nbind, or loose, on earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven (Luke\nxxi. 14-16). Miracles were attestations of their Apostleship, \u201cGod also\nbearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold\npowers and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.\u201d\n(Hebrews ii. 4.)\n\nWith the writings of John the volume of inspiration was complete. If any\nmiracles were wrought after his time (which is questioned by many[7]),\nthere are none sufficiently authenticated to be of any evidential value\nto us.\n\nBut there is in every true Church, and will be to the end of time, what\nis of greater importance than the working of miracles, the convicting and\ntransforming power of the Holy Ghost; and any community, by whatever name\nit may be called, that has not this attestation is not a true Church of\nthe Lord Jesus Christ. The promise of the Comforter who shall \u201cconvict\nthe world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment;\u201d and \u201cLo! I am\nwith you alway, even unto the end of the world,\u201d are as immutable as the\nthrone of God.\n\nIf the Gospel had been only a \u201ccivilization,\u201d as Mr. Chadwick terms it,\nit had never been known outside of Judea. It is because it is the \u201cwisdom\nof God, and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,\u201d\nthat it has gained its marvellous victories, overturning Pagan Rome, and\nin these later days transforming even Madagascar, the Sandwich Islands,\nand the cannibals[8] of the Fiji Islands into Christian communities.\n\n_Sixth_.\u2014In our conception of Jesus as our Saviour, we should not\nseparate his death from his resurrection and ascension. If he died for\nour sins, he rose again for our justification. He is now exalted as a\nPrince and a Saviour at the right hand of the Father, to give repentance\nand the remission of sins. United to him by faith, and changed into his\nimage, our resurrection is assured by his, and because he lives we shall\nlive also. As oft as we \u201ceat this bread and drink this cup,\u201d we do show\nforth his death TILL HE COME. \u201cHenceforth,\u201d (said[9] the great Apostle)\n\u201cthere is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the\nrighteous judge, shall give to me at that day, and not only to me, _but\nalso to all them that leave loved his appearing_.\u201d \u201cAnd[10] the Spirit\nand the Bride say, Come; and he that heareth let him say, Come; and he\nthat is athirst let him come; he that will, let him take the water of\nLife freely.\u201d\n\n[1] It is one of the marvels of sin and shows the effrontery of Satan,\nthat Hooykaas, who is about as rank an infidel as Strauss himself, should\nbe pastor at Rotterdam, a Doctor of Divinity, and entitle his book, which\nlaboriously excludes everything miraculous or supernatural in relation\nto Jesus, \u201cThe Bible for Learners.\u201d Mr. Chadwick, while admitting that\nhe is not a Christian in the original sense of the word, argues against\nStrauss (with whom he agrees in sentiment) the right to apply the term\nto himself, but meaning by it only \u201ca stream of tendency,\u201d \u201cfreedom,\nprogress and civilization.\u201d \u201cIt may be,\u201d he says, \u201cthat some of you\nconceive that my definition of Christianity does worse than include\nthose who are at pains to prove themselves not Christians. It includes\nthe dangerous classes of society; it includes the men of vice and crime.\nThere is no doubt of it.\u201d (See _Free Religious Index_ for March 17,\n1881, March 24, 1881, and March 31, 1881.) Mr. Miln recently _preached\na sermon_ upon \u201cThe Church of the Future,\u201d from which he said all\nspeculative beliefs as a condition of membership will be excluded, even\nthe belief in a personal Deity. (See _Index_ for February 23, 1882.) He\ndoes not believe in prayer other than communion with himself. (See _New\nYork Observer_ of February 23, 1882.) If Mr. Savage has not yet gone as\nfar, he stops but little short of it.\n\n[2] So expressed in a creed drawn up by him in 1807. (See\n_Congregationalist_ of February 15, 1882.) A copy of this creed was\nread at the centennial anniversary of his birth (January 18, 1882) by\nthe Congregational Church of Salisbury, New Hampshire. He joined this\nchurch on profession of faith September 13, 1807, and never removed his\nconnection. (See _New Hampshire Journal_ of January 28, 1882.)\n\n[3] See chap. xiii. p. 67, _ante_.\n\n[4] In the _North American Review_ for August, 1881, p. 118.\n\n[5] Starkie on Evidence, Vol. II., Sec. 10, and note upon Hume.\n\n[6] Greenleaf\u2019s Testimony of the Evangelists, p. 478.\n\n[7] History of God\u2019s Church, by Enoch Pond, D.D., p. 606. And as to Judge\nWaite\u2019s \u201cmany cases of resurrection from the dead, handed down in the\nancient mythologies\u201d and by heathen writers, it will be soon enough to\nnotice them whenever there shall be a serious attempt to run a parallel\nbetween the evidence in support of them, and that which proves the\nresurrection of our Lord. And so of the whole swarm of lying wonders,\nwhether found in heathen writers, the Apocryphal Gospels, or exhibited\nby modern conjurors or spiritualists,\u2014senseless, frivolous, for no\nworthy object, and, beyond the mystery accompanying them, supported by\nno reasonable proof. Our Saviour told his disciples \u201cbeforehand\u201d that\n\u201cthere shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great\nsigns and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.\u201d\n(Matthew xxiv. 24.) Paul told Timothy that \u201cthe Spirit saith expressly\nthat in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to\nseducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisies of men\nthat speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron.\u201d\n(1 Timothy iv. 1, 2.) This will be strange to any modern Sadducee who\nbelieves there is \u201cneither angel nor Spirit,\u201d but the Christian will do\nwell to give heed.\n\n[8] Within the last thirty years, through the labors of English Wesleyan\nmissionaries, there has been an entire moral renovation of cannibals,\nonce revelling and rioting in every excess of atrocity and bestial shame.\nNow there are nine thousand churches and thousands of communicants,\nfourteen thousand schools and nearly fifty thousand scholars: and out\nof a population of about one hundred and twenty thousand, over one\nhundred thousand are reckoned as regular attendants at the churches.\nCannibalism has been voluntarily abandoned, save by a single tribe, in\neighty inhabited islands: idolatry has been abjured, and all traces of\nit swept away. And to-day a gentle and refined English woman, as Miss\nGordon-Cumming in her book, At Home in Fiji, testifies, can travel these\nislands alone, mingling with the people, rambling through their villages,\nsleeping in their huts and eating at their tables, with none to molest\nher or make her afraid. (See Rev. Edward Abbott, in _Congregationalist_\nof February 15, 1882.)\n\n[9] 2 Timothy iv. 8.\n\n[10] Revelation xxii. 17.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX A.\n\nALPHABETICAL INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WRITINGS.\n\n\n  Absence of the body of Jesus. See Empty Tomb.\n\n  Acts and Luke, have one author, 9, 77.\n\n  Acts, quoted from, by Justin, 23, 24, 26.\n    when written, 79.\n\n  Acts of Peter and Paul (Apocryphal), 37, 38.\n\n  Acts of Pilate (Apocryphal), 34, 35, 36, 41, note 5.\n\n  Admissions and Presumptions, 9, 12, 13, 22, 43.\n    See, also, Renan, Strauss, Waite.\n\n  After-thought, Resurrection is not an, 6, 86.\n\n  Aged disciples, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, note 4.\n\n  Agrippa Castor, testimony of, 45.\n\n  Alexandrian Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10.\n\n  Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5.\n\n  Ambrose, 48, note 5.\n\n  Ancient Deeds and Records, are evidence, 58, 59, 64, 65.\n\n  Andrew, the Apostle, 14.\n\n  Angels, as porters, 124.\n    at the Sepulchre, 104, 106, 118, 127, 130.\n\n  Announcement, to Mary, 25, 35, 41, note 3.\n\n  Antoninus, 10, 18.\n\n  Apelles, testimony of, 45.\n\n  Apocalypse, authorship of, 12, 48, 80, note 4, 88, note 3.\n    Quotations from, 32, 81, 82.\n\n  Apocryphal Gospels, 34-42, 140, note 7.\n    Justin did not use, 34-42.\n\n  Apologies of Justin Martyr, 18-67.\n    dates of, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 18, 57, 58, 61, note 1.\n\n  Apollinaris, testimony of, 27, 29, note 3, 45.\n\n  Apostles, sincerity of, 74, 78, 86, 114.\n\n  Apostleship, requisite for, 116, 119, note 14.\n\n  Appearances, of the Risen Lord, 7, 81-89, 105-109, 115-126.\n    corporeal and material, 26, 66, 85, 107, 114, 122-124, 132, note 5.\n    Jerusalem, 105-108, 115, 121.\n    none such after Ascension, 126,\n    on the mountain, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 121.\n    Paul\u2019s enumeration of, 85, 87, 107, 108, 125, 133, note 7.\n    sea of Galilee, 108, 121, 125.\n    to James, 87, 108, 121.\n    to Mary Magdalene, 105, 106, 116, 117, 121, 123.\n    to Peter, 85, 87, 107, 123.\n    to the Eleven, 85, 87, 107, 108, 109, note 10, 113, 121.\n    to the five hundred, 85, 87, 108, 109, note 10, 121, 125.\n    to the two disciples, 106, 107, 116, 118, 121, 123, 124.\n    to the women, 106, 109, notes 5 and 7, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123,\n        125.\n    to Thomas, 107, 108.\n    why not to Sanhedrim, 110, 122.\n\n  Appearance, to Paul, 130, 131.\n    in the Apocalypse, 130.\n    to Stephen, 126, 130.\n\n  Aretus, the King, 83.\n\n  Aristion, 14, 16, note 1.\n\n  Ascending the Stream, 50-66.\n\n  Ascension, change at, 108, 124.\n    Luke\u2019s, account of, 125.\n\n  Athenagoras, testimony of, 45, 47, 51.\n\n  Authority of Jesus, vindicated, 135.\n\n  Authorship of Acts, 9, 46, 77.\n    of Apocalypse, 12, 32, 48, 88, note 3.\n    of the Fourth Gospel. See same.\n\n\n  Barnabas and Titus, 10, 53, 83.\n\n  Barnabas, Epistle of, 10, 23, 53.\n    Date of, 10, 67, 72, note 1.\n    Quotes Matthew as Scripture, 22, note 4.\n    Uses the Fourth Gospel, 23, 26.\n\n  Bar-Salibi, on Tatian, 47.\n\n  Bartholomew, 54.\n\n  Basilides, used the Fourth Gospel, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45.\n    time of, 10, 28, 34.\n\n  Begging the question, 7.\n\n  Best evidence, what is, 10.\n\n  Blasphemy, or a true Resurrection, 129.\n\n  Bodily senses may be trusted, 124, 125.\n\n  Brethren of Jesus, 39.\n\n  Burial of Jesus, certainty of, 102, 103, 109, note 2.\n\n\n  C\u00e6sarea Philippi, 91.\n\n  Caius, of Rome, testimony of, 51.\n\n  Canon of Muratori, see Muratori Canon.\n\n  Cappadocia and Pontus to Gaul, 9, 50.\n\n  Cave, birth of Jesus in, 35, 36, 41, note 4.\n\n  Celsus, first Heathen writer against Christianity, 45-48, 110.\n    Date of his writing, 46, 48, note 6.\n    Quoted our Gospels, 45, 46, 47.\n    Theory of, 81, 88, note 1.\n    Makes no reference to Cyrenius, 79, note 1.\n\n  Census in Judea, 36, 41, note 8, 42, 79, note 1.\n\n  Central Fact of Christianity, 134.\n\n  Central Truths of the Gospel, 129.\n\n  Cerinthians, 37.\n\n  Cerinthus and John, 48, 66, note 3. time of, 66, note 3.\n\n  Certainty in courts, 99.\n\n  Children of Joseph, 39.\n\n  Christian Era, true date of, 11, note 3, 12, 61, note 1.\n\n  Christianity, supposed extinction of, 70.\n    not a mere civilization, 139.\n\n  Chronology of the Gospels, 76, 77, 80, note 5.\n\n  Church at Lyons, 45.\n\n  Church at Vienne, 45.\n    of Rome to Corinth, 10. See Clement of Rome.\n\n  \u201cChurch of the future,\u201d 134, 140, note 1.\n\n  Chuza, Herod\u2019s Steward, 109, note 5.\n\n  Chrysostom, 48, note 5.\n\n  Citations by Justin and others, 23-40.\n\n  Claudius Apollinaris, testimony of, 45, 51.\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3.\n\n  Clementine Homilies, 45.\n\n  Clement of Rome, 10, 15, 59, 60, 66, note 1, 72, note 2.\n    date of his Epistle, 10.\n    quotations in, 23, 32, 66, note 1, 72, note 2.\n    upon the Resurrection, 66, note 1, 67.\n\n  Cleopas and Luke, 106.\n\n  Cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4.\n\n  Codex, Alexandrian, 70, 71, 73, note 10.\n    Sinaitic, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.\n    Vatican, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.\n\n  Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 47.\n\n  Coming of Christ, 81, 126, 139.\n\n  Coming out of the tombs, 130, 133, note 13.\n\n  Confucius, 12.\n\n  Constantine, 70.\n\n  Copies, multiplication of, 69, 70.\n\n  Coptic Version, 69.\n\n  Corporeal Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132,\n        notes 4, 5.\n\n  Corinthian church, 10. See Clement of Rome.\n\n  Corinthians, Epistles to,\n    conceded to be genuine, 12, 86.\n    quotations from, 16, 17, 18, note 3, 31, 32, 81-87.\n    upon the Resurrection, 81-87.\n    when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2.\n\n  Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of the Civil Law), 72.\n\n  Credibility of the Evangelists, 74-81, 99, 101, 108, 114, 122, 124,\n        125, 131, 132, 136, 138.\n    Of witnesses, tests of, 75, 77, 78, 99, 124, 131, 132, 136, 137.\n\n  Cross, inscription upon, 138.\n\n  Crucifixion of Jesus\u2014conceded, 12, 101.\n    differing accounts of, 101, 125.\n\n  Crucifixion of Jesus, surrounding circumstances, 130, 133, notes 13,\n        14.\n\n  Cursive manuscripts, 73, note 10.\n\n  Cyrenius, taxing under, 36, 41, note 8, 79, note 1.\n\n\n  Damascus, Paul at, 82, 83.\n\n  Darkness over the land, 130, 133, note 14.\n\n  Day, how reckoned, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.\n\n  Death of Jesus, certainty of, 101, 102, 103, 114, 117.\n\n  Denial of Peter, predicted, 97, 98.\n\n  Destruction of copies, 73, note 9.\n    of Jerusalem, 79.\n\n  Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47.\n\n  Diocletian, 70.\n\n  Diognetus, letter to, 10, 23, 27.\n\n  Dionysius of Corinth, 51.\n\n  Disagreement of witnesses against Jesus, 89.\n\n  Docet\u00e6, 38.\n\n  Domitian, persecutions under, 11.\n\n\n  Earlier writings, use of in Gospels, 78.\n\n  Ebionites, 37, 39.\n\n  Elders or Presbyters, testimony of, 17, note 3, 55, 60, 80, note 2.\n\n  Elijah\u2019s ascension, 124.\n    His coming, 92.\n\n  Emmaus, locality of, 107, 109, note 9.\n    journey to, 106, 107, 121.\n    was late in the day, 106, 107.\n\n  Empty Tomb, must be accounted for, 104, 106, 116, 118, 119, note 18,\n        120, 132, note 2.\n\n  Ephesus, tombs at, 14.\n\n  Ephr\u00e6m (the Syrian Father), 47.\n\n  Epistles, that are conceded, 12, 84.\n    quotations from, 31, 32, 81-87.\n    when written, 79, 82, 85.\n\n  Epistle of John, 9, 15, 123.\n\n  Epistles of Paul, 12, 31, 32, 79, 81-87.\n\n  Errors in copying, 71, 72.\n    of witnesses. See Credibility.\n\n  Eusebius, fifty copies by, 70.\n    on different subjects, 14, 15, 16, note 2, 37, 38, 53, 70, 88,\n        note 3.\n\n  Evidence, rules of, 9, 13, 22, 43, 77, 78, 124, 131, 136, 138.\n\n  Experience, reasoning from, 12, 43, 112, 124.\n\n\n  False Assumptions, corrected, 110-117.\n\n  Fifty copies by Eusebius, 70.\n\n  Fire in the Jordan, 37.\n\n  Flesh, implies blood, 123.\n\n  Flight into Egypt, 78.\n\n  Forgery of John\u2019s Gospel, absurdity of, 52, 60, 64.\n\n  Fourth Gospel, early use of, by or in,\n    Agrippa, Castor, 45.\n    Alogi, 47, 48, 53, 60, with 62, note 5.\n    Apelles, 45.\n    Apollinaris, 27, 29, note 3, 45.\n    Athenagoras, 45, 47.\n    Barnabas, 23, 26.\n    Basilides, 10, 11, note 4, 27, 28, 45.\n    Caius, of Rome, 51.\n    Canon of Muratori, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.\n    Celsus, 45, 46, 47, 48, note 6.\n    Church of Lyons and Vienne, 45.\n    Claudius Apollinaris, 45, 51.\n    Clement of Alexandria, 45, 46, 51, 54, 56, 68, 72, note 3.\n    Clementine Homilies, 45.\n    Commentaries and Harmonies, 45, 46, 47, 53.\n    Coptic Version, 45, 69.\n    Diatessaron of Tatian, 45, 47.\n    Diognetus, 23, 27.\n    Dionysius of Corinth, 51.\n    Elders at Ephesus, 55.\n    Hegesippus, 51.\n    Heracleon, 45, 47, 49, note 8.\n    Hermas, 23, 27, 51.\n    Hippolytus, 27, 28.\n    Iren\u00e6us, 45, 51, 55, 56, 72, note 3.\n    Justin Martyr, 23, 30, 31, 34-67.\n    Leonides, 51.\n    Melito of Sardis, 45.\n    Muratori Canon, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.\n    Origen, 39, 45, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3.\n    Pant\u00e6nus, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56.\n    Papias, 15, 16, note 3, 23, 27, 33.\n    Polycarp, 45, 51, 55, 56.\n    Polycrates, 51.\n    Pothinus, 51, 55, 56.\n    Serapion, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56.\n    Tatian, 45, 47.\n    Tertullian, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 72, note 3.\n    Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.\n    Translations, 45, 51, 69, 70.\n    Valentinus, 45, 47.\n    Victor of Rome, 51.\n\n\n  Galatians, conceded genuineness of, 12.\n    evidential value of, 82-87.\n    quotations from, 32, 80-87.\n    when written, 79, 82, 88, note 2.\n\n  Galicinium or cock-crowing, 97, 100, note 4.\n\n  Galilee, appearances, 85, 87, 107, 108, 115, 121, 125, 133, note 7.\n    meeting in, 97, 104, 108, 109, note 10.\n    predictions of His death, 93 to 100.\n\n  Gelasius, Decree of Canonicity, 34.\n\n  Genuineness of Canonical Gospels, 67-73.\n    legal presumption of, 13, 22, 43, 63, 64, 65.\n    See, also, Credibility, Memoirs.\n\n  Gnostic Heretics, 10, 45, 51.\n\n  Good Shepherd, 93, 94.\n\n  Going up to Jerusalem, 94.\n\n  Gospel of Nicodemus (Apocryphal), 35, 36.\n\n  Gospel of Hebrews (Apocryphal), 35, 37, 40, 42.\n\n  Grand motive for Resurrection of Christ, 111, 129, 130.\n\n  Grave clothes, evidence from, 105, 109, note 6, 119, note 18.\n\n  Greek Classics, manuscripts of, 71, 73, note 11.\n\n  Greek and Roman historians, 9, 10, 11, 130, with 133, note 14.\n\n  Greeks, interview of, with Jesus, 95.\n\n  Guard of soldiers, 103, 104, 109, notes 3 and 4, 124.\n\n\n  Hades not the grave, 115.\n\n  Hebrew, Matthew written in, 15, 37.\n\n  Hebrews, (Apocryphal), Gospel of, 35, 37, 40, 42, note 10.\n\n  Hegesippus, testimony of, 51.\n\n  Heracleon, testimony of, 45, 47, 49, note 8.\n\n  Heretics, testimony of, 45, 47, 51.\n\n  Hermas, authorship of, 10, 18, 48, note 5, 52, 53.\n    citations in, 27.\n    date of, 10, 48, note 5.\n    used John\u2019s Gospel, 23, 27.\n\n  Hermas, Bishop of Rome, 48, note 5.\n\n  Hippolytus, 27, 68.\n\n  Historical difficulties, 65, 67, 68, 79, note 1.\n    See, also, Credibility.\n\n  Historical facts, how proved, 9, 131.\n    See, also, Legal Presumption.\n\n\n  Ignatius, Epistles of, 10, 28.\n\n  Inspiration, extent of, 75, 132, 136.\n\n  Iren\u00e6us, testimony of, 14, 16, note 3, 45, 55, 56, 66, note 3, 72,\n        note 3.\n    on Papias, 14, 15, 16, note 3, 27.\n    on Presbyters, 16, note 3, 27.\n    to John\u2019s Gospel, 45, 51, 55, 56.\n\n  Integrity of the Gospels, 67.\n\n  Intervals between appearances, 121, 122.\n\n\n  James, appearance to, 87, 108, 121.\n\n  James, the Apostle, 14, 83, 85.\n\n  James, the Lord\u2019s brother, 83, 85.\n\n  Jairus\u2019 daughter, 110.\n\n  Jerome\u2019s translation, 37.\n    testimony of, 45.\n\n  Jerusalem, appearances at, 105-108, 115, 121.\n\n  Jewish Sabbath, displaced by Lord\u2019s Day, 81, 82.\n\n  Jewish Passover, displaced by Lord\u2019s Supper, 81, 82.\n\n  Joanna, wife of Chuza, 109, note 5.\n\n  John and Cerinthus, 66, note 3.\n\n  John, the Apostle, 14, 15, 102, and _passim_.\n    at the Cross, 115.\n    at the Sepulchre, 105, 106, 120.\n    time of his death, 15, 56, 57, 58, 64, 66, note 3.\n    See Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel.\n\n  John, the Baptist, 92.\n\n  John, the Presbyter, 13, 14, 15, 17, note 3, 21, 88, note 3.\n\n  John\u2019s Epistle, 9, 15, 123.\n\n  John\u2019s Gospel, character of, 75, 76, 78.\n    See Fourth Gospel.\n\n  Josephus, testimony from, 12.\n    compared with Luke, 77, 78.\n    silence of, no proof, 77, 78, 130.\n    when born, 130.\n\n  Joseph of Arimathea, 90, 103, 122.\n\n  Justin Martyr\u2019s writings, 14.\n    birth, character and martyrdom, 14, 18, 36, 51, 61, note 1.\n\n  Justin Martyr, on the Apocalypse, 80, note 4, 88, note 3.\n    does not quote Epistles, 31, 32, 33.\n    on Cyrenius, 79, note 1.\n    on guard of soldiers, 104, 109, note 4.\n    used the Fourth Gospel, 30-67.\n\n  Justin\u2019s Apologies. See Apologies, etc., and Memoirs Intended, by\n        Justin.\n\n\n  Lactantius, time of, 37.\n\n  Lapse of time as evidence, 13, 22, 64, 65.\n\n  Latin Version, 69.\n\n  Law, the Resurrection conformable to, 111, 112.\n\n  Lawyers should investigate, preface and 131.\n\n  Laying down His life, 93, 94.\n\n  Legal presumptions,\n    of genuineness, 13, 22, 43, 67.\n    of permanency, 13, 22, 43, 50, 59, 62, note 3.\n    of rightfulness, 13, 22, 43, 65, 66.\n\n  Leonides the martyr, 51, 54.\n\n  Lifting up the Serpent, 30, 89, 90, 129.\n\n  Lineage of David, 36, 42, note 9.\n\n  Literal Resurrection, 66, note 1, 85, 112, 123, 124, 132, note 5.\n\n  Logical Results of the Resurrection, 134.\n\n  Lord\u2019s Day, evidential value of, 81, 82.\n    displaced the Jewish Sabbath, 81, 82.\n\n  Lord\u2019s Supper, evidential value of, 81, 82, 96, 97, 102, 129.\n    displaced the Passover, 81, 82.\n\n  Lost Tributaries, 9, 67.\n\n  Lucius, time of, 61, note 1.\n\n  Luke\u2019s qualifications as a witness, 21, 45, 57, 77, 78.\n    compared with Josephus, 77, 78.\n    was a companion of Paul, 21, 45.\n\n  Luke\u2019s Gospel, character of, 9, 48, note 5, 76, 77, 78.\n    was mutilated by Marcion, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.\n    quotations from, by Justin, 25, 26, 33. See Memoirs, etc.\n\n  Lyons and Vienne, 45.\n\n\n  Manuscript copies of Gospels, 69, 70, 71, 72.\n\n  Marcion, time of, 61, note 1, 68.\n    \u201cWolf of Pontus,\u201d 38, 61, note 1, 69, 72, note 7.\n\n  Marcion\u2019s Gospel, date of, 68.\n    an abridgment of Luke\u2019s, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.\n    proves genuineness of Luke, 45, 68, 69.\n\n  Mark as Peter\u2019s interpreter, 15, 21, 38, 39, 45, 46, 57, 61, 76.\n    character of his Gospel, 76, 77.\n    See Memoirs, etc.\n\n  Material Resurrection, 26, 66, note 1, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, note 5.\n\n  Martha and Lazarus, 94.\n\n  Matthew\u2019s qualifications, 14, 15, 75, 103.\n    character of his Gospel, 15, 37, 76 to 78, 80, note 6.\n    first in Hebrew, 15, 37.\n    See Memoirs, etc.\n\n  Mary Magdalen, not mentioned by Paul, 116.\n    at the Sepulchre, 104, 105.\n    beholds the Risen Lord, 105, 106, 117, 121, 123.\n    but disciples incredulous, 105, 106, 116.\n    Renan\u2019s empty boast, 116, 119, note 12.\n\n  Mary the Mother of James, 109, note 5.\n\n  Maximian, 70.\n\n  Melito of Sardis, testimony of, 45, 51.\n\n  Memoirs Intended by Justin, 18, 34, 45, 50-67.\n    of the year one hundred and eighty, 45, 64.\n    no others proved, 34, 64.\n    no others substituted, 50 to 57, 64.\n    summary of evidence, 63, 64.\n    were Our Gospels, 18 to 67.\n\n  Miracles, cessation of, 139, 140, note 7.\n    are not impossible, 7, 65, 111, 118, note 2, 3.\n    conformable to law, 111, 112.\n    gift of, to the Apostles, 138, 139.\n    grand motive for, 111, 129, 130.\n    may be proved, 8, 111, 112, 113, 118, note 2, 3.\n\n  Mythological resurrections, 140, note 7.\n\n  Moral necessity of Christ\u2019s Resurrection, 128, 129.\n\n  Multiplication of copies, insures correctness, 69, 70, 71.\n\n  Muratori Canon, date of, 48, note 5.\n    where found, 48, note 5.\n    what it is, 45, 48, note 5, 53, 56.\n\n  Myths and Legends, disproved, 86, 87, 88.\n\n\n  Nazarenes, 37.\n\n  Nero\u2019s Persecution, 9, 11.\n\n  Nicodemus, 31, 52, 89, 90, 103, 122.\n\n  Nicomedia, Persecution at, 73, note 9.\n\n\n  Omission is not Contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124,\n        125.\n\n  Opening of prison doors, 124.\n\n  Order of Events, 101.\n\n  Origen, 39, 45, 47, 49, 51, 54, 56, 72, note 3, 122, 132, note 4.\n    against Celsus, 47, 49, 132, note 4.\n    against \u201cPeter\u2019s Gospel,\u201d 39, 45.\n    on genuineness of Our Gospels, 45, 54, 72, note 3.\n    on Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 4.\n\n\n  Pagan Nations, Christianized, 9, 10, 12, 13, 139, 141, note 8.\n\n  Pagan Persecutions. See Ten Persecutions.\n\n  Pant\u00e6nus, testimony of, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56.\n\n  Papias, character and martyrdom, 14, 15.\n\n  Papias, fragments of his writings, 10, 14, and note 3 on pp. 16-17,\n        37.\n    on Mark\u2019s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56.\n    on Matthew\u2019s Gospel, 14, 15, 37, 56.\n    probably used John\u2019s Gospel, 15, 16, note 3, 33.\n\n  Passover and the Lord\u2019s Supper, 81, 82.\n\n  Passover week, 115.\n\n  Pastor Hermas, see Hermas.\n\n  Part of a day for the whole, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.\n\n  Paul\u2019s conversion, date of, 83, 88, note 2.\n    testimony to the Resurrection, 81 to 87.\n    visits to Jerusalem, 82, 83.\n\n  Paul\u2019s conceded Epistles, 12, 67, 84, 86.\n    when written, 79, 82, 85, 88, note 2.\n    their great value as evidence of Christ\u2019s Resurrection, 12, 81 to\n        88.\n\n  Peter\u2019s change of character, 127, 128.\n    at the tomb, 104, 105.\n    charge to, 108.\n    denial, 97, 98.\n    rebuked, 92, 97.\n    See Appearances.\n\n  Peter\u2019s Gospel (Apocryphal), 20, with 22, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42,\n        note 14, 45, with 48, note 1, 62, note 6.\n\n  Philip, the Apostle, 14.\n\n  Philippians, Epistle to, 12.\n\n  Physical cause of Christ\u2019s death, 102, 108, note 1.\n\n  Pilate, assured of Christ\u2019s death, 103, 114.\n\n  Pliny\u2019s Letter to Trojan, 9, 12, 59.\n\n  Ploughs and Yokes, 35.\n\n  Polycarp, testimony of, 10, 23, 33, 45, 51, 55, 56.\n    his Epistle, 10, 33.\n    his martyrdom, 55.\n\n  Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, 51.\n\n  Positive and Negative Evidence, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125.\n\n  Pothinus, testimony of, 51, 55, 56.\n\n  Preaching of the Resurrection,\n    as early as Day of Pentecost, 83, 84, 101.\n    disproves Myths or Legends, 85, 86.\n    must be accounted for, 113, 114.\n    theories upon, 113, 114.\n\n  Preaching of Paul, (Apocryphal,) 37.\n\n  Predictions of His Death and Resurrection,\n    by Himself, 89 to 97, 102, 128, 129.\n    by the Prophets, 127, 128.\n    why not understood, 100.\n    their great force as evidence, 102.\n\n  Preface, 5.\n\n  Presumptions, see Legal Presumption.\n\n  Presentation at the Temple, 78.\n\n  Previous Resurrections, 116, 117.\n\n  Proclamation of the Resurrection. See Preaching, etc.\n\n  Proof of the Resurrection possible, 111, 112.\n    and sufficient, 115 to 133.\n\n  Prophecies of the Resurrection. See Predictions, etc.\n\n  Protevangelium (Apocryphal), 34 to 42.\n\n  Public Ministry, termination of, 76, 80, note 5, 96.\n\n\n  Quotations in the Second Century,\n    from Old Testament, not exact, 24, 31.\n    from Gospels, not exact, 23, 24, 31, 47.\n    name of writer not given in quoting, before Theophilus, 45, 46, 47,\n        53, 56, 67.\n    See Barnabas, Clement, Hermas.\n\n  Quotations by Justin Martyr,\n    from Acts, 23, 24, 33.\n    from John, 23, 30, 31, 32.\n    from Luke, 23 to 27, 33.\n    from Mark, 23, 24, 32.\n    from Matthew, 23, 24, 33.\n\n  Quotations, by Iren\u00e6us, 45, 51, 55, 56.\n    by Origen, 45, 72, note 3.\n    by Papias, 15, 16, note 3.\n    by Presbyters, 16, note 3.\n    by Theophilus, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.\n    by Tertullian, 38, 45, 54, 55, 68, 69, 72, note 3.\n\n\n  Relation of Gospel to Epistles, 87, 88.\n\n  Reminiscences, and not connected Histories, 77.\n\n  Rending the Veil, 130.\n\n  Repositories for the Gospel, 63, 64.\n\n  Resurrection of Jesus Christ, antecedently probable, 128, 129.\n    sufficiently proved, 112 to 133.\n\n  Resurrection Body, 26, 66, note 1, 67, 85, 122, 123, 124, 132, notes\n        4, 5.\n\n  Revelations, generally conceded, 12, 88, note 3.\n    quotations from, 32, 81, 82.\n    style differs from Gospel, 76, 80, note 4.\n    sufficiently accounted for, 76, 80, note 4.\n\n  Revised Version, 72, 100, note 1, 109, note 7.\n\n  Roman Civil Law, text of, 72, 73, note 13.\n\n  Romans, Epistle to, conceded, 12.\n    quotations from, 31, 32, 81 to 87.\n    when written, 79, 82.\n\n\n  Salome, 109, note 5.\n\n  Sanhedrim, 82, 98, 101, 103, 109, note 3, 110, 113, 120, 122.\n\n  Saturn-day, Sunday, 19.\n\n  Septuagint, 19.\n\n  Serapion, testimony of, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56.\n\n  Severus, persecution under, 10.\n\n  Slaying of the children, 78.\n\n  Shepherds, visit of, 78.\n\n  Sinaitic Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.\n\n  Sincerity of the witnesses conceded, 74, 86, 87, 114.\n\n  Sign of Jonah, 90, 100, notes 2, 3.\n    of temple of his body, 89.\n    of Brazen Serpent, 89, 90, 129.\n\n  Silence not contradiction, 16, 16, note 3, 32, 36, 67, 77, 124, 125.\n\n  Socrates, 12.\n\n  Soldiers\u2019, fabrication, 103, 104, 109, note 4, 124.\n\n  Sources of Evidence, 7 to 10.\n\n  Spear of the Soldier, 102, 114.\n\n  Stephen\u2019s vision of Christ, 126, 130.\n\n  Substitution of Gospels, disproved, 50 to 67.\n\n  Sufficiency of the Proofs, 110 to 130, 132, 137, 138.\n\n  Superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6.\n\n  Suppression of Evidence, 115.\n\n  Survival of the fittest, 13.\n\n  Sybilline writings, 37.\n\n  Synoptics, meaning of, 76, 80, note 3.\n\n  Syria and Cilicia, 83.\n\n  Syriac Version, 69.\n\n\n  Tabernacle predictions, 93.\n\n  Tacitus, the Historian, 9, 12.\n\n  Tatian, the Heretic, 45, 47, 48. See Diatessaron.\n\n  Ten Persecutions, 11.\n\n  Tertullian, the distinguished Lawyer, 38, 45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 68,\n        72, note 3.\n\n  Theophilus of Antioch, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 56.\n\n  Theophilus of Antioch, quoted John by name, 46, 51, 53.\n\n  Theophilus, the friend of Luke, 77.\n\n  Thessalonians, Epistles to, 12.\n\n  Thomas the Apostle, 14.\n\n  Tiberias, appearances at, 108, 121, 125, 133, note 7.\n\n  Time, how reckoned by the Jews, 90, 100, note 3.\n\n  Titus and Barnabas, 83. See Barnabas.\n\n  Toleration, rule for, 135.\n\n  Tombs, at Ephesus, 14.\n\n  Tradition, 9, 53, 54, 66, 67, 68.\n\n  Trajan, persecution under, 9, 10, 12, 59.\n\n  Transfiguration, 92, 123.\n\n  Translations, 69, 70.\n\n  Trypho the Jew, 18, 19, 20, 21, 104, 109, note 4.\n    See Justin Martyr.\n\n\n  Uncial manuscripts, 73, note 10.\n\n  Unity of Gospels, 79.\n\n  Usages in Justin\u2019s time, 19.\n\n\n  Valentinus, evidence from, 45, 47.\n\n  Vatican Codex, 70, 71, 73, note 10, 109, note 7.\n\n  Victor, Bishop of Rome, 51.\n\n  Vienne and Lyons, 45.\n\n  Vision, theory stated, 114.\n    disproved, 114 to 132.\n\n\n  Walking on the Sea, 123.\n\n  Wise men of the East, 78.\n\n  Witnesses in Court,\u2014see Credibility, etc.\n    women not competent, 116, 119, note 13.\n\n  Women at the Sepulchre, 104 to 106, 109, note 5, 115, 116.\n\n\n  Yielding up the Ghost, 99.\n\n\n  Zebedee\u2019s Sons, 42, note 14, 90 to 100.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX B.\n\nALPHABETICAL INDEX TO MODERN AUTHORS, EVENTS, AND WRITINGS.\n\n\n  Abbot, E. A., D.D., on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Abbott, Rev. Edward, on Fijis, 141, note 8.\n\n  Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel by Ezra Abbot, D.D., LL.D.\n        (Boston, 1880.) Frequent citations from, 10 to 48.\n\n  Abbott, Cyclop\u00e6dia of Religious Knowledge, by Lyman Abbott, D.D.,\n        LL.D., cited, 122, 132, note 5, with 122.\n\n  Adams\u2019 Roman Antiquities, 119, note 13.\n\n  Alford (Dean) 103, 108, note 1, with 102.\n\n  Ambrosian Library, 48, note 5.\n\n  Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 16, notes 1, 3, 22, 23, 30, 34.\n\n  Arnold, Matthew, on Basilides, 28, with 10, and 11, note 4.\n\n\n  Bampton Lectures, 40 with 42, note 17, 68 with 72, note 6.\n\n  Barnes, Albert, on site of Emmaus, 109, note 9.\n    on the Resurrection Body, 123, 132, note 5.\n\n  Bartlett, Pres., on the slight historical errors, 79, note 1.\n\n  Baur, J. C., on Fourth Gospel, 52.\n\n  Bentley, on genuineness of Gospels, 71.\n\n  Blackstone, 32, 132.\n\n  Bleek, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Buck\u2019s Theological Dictionary, 11, note 5.\n\n\n  Cannibals Christianized, 139, 141, note 8.\n\n  Canonicity,\u2014See Charteris.\n\n  Chadwick\u2019s Views of Christianity, 134, 139, 140, note 1.\n\n  Charteris, Prof. A. H., D.D., on Basilides, 28.\n    date of Celsus, 49, note 6.\n    date of Justin\u2019s Apology, 61, note 1.\n    early universal use of Gospels, 47.\n    Fourth Gospel, 17, 27, 28, 47.\n    Marcion\u2019s Gospel, 72, note 7, with 69.\n    Papias, 17.\n    Pastor Hermas, 27.\n\n  Child, L. Maria, 119, note 13.\n\n  Congregationalist, 58, note, 140, note 2, 141, note 8.\n\n  Conybeare and Howson\u2019s Life of Paul, 82, 83, with 88, notes 2, 4.\n\n  Credner, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Curtiss, Prof. Samuel Ives, D.D., on Apocryphal Gospels, 34, 35, 39,\n        and 40 with 42, notes 15, 16.\n    date of Celsus, 48, note 6.\n    date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 6.\n    Judge Waite, 35, 48, note 6.\n\n  Cursive manuscripts of Gospels, 73, note 10.\n\n\n  Davidson, Samuel, cited by Waite, 29, note 4.\n\n  De Soto, 52.\n\n  Donaldson and Roberts, 16, notes 1, 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61,\n        note 1.\n\n  Dorner on use by Papias of John\u2019s Gospel, 17.\n\n  Drummond, Prof., on Justin\u2019s use of John\u2019s Gospel, 30.\n\n\n  Early settlements in New Hampshire, 58.\n\n\n  Farrar, (Canon), 100, note 1, 109, note 3.\n\n  Fisher, Prof. George P., D.D., on Alogi, 62, note 5.\n    date of Apocryphal Gospels, 41, note 2, with 34.\n    date of Celsus, 49, note 6, with 46.\n    date of Justin\u2019s Apology, 61, note 1.\n    date of Muratori Canon, 46, 48, note 5.\n    genuineness of text of Gospels, 67, 71, 72, note 4, 73, note 12.\n    John\u2019s Gospel, 27, 29, note 3, 33, note 3, with 30.\n    Justin\u2019s Quotations, 46, 48, notes 2, 4, 62, note 5, 67, 68, 72,\n        note 4.\n    Marcion\u2019s Gospel, 72, note 4, with 68.\n    Theophilus, 46, 48, note 4.\n\n  Free Religious Index, 140, note 1.\n\n  Friedlieb, on physical Cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1.\n\n\n  Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, by Cunningham Geikie, D.D.,\n        (1880), cited page 109, note 10, with page 108.\n\n  Gibbon\u2019s Rome, 9.\n\n  Gibson, Ch. Justice, 131.\n\n  Gilbert West,\u2014See West.\n\n  Godet, Prof. F., D.D., 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3, 126, 132, notes\n        1, 2, 133, note 8.\n    upon Possibility of Miracles, 132, notes 1, 2, with 111.\n    upon Sign of Jonah, 88, note 1, 90, 100, note 3.\n    upon Vision Theory, 126, 133, note 8.\n\n  Gordon-Cumming, in Fiji, 141, note 8.\n\n  Granite Monthly, 58.\n\n  Greenleaf, Prof. Simon, LL.D., on cock-crowing, 100, note 4, with 97.\n    credibility of witnesses, 78, 137, 138, 140, notes 3, 6.\n    genuineness of Gospels, 13, 72, 73, note 13.\n    presumption of Permanency, 43, 44, note 1, 66.\n    presumption of Rightfulness, 13, 44, note 1, 66.\n    sign of Jonah, 100, note 3, with page 90.\n    superscription on the Cross, 138, 140, note 6.\n    truth of Christianity, 132, 138, 140, note 6.\n\n\n  Hanna, Rev. William, LL.D., on cause of death, 109, note 1, with 102.\n    empty tomb, 105, 109, note 6.\n    Galilee meeting, 109, note 10, with 108.\n\n  Hilgenfeld on Justin\u2019s use of John\u2019s Gospel, 30, 33, note 3.\n    on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Hooykaas and his Bible for Learners, 114, 119, note 8, 128, 133, note\n        12, 134, 140, note 1.\n\n  Holtzmann, on Apocryphal Gospels, 35.\n\n  Hume\u2019s argument from experience, 43, 112.\n\n\n  Ingersoll on inspiration, 136, 137, 138.\n    on miracles, 112, 118, note 3.\n\n  Inter-Ocean (Chicago), 41, note 2, 42, note 15, 16.\n\n\n  Kent, Chancellor, 32, 132.\n\n  Keim, Dr., on date of Celsus, 48, 49, note 6.\n    on the empty tomb, 120, 132, note 2.\n\n\n  Lafayette\u2019s visit, 57, 62, note 2.\n\n  Landing of the Pilgrims, 58.\n\n  Lange\u2019s Life of Jesus, on cause of death, 108, note 1, with 102.\n    Cleopas and Luke, 106, 109, note 8.\n    Galilee meeting, 108, 109, note 10.\n    guard of Soldiers, 109, note 3, with 103.\n    journey to Emmaus, 106, 109, note 8.\n    lifting up the Serpent, 89, 90, 100, note 1.\n    locality of Emmaus, 109, note 9.\n    sign of Jonah, 100, notes 2, 3, with 90.\n    women at the Sepulchre, 104, 109, note 5.\n\n  Lemisch on date of Justin\u2019s Apology, 61, note 1.\n\n  Light Infantry Poor, 62, note 2, with 57.\n\n  Lipsius, Prof. of Jena, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.\n    that Justin did not use them, 40, 42, note 15.\n\n  Lord Brougham, 132.\n\n\n  Madagascar Christianized, 139.\n\n  Mason, Jeremiah, 132.\n\n  Marshall, Ch. Justice, 132.\n\n  Matthew Arnold. See Arnold.\n\n  McClintock and Strong\u2019s Cyclopedia, on Cerinthus, 66, note 3.\n    Pagan Persecutions, 11, note 5, 73, note 9.\n    Resurrection Body of Christ, 123.\n\n  Meyer\u2019s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.\n\n  Mill, J. S. concedes, Christ Historical, 128, 133, note 11.\n    miracles possible, 8.\n\n  Miln, on \u201cChurch of the Future,\u201d 134, 140, note 1.\n\n  Milligan, The Resurrection of Our Lord, by William Milligan, D.D.,\n        Prof. etc. in the University of Aberdeen. (London, 1881),\n        Cited, 114, 119, notes 5, 7.\n\n  Morrison, James, D.D., on Empty Tomb, 119, note 18.\n\n\n  New Hampshire Journal, Preface and 140, note 2.\n\n  New York Observer, 140, note 1.\n\n  Neander, on the date of Justin\u2019s Apology, 61, note 1.\n    destruction of Church, etc., at Nicomedia, 73, note 9.\n\n  New Revision, 72, 100, note 1.\n\n  North American Review, 118, note 3, 140, note 4.\n\n  Norton, on Peter\u2019s Gospel, 39, 42, note 12, 56, note 2.\n    on Genuineness of Our Gospels, 54, 56, 76, 80, note 6.\n    on number of Copies of Gospels, 73, note 8, with 70.\n\n\n  Page on date of Justin\u2019s Apology, 61, note 1.\n\n  Parker, Joel, Ch. Justice, 43.\n\n  Parmelee, Dr. Simeon, great age of, 57.\n\n  Parsons, Theophilus, Ch. Justice, 132.\n\n  Patten\u2019s Diaries, 58.\n\n  Paulus, Theory of, 114.\n\n  Phillips, on Presumptions, 43, 44, note 1.\n\n  Pond, Dr. Enoch, as to cessation of Miracles, 140, note 7.\n\n  Princeton Review, 68, 72, note 4, 79, note 1.\n\n\n  Renan, Ernest, admissions by, 12, 13, note 1, 84, 112, 130, 133,\n        notes 12 and 14.\n    demands expert testimony, 7.\n    denials, 7, 11, note 1, 112, 118, note 3.\n    idle boasting, 84, 116, 119, note 12.\n    upon Christ\u2019s teachings, 128, 133, note 12.\n    upon silence of Historians as to occurrences at the Crucifixion,\n        130, 133, note 14.\n\n  Reuss, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Riggenback, on use by Papias of John\u2019s Gospel, 17.\n\n  Roberts and Donaldson, 16, notes 1 and 3, 20, 22, note 1, 23, 30, 61,\n        note 1.\n    that Justin did not cite Peter\u2019s Gospel, 20.\n\n  Robinson\u2019s Holy Land, 109, note 9.\n\n  Robinson, John, the Pilgrim Father, 135.\n\n  Robinson, Prof., on the Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5.\n\n  Routh, on Papias\u2019 use of John\u2019s Gospel, 17.\n\n  Rowe, Prof. See Bampton Lectures.\n\n\n  Salisbury Church. See Webster.\n\n  Sanday, Dr., on quotations by Justin, 24.\n    by Iren\u00e6us, 56.\n    dates of Celsus, Muratori Canon, 48 and 49, notes 5, 6.\n    that Marcion\u2019s Gospel is an abridgment of Luke, 68, 69, 72, note 7.\n\n  Sandwich Islands Christianized, 139.\n\n  Savage, on the \u201cChurch of the Future,\u201d 134, 140, note 1.\n\n  Schleiermacher, theory of, 81, 88, note 1.\n\n  Schenkel\u2019s Lexicon, on date of Apocryphal Gospels, 35.\n\n  Scott, Thomas, D.D., that part of the day is counted for the whole,\n        90, 100, note 3.\n    upon Resurrection Body, 122, 132, note 5.\n\n  Scribner\u2019s Monthly, 73, note 12.\n\n  Sears\u2019 \u201cHeart of Christ,\u201d 30, 33, note 3, 49, note 6, 61, note 1, 80,\n        note 4.\n\n  Smith and Wace\u2019s Dictionary, 35.\n\n  Spiritualists, 140, 141, note 7.\n\n  Stanley (Dean) as to date of Polycarp\u2019s Epistle, 10.\n\n  Starkie, on coincidences, 137, 140, note 5.\n    on Christianity, 132.\n\n  Stier, that part of a day is counted for the whole, 90, 100, note 2.\n\n  Story, Judge, 32, 132.\n\n  Stowe, Prof. C. E., on Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 41, note 2.\n    Elders at Ephesus, 56, note 4, with 55.\n    Gospel to Hebrews, 37, 42, note 10.\n    Greek Classic Copies, 71, 73, note 11.\n    John\u2019s Gospel, 48, note 4.\n    Theophilus, 48, note 4.\n\n  Strauss, David, Admissions by:\n    actual death of Jesus, 81, 102, 114, 119, note 6.\n    sincerity of witnesses, 86.\n    universal use of the Gospels, by the end of the Second Century, 45,\n        46.\n    false theories of, 7, 8, 81, 88, note 1, 106, 115.\n    became an atheist, 8.\n    how far commended, 38, 134.\n    more candid than Waite, 38.\n\n  Stroud, on physical cause of Death, 102, 108, note 1.\n\n  Supernatural Religion. An Inquiry into The Reality of Divine\n        Revelation. (Anonymous.) Referred to pp. 17, 42, note 14, 68,\n        69, 112, with 118, note 3.\n\n\n  Taylor, William, D.D., on Miracles, 111, 118, note 1, 128, 133, note\n        10.\n\n  Thomson\u2019s \u201cLand and Book,\u201d 35, 36, 41, note 4.\n\n  Tischendorf, Constantine, discoverer of the Sinaitic Codex, 70.\n    on Commentary of Heracleon, 47, 49, note 8.\n    on difference in Manuscripts, 73, note 10.\n    on number of manuscript copies, 71, 73, note 10.\n    on quotations by Iren\u00e6us, 56, note 3, with 55.\n    on use, by Papias, of John\u2019s Gospel, 17.\n\n  T\u00fcbingen School, 8, 30.\n\n\n  Uncials, number of, 73, note 10.\n\n\n  Waite, History of the Christian Religion to the year Two Hundred. By\n        Charles B. Waite, A. M. Second Edition, Chicago (1881), 34.\n\n  Waite, C. B., admits Gospels do not copy from each other, 74.\n\n  Waite, C. B., his mistakes as to Apocalypse, 88, note 3.\n    Apocryphal Gospels, 35, 36, 41, note 5.\n    Basilides, 29, note 4.\n    Clement of Rome, 32, 66, note 1, 67, 72, note 2.\n    Celsus, 48, note 6.\n    Cerinthus, 66, note 3.\n    Justin Martyr, 5, 10, 11, note 3, 61, note 1.\n    Marcion\u2019s Gospel, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 72, note 7.\n    Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n    Peter\u2019s Gospel, 20, note 2, 38, 39, 40, 42, note 14, 48, 62, note 6.\n    Resurrection body, and Paul, 85, 114, 119, note 8, 122.\n    with other matters too numerous to mention.\n\n  Walker, Timothy, Diaries of, 58.\n\n  Webster, Daniel, 132, 135, 140, note 2.\n    his creed, 135, 140, note 2.\n    his church membership, 140, note 2.\n\n  Warrenton, on quotations from O. T., 80, note 1.\n\n  Weiseler, on date of Muratori Canon, 48, note 5.\n\n  Westcott, 17, 80, note 6.\n\n  Wesleyan Missionaries, 141, note 8.\n\n  West, Gilbert, on resurrection, 117, 119, note 16.\n\n  Whitby, that a part of a day is put for the whole, 100, note 3.\n\n  Whittier\u2019s Poem, 57.\n\n  Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences. By Rev. G. Frederick\n        Wright, Andover, Mass. (1880), cited or quoted, 18, 24, 28,\n        note 1, 56, notes, and 80, note 6.\n\n\n  Yorktown Scammel, 62, note 2.\n\n\n\n\n\nANDOVER PUBLICATIONS.\n\nW. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS.\n\n\nAmong the Andover Publications will be found choice and valuable books\nfor intelligent readers; also works for the special use of Theological\nStudents and Clergymen. The Catalogue embraces works on the Evidences\nand Defences of Christianity, Devotional books, Essays in Philosophy\nand Theology, Church History, Discrepancies of the Bible, Hermeneutics,\nCommentaries on various books of the Old and New Testaments, Harmonies of\nthe New Testament in Greek and in English, Grammars of the New Testament\nGreek, Hebrew Lexicon and Grammars, etc.\n\nDescriptive Catalogues sent free on application. All books sent by\nmail postpaid, at the prices annexed. A special discount of twenty per\ncent is given to clergymen and theological students, excepting on the\n\u201cBibliotheca Sacra\u201d and those books which are marked by a *.\n\nAddress\n\nW. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, ANDOVER, MASS.\n\n\n_Books Published by W. F. Draper._\n\n=Remarks on the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion.= By\nTHOMAS ERSKINE, Esq., Advocate. Third American, from the Fifth Edinburgh\nEdition. 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n    \u201cThe entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which\n    it advocates to intelligent and considerate minds. It is one of\n    the best, perhaps _the_ best, of all the discussions of this\n    momentous subject.\u201d\u2014_Congregationalist._\n\n    \u201cThis argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the\n    Truth of Revealed Religion, is the most compact, natural, and\n    convincing we have ever read from any author.\u201d\u2014_Christian\n    Chronicle._\n\n    \u201cNo man ought to consider himself as having studied theology\n    unless he has read and pondered and read again \u2018Erskine on the\n    Internal Evidence.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Independent._\n\n=Five Discourses on St. Paul.= To which is added a Discourse on Fatalism.\nBy ADOLPHE MONOD. Translated from the French by Rev. J. H. MYERS, D.D.\n12mo. 90 cents.\n\n    \u201cThe aim of the author is to present an estimate of the\n    character, labors, and writings of the Apostle Paul in the\n    light of an example, and to apply the principles which actuated\n    him, and which he maintained, to Christians of the present\n    day.\u201d\u2014_Boston Journal._\n\n    \u201cA book unsurpassed in its department, in any language, for\n    manly eloquence, thorough research, profound reflection, a most\n    earnest, glowing, winning Christian spirit, united with an\n    exact appreciation of the great Apostle\u2019s character and work,\n    and a wise, cautious, but bold and unflinching, application of\n    his teachings to the times in which we live.\u201d\u2014_The Translator._\n\n    \u201cA masterly and most eloquent delineation of the inner life of\n    the great Apostle.\u201d\u2014_Evangelical Quarterly._\n\n=_Writings of Archbishop Whately._= Published under the sanction of the\nauthor, from the latest revised edition; viz.\n\n=Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul.= 12mo.\nCloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50\n\n    \u201cDr. Whately\u2019s writings are characterized by sound thought\n    and solid judgment. Clear and solid sense is his peculiar\n    characteristic. He is often ingenious, generally candid, almost\n    always plain and transparent.\u201d\u2014_Bibliotheca Sacra._\n\n    \u201cAn excellent work.\u201d\u2014_New York Evangelist._\n\n    \u201cThe Archbishop\u2019s writings are a part of the sterling\n    theological letters of the age, and ought to be possessed by\n    all the studious and thoughtful.\u201d\u2014_Journal and Messenger._\n\n    \u201cThis book had passed through at least eight editions in\n    England before its publication in this country. Dr. Whately\n    is always entitled to a hearing. Never profound, he is always\n    clear; never very original, he is always instructive; never\n    disgustingly dogmatic, he always seems to feel a serene\n    assurance that he has exhausted the whole subject, and that\n    his verdict is final; always positive and didactic, he is\n    yet never extreme, but always takes the middle and moderate\n    view.\u201d\u2014_Watchman and Reflector._\n\n=Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, and\nHistoric Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. pp. 264 and 48. Bound in 1\nvol. Cloth extra, gilt tops. $1.50\n\n=Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.= 12mo. Paper covers. 25 cents;\ncloth, 40 cents.\n\n    About the year 1821 Whately published this Essay anonymously.\n    It was designed as an answer to Hume\u2019s objections to the\n    credibility of the Christian miracles. Following Hume\u2019s method,\n    Whately gravely argued the improbability of the existence\n    of the first Napoleon, and demonstrated that, on Hume\u2019s\n    principles, the testimony in relation thereto could not be\n    credited.\n\n=The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney of Uley,\nGloucestershire.= 12mo. $1.00\n\n    The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney were held in\n    high estimation by Madam Phebe Phillips. The copy which she\n    used, came down to her as an heirloom from her pious ancestors,\n    and was ranked, on her private table, next to her Bible and\n    hymn-book. So highly did she esteem the work, that she copied\n    out, with her own hand, a large part of the volume for the use\n    of a friend. It is now reprinted as a precious memorial of one\n    of the honored founders of the Theological Institution.\n\n=Bible History of Prayer.= By C. A. GOODRICH. 12mo. $1.25\n\n    \u201cThe aim of this little volume is to embody an account of the\n    delightful and successful intercourse of believers with heaven\n    for some four thousand years. The author has indulged a good\n    deal in narrative, opening and explaining the circumstances\n    which gave birth to the several prayers.\n\n    \u201cThe author does not aim to write a treatise on prayer, or to\n    comment on all the references to prayer in chronological order,\n    but to dwell on its nature and importance, and make suggestions\n    on the most important allusions to prayer, as indicated all\n    along for four thousand years. He explains the circumstances\n    connected with the prayers of these holy men.\u201d\u2014_Religious\n    Union._\n\n=Messianic Prophecy and the Life of Christ.= By Rev. W. S. KENNEDY. 12mo.\n$1.25\n\n    \u201cThe plan of the author is to collect all the prophecies of\n    the Old Testament referring to the Messiah, with appropriate\n    comments and reflections, and then to pursue the subject\n    through the New Testament in the life of Christ as he appeared\n    among men. The reader will find the results of Hengstenberg\n    and Neander here gathered up, and presented in a readable\n    shape.\u201d\u2014_The Presbyterian._\n\n    \u201cThis work exhibits the prophetic element in the Messianic\n    argument in an analytical shape, and with peculiar\n    force.\u201d\u2014_Episcopal Recorder._\n\n    \u201cThe general idea of the book is a very happy one, and it has,\n    on the whole been well wrought out.\u201d\u2014_The Lutheran._\n\n=Theologia Germanica.= Which setteth forth many fair Lineaments of\nDivine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a Perfect\nLife. Edited by DR. PFEIFFER, from the only complete Manuscript yet\nknown. Translated from the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH. With a Preface\nby the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley; and a Letter to\nthe Translator, by the CHEVALIER BUNSEN, D.D., D.C.L., etc.; and an\nIntroduction by PROF. CALVIN E. STOWE, D.D. 16mo. Cloth, $1.25; calf,\n$2.50\n\n    This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it\n    into notice by an edition which he published in 1516, of which\n    he says: \u201cAnd I will say, though it be boasting of myself, and\n    \u2018I speak as a fool,\u2019 that, next to the Bible and St. Augustine,\n    no book hath ever come into my hands whence I have learnt, or\n    would wish to learn, more of what God and Christ, and man, and\n    all things, are.\u201d \u201cA precious lump of pure gold in a flag of\n    earth and stone.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThis little volume which is brought out in antique style, is,\n    apart from its intrinsic value, a curiosity of literature. It\n    may be regarded as the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation.\n    No fewer than seventeen editions of this book appeared in\n    his lifetime, and up to the present day it has continued to\n    be a favorite manual of devotion in Germany, where it has\n    passed through certainly as many as sixty editions.\u201d\u2014_Evening\n    Traveller._\n\n    \u201cI value it _exceedingly_, so vivid and so rich is it,\n    on the great ideas of _sin_, and _salvation through\n    Christ_.\u201d\u2014_Congregational Herald._\n\n    \u201cA most valuable, interesting, and instructive volume, upon the\n    most vital points of Christianity.\u201d\u2014_Lutheran Standard._\n\n_=Haley. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.=_ By\nJohn W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah Hovey, D.D., Professor\nin the Newton Theological Institution. Crown 8vo. pp. xii and 473. $1.75\n\n    =From Professor Edwards A. Park.=\u2014\u201cI do not know any volume\n    which gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of\n    suggestion and instruction on this theme as is given in this\n    volume.\u201d\n\n    =From the Presbyterian Quarterly.=\u2014\u201cThe book is honest, candid,\n    and painstaking. It will be found useful to all students of the\n    sacred volume.\u201d\n\n    \u201cAn able book, containing a clear and dispassionate discussion\n    of a momentous subject. It stands unique in a field of its\n    own.\u201d\u2014_Independent._\n\n    \u201cAs an example of thorough and painstaking scholarship, as a\n    serviceable handbook for all Bible students, and as a popular\n    defence of revealed truth, it will take high rank, and fill an\n    important place which up to this time has been conspicuously\n    vacant.\u201d\u2014_Congregationalist._\n\n    \u201cIt would be difficult, by any amount of labor, to produce\n    anything more convincing and satisfactory.\u201d\u2014The _Interior._\n\n_=Haley. The Hereafter of Sin=_: What it will be; with Answers to Certain\nQuestions and Objections. By Rev. John W. Haley, author of \u201cAlleged\nDiscrepancies of the Bible.\u201d 16mo. 75 cents.\n\n    \u201cIt presents, in a calm and admirable manner, the Scriptural\n    doctrine of future retribution, divested, indeed, of the\n    literalism with which it is sometimes presented, and\n    showing its accordance with the deductions of a sound\n    philosophy.\u201d\u2014_Zion\u2019s Herald._\n\n    \u201cIt is a scholarly, clear, dispassionate, and conclusive\n    argument in favor of what is known as the common or orthodox\n    view of future punishment. The whole discussion is conducted in\n    a spirit of courtesy and fairness towards all opponents which\n    does credit to our current controversial literature.\u201d\u2014_The\n    Interior._\n\n_=Wright. The Logic of Christian Evidences.=_ By Rev. G. Frederick\nWright. 16mo. $1.50\n\n    \u201cBeginning with a general statement of the principles of\n    inductive and deductive logic, which are illustrated by ample\n    examples drawn from the whole field of modern science, it\n    advances to the consideration of the personality, wisdom, and\n    benevolence of the Creator, as seen in nature; to the place of\n    miracles in the Christian system; to the specific evidences\n    of Christianity as discerned in the early history of the New\n    Testament, and in the characteristics of the Christians of the\n    first and second centuries; and to the historical probability\n    of Jesus and his immediate followers having been either\n    impostors or deluded enthusiasts.\u201d\u2014_Literary World._\n\n    \u201cThe book would form an admirable text-book for Bible-classes\n    or college classes, and will give solid comfort and strength to\n    all readers who have any desire to be able to give a reason for\n    believing.\u201d\u2014_Rev. Dr. Thomas Hill in the Bibliotheca Sacra._\n\n_=Wright. Studies in Science and Religion.=_ By Prof. G. Frederick\nWright, author of \u201cThe Logic of Christian Evidences.\u201d 16mo. $1.50\n\n    \u201cThe chapter on inductive reasoning, with which the book opens,\n    is as full, explanatory, and convincing as any one could wish,\n    despite the fact it occupies only twenty-six pages.... The\n    grand point contended for and carried is that \u2018Christianity,\n    in its appeal to historical evidence, allies itself with\n    modern science rather than with the glittering generalities of\n    transcendentalism,\u2019 and that in its beginnings science has no\n    advantage over religion in solidity of basis.\u201d\u2014_The Leader._\n\n    \u201cThe article on Prehistoric Man, now appears for the first\n    time. It is illustrated by a number of maps and cuts which\n    enhance the interest of the story. The southern limit of the\n    ice of the Glacial Epoch in North America is traced, and the\n    connection of human implements therewith is shown.\u201d\u2014_Oberlin\n    Review._","title":"The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":55071}