Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
Archives <freethought@despammed.com>






PRODUCTION NOTES:
A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays
by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)
Originally published anonymously in 1889.
Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>






A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS

BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"




LONDON
1889





INTRODUCTION.


I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent
illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his
republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided
evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may
be possible, however little we may agree on other points.

It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving
the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost
him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion
of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and
attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to
many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and
of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence
and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,
which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt
to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious
argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,
and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part
which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play
in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first
moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even
below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated
theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should
not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,
is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:
any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the
effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed
likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor
questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst
Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes
his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of
his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so
little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the
complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more
palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of
his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these
Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental
proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised
notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:
but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and
the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute
blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have
frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,
crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose
the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's
Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of
_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the
reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and
others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the
more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to
be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.

The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me
the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of
their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,
and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural
Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the
portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that
readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is
published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference
for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those
Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such
further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I
trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
allegations and their bearing on my argument.

I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the
first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to
wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show
the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
contain them.

Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that
I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but
I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very
serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the
possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave
the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon
the basis of reason and not of reputation.





       CONTENTS


   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"

  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES

 III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS

   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES

  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL

 VII.  TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"

VIII.  CONCLUSIONS

       [ENDNOTES]

       INDEX.





I.

_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_
[Endnote 1:1]


The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,
that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work
should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge
fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and
in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws
and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which
may be fallacious.

Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the
case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of
the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the
December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe
lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance
and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,
falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to
me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his
impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold
so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and
I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his
attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience
and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general
detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be
pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the
threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains
in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still
is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in
translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with
which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well
founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of
such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of
the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not
weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has
been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of
Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,
however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there
is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which
have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change
the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once
to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to
sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the
weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has
the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most
critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most
critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune
to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many
points, from most critics.

The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words
"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of
a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what
"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and
he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:
"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears
to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a
note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the
Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of
interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the
indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of
"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the
slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing
this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital
bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the
justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not
acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical
opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,
understand the real position of the case.

Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion
to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom
I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,
now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated
treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against
Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there
is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate
the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is
no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing
the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers
to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in
italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as
Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points
out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo
cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab
Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,
utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,
[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether
these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the
saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it
merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and
only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the
first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the
translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,
brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the
circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly
separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that
they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,
[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does
not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but
merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it
formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does
not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is
impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with
Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters
from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back
to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not
evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without
an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a
passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of
the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the
Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In
my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain
whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and
whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something
borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
[6:4]

With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the
external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in
discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do
apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,
Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,
Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,
although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of
Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so
indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of
Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on
neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and
whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with
the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of
apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as
testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly
have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken
from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any
of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the
passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject
generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in
which the quotation is discussed.

This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All
that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there
is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of
Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what
I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But
although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who
says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what
was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,
a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly
trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,
the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,
but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai
de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of
showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point
is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make
any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,
beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and
that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage
is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the
work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended
to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation
made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had
been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately
withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different
from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my
argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which
Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it
as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this
was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,
and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]

With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he
has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted
to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high
authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
[9:2]

My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived
from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a
quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these
words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the
Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing
more than the exegesis of his own day.

The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with
a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage
from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:
"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes
that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile
been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him
as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen
does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:
epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge
was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say
'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not
write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and
finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with
the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the
triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here
"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey
a totally wrong impression of the case.

The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the
passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself
by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick
of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words
in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments
as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a
completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's
poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen
rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words
of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition
of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten
Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'
'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht
geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen
acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch
jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],
'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"
&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,
but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words
of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon
these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,
but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there
may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered
as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.

Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of
this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point
is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than
my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that
his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as
a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,
on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;
but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus
attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,
which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of
Divine Revelation.

I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot
interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept
correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite
content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair
spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in
which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely
rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
[13:1]

I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as
"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,
_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the
"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally
omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,
"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,
I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have
Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of
such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,
in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot
points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon
the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1]

I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--

    "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--

    "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
    as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
    p. 264)

    "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
    remarks--

    "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
    in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact
    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)

    "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
    would have thought of." [16:1]

In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'
[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a
'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or
'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth
of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them
as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony
of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.
In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain
references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be
sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]

Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary
statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to
be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.
Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"
of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a
"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow
of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,
that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of
all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon
a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,
after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according
to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they
are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed
by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the
"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels
in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'
books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of
his writings which remain there are certain references" to those
gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon
any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages
in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,
not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a
mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the
vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of
the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from
Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that
of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that
period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,
as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments
into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed
by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values
the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch
apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of
a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the
fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"
to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed
the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original
system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the
'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,
in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect
responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,
so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel
in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the
part of the founder himself." [18:1]

It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides
regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did
not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,
supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the
heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,
the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before
us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single
sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês
kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou
hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement
exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order
to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much
stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott
says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]
Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the
passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words
of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"
seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides
which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see
any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,
let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the
strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and
then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after
the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted
commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,
and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well
indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,
that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He
has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed
to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful
illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which
pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.

Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better
to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,
and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost
that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
should be more impartially made.

Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single
out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and
on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines
of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in
the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]
I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion
upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me
"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists
which I have ignored.

The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with
an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being
spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested
regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier
passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--
"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found
in any common source of information, that when the Latin version
(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated
into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism'
altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently
attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for
not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,
may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on
"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter
Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians
of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information
with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur
only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the
difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words
'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:
peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,
'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish
particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could
not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is
no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty
presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn
translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling
the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.
Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock
of grammar."

The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of
apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--

    "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
    question at issue." [22:1]

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
Divine Revelation.

The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:

    "Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the
    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen
    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]

I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I
have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts
of the Apostles.

"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored
weightier lines of reasoning,

    "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical
    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book
    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are
    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention
    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's
    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the
    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_
    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when
    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,
    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot
    be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]

Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of
Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;
and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what
seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.
[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are
derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the
very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give
the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do
not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott
here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note
quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right
to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is
put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader
may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.
Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations
are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his
variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that
so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no
proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that
although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those
who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his
work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the
writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to
what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether
they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which
can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous
contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for
instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous
quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which
has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our
Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old
Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of
Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I
probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"
than was at all necessary.

Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,
regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have
selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations
vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had
devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"
really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might
have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If
such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question
may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to
suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,
because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic
reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have
rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the
fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"
writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and
impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages
from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main
arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it
somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said
to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their
main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he
gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the
Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and
Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus
between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three
years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:

"Why then," he asks,

    "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...
    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.
    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall
    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day
    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as
    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more
    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
    import." [27:1]

Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
explanations offered.

Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that
the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]
Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and
fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in
which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New
Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and
abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of
Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek
and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and
ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the
purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of
the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and
beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]
In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as
we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according
to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost
invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is
distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this
respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I
believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language
of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost
wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth
Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,
and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be
supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of
"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,
I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the
_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,
of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the
Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He
argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,
and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse
wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written
otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional
emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient
prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the
Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author
was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the
Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and
Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays
the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he
intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the
conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf
between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This
result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic
character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different
from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an
apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole
character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents
grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst
the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond
comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,
to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding
the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different
arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma
which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely
dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the
aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the
one hand and the Gospel on the other.

Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.
Lightfoot says--

    "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes
    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._
    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
    altogether to notice others."

In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--

    "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchár]), and apologetic
    ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
    altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in
    the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or
    Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our
    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
    [30:3]

I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]

My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of
some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not
identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place
bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The
ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common
source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for
instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a
name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place."
This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,
for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost
universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere
alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.
He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great
hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"
to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and
explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment
as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation
with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler,
who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,
argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:
Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding
this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects
the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,
which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in
[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits
this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,"
[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot
and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,
[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]
and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and
Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town
of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]
Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct
from, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the
extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably
receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of
Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned
in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he
seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into
Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such
an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch
as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and
his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that
Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the
site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.
[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another
place:--

    "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at
    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally
    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is
    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east
    of Naplûs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand
    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other
    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any
    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.
    or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3]

Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,
says:--

    "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title
    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.
    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the
    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is
    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the
    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,
    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not
    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to
    Jacob's Well."

To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says:
"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:
legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'
'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village
nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El
Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion
may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne
un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-être le Sychar
de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus
logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with
regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect
Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from
a "common source of information:"--

    "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of
    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which
    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and
    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These
    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading
    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,
    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not
    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3]

Mr. Grove is very right.

I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either
"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not
perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably
identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel
mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have
been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for
it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there
was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have
not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.

With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes
constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating,"
Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those
who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support
me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,
that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall
very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may
be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,
my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further
to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them
discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions
with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by
anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made
acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and
honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief
rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any
strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,
if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would
not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as
they appear to find it." [36:1]

I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks
regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to
discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his
misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the
Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the
pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before
coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I
have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal
Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear
to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has
been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own
imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,
the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the
contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such
a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter
are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish
Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable
laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and
security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of
inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which
view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to
secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the
last page of my work.

Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion,"
but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess
that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I
hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they
are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how
singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of
_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement
almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more
closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:
"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat
strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work
should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the
first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is
quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that
miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,
and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the
amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the
evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,
although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took
place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main
principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be
proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of
supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to
prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to
prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the
occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after
showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:
"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive
evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,
the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that
this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception
equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the
evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with
my results:

    "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is
    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence
    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,
    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in
    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts
    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent
    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the
    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be
    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,
    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely
    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are
    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by
    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2]

It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to
confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I
enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses
for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous
nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to
examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an
ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should
represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the
forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he
altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend
the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical
enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of
witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been
represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the
remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some
degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being
already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of
the enquiry.

I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much
which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion
of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able
and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or
faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and
instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,
it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to
refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid
fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,
differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability
attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due
even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to
courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever
he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully
to follow every serious line of argument than the author of
_Supernatural Religion_.





II.

_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]


This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.

There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...

The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
serious consideration.

It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
relation of miracles to the order of nature.

The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,
if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four
Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the
second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as
Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature
in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready
acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment
regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century
either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which
concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but
the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of
Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and
Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as
personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are
shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct
trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses
for miracles.

After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.

I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.


The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
at least, limited to Eusebius.

The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
Eusebius:--

    "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
    neglected to do." [46:1]

Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--

    "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
    [46:2]

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
representations made in the above passages are a very strange
exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
asserted.

We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
statement into three paragraphs. He says:

    "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.

    "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
    tines hopoiais kechrêntai]);

    "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any
    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
    others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded.

    "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
    [48:1]

In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.

The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
only information of the slightest value to this work which could
be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.

    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
    says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
    justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
    case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
    11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
    statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
    apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.

It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
of Eusebius."

I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
speaks with so much respect.

    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.

In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
fourth Gospels.

I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
very small.


Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
they commit themselves.

Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
and war is declared in the following terms:

    "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
    arguments." [59:1]

This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
be in the least degree affected.

The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
epistles." [59:2]

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--

    "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results
    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac
    epistles than this." [59:1]

It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the
Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to
be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to
consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles,
which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous
on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:

    "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this
    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of
    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,
    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]

Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der
kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in
zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.

Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
as follows:--

    "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
    and that they can only be considered later and spurious
    compositions.(4)" [62:1]

In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer,
Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
to call more immediate attention to the point:

          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
                                     |
_Many of the ablest critics have     | "These references, it will be
pronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate
authentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps
whilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that
that even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that
emanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian
prefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters
seven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still
them the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of
letters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
                                     | them the most ancient form of the
                                     | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]


It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
light" upon the point by the following remarks:--

          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
                                     |
_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald,  | "The reader, therefore, will
Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that
maintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers
genuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters
_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
distinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some
in any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to
Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight
Echtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the
keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
priority of the Curetonian "in the   | letters." [63:1]
highest degree probable."            |
                                     |
_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |
as I have already said, but          |
maintains the priority of the        |
Syriac.                              |


Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.

Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:

    "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
    the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]

Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.

Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
follows:

    "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--

    "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]

As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is
"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the
whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he
persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for
which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute
classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of
a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course
of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large
class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,
illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case
on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,
decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the
Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did
not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise
the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts,
more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.

Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and
would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,
Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook
pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So
far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in
succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have
been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the
main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the
text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of
the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and
all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I
should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed
"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot
says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far
as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very
denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more
or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the
Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he
"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the
promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he
might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not
necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to
Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a
subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop
Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to
"that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by
Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the
writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius
varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:
tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio
Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He
then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles
and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more
decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio
sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus
illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]

The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for
convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it
as follows:--

    "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef.
    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,
    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin,
    _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex
    Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_,
    ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichée_, &c. 1734, i.
    p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489;
    [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in
    Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._
    1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341;
    Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist.
    Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.
    in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.
    condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
    p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11;
    Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.
    _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._
    p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.
    p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
    eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16;
    J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._,
    in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.
    Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.
    p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.'

    "The brackets are not the author's, but my own.

    "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have
    made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it
    stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the
    by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the
    gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,
    however, that every one of these references, except those which I
    have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's
    'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus
    two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten
    minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the
    quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in
    Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his
    notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought
    fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the
    rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
    references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]

I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might
suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is
here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to
the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask
every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to
insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references
in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and
thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted
references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed
the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of
criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and
reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's
appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from
it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly
indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The
fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but
in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note
"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly
does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself
acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing
the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they
illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_,"
continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much
obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name
is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list
on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and
was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose
doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's
further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as
genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the
Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the
seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These
three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an
older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes
found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the
doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in
which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed.
For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles
attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1]
Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite."
Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as,
for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander,
and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or
uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."
[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my
words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a
leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of
these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or
less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name
in order.

_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
    of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
    question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:
    "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_
    the genuine epistles of Ignatius."

_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité
    des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles
    ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit
    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées."

_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for
    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them
    suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
    interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent
    observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it
    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.

_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
    but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy
    too much space.

_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from
    the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History
    given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief
    German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the
    original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing
    "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been
    classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian
    Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who
    merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom
    of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose
    the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the
    impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who
    is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical
    purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he
    still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian
    Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and
    then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of
    Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me
    for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which
    presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me
    with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state
    additional grounds for disbelief.

_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
    Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
    extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
    he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
    agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
    the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
    more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
    later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
    concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
    Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
    shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
    (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
    statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
    the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
    of the letters cannot be ascertained.

Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly
unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.

He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour,
and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been
possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain
this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will
put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses
the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement
which he altogether disregards:--

                                    |        DR. LIGHTFOOT.
                                    |
"Further examination and more       | "References to twenty authorities
comprehensive knowledge of the      | are then given, as belonging to
subject have confirmed earlier      | the 'large mass of critics' who
doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian
recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered
none_ of these Epistles _can be     | later and spurious compositions.'"
established_, and that they can     | [73:1]
only be considered later and        |
spurious compositions."             |


There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two
approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the
Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming
to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively
pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred
to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming
what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that
a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot
be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does
not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the
extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may
have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may
have been based. I will analyse the six references.

_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
    previous note) expresses no definite opinion."

    Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
    directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
    I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
    difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
    of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
    refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
    Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
    does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
    authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
    next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
    Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
    is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
    probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences
    in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how
    the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these
    Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which
    we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their
    authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him
    here at all.

_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
    this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
    reference to his remarks.

_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
    recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
    the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
    as in the Long Recension."

    This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
    Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
    case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
    _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
    the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
    ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
    somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
    Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
    Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.

_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
    satisfied with either existing recension."

    Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
    still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
    can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
    without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
    "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine
    substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
    Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
    Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."

_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."

    If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
    that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
    says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
    of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
    fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
    least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
    if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
    would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
    second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
    opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.

_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
    favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
    but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
    to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
    able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
    improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
    journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
    can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
    does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
    and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
    possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
    inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
    justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be
    established.

Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon
my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with
what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian
literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name
totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been
removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and
consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose
doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in
dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more
or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly
expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only
too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks
such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of
"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I
have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,
but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be
able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen
into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but
the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1]

There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must
briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with
unhesitating boldness:

    "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,
    from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that
    this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been
    felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has
    raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)
    maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially
    bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most
    formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the
    world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later
    work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown
    to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,
    or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian
    question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of
    Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not
    less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_."
    [78:2]

Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the
Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal
opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general
declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my
diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as
evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning
of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely
represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot
very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian
version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above
quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture
to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key
of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played
a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and
as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will
state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn,
Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them.
Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which
appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press,
in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian
question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the
Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's
work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So
much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.

As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question
during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think
it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of
Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments
in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against
Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's
representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument"
against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even
allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,
[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian
manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his
text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele
[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar,
Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them
worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other
writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into
the controversy at all.

The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag
into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the
reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the
following lines:

    "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven
    Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text
    is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac
    idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply
    proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must
    have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the
    Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
    and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3]

Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the
ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the
Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital
problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer
misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian
Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek
Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.

Passing on to another point, I say:

    "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
    equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
    number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1]

Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a
little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon
this he writes as follows:--

    "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
    with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented
    themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
    important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
    after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
    there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
    Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
    confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
    Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
    Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
    Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
    which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
    composition." [81:2]

Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are
advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to
its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,
if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first
reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical
admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles
are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,
does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius,"
the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely
receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.
Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how
changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would
have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has
conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the
controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the
"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the
controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The
testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument
(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and
interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same
accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian
Epistles.

The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second
paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which
I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is
this:--

    "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
    by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
    Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
    Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
    be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
    honour." [82:2]

I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with
the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and
orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--

          DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.
                                  |
(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_
the seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having
with the confessedly spurious     | been _transmitted_ to us, for no
Epistles. In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through
MSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by
version, the spurious Epistles    | _editors_ from the Medicean MS.
come after the others; and the    | which contains so much that
circumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;--a fact
facts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a
shows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of
addition, borrowed from the Long  | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2]
Recension to complete the body    |
of Ignatian letters." [83:1]      |


I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot
advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the
testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own
statement. Cureton says:

    "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us
    to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of
    St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient
    Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles
    presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed
    up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.
    Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same
    footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only
    ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been
    the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of
    any mention of the others." [83:3]

    "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour
    of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the
    Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which
    have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both
    Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two
    distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to
    Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two
    recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the
    circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its
    reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies
    of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,
    Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...
    In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the
    former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and
    there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of
    the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed
    one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice
    result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to
    Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others
    in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological
    order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,
    at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had
    despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence
    of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the
    recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the
    rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained."
    [84:1]

Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly
show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the
principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin
version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which
was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined
table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod.
Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a
Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at
the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third
(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published
by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean
MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646.
[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14.
[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:

        A.        |      B.       |       C.        |       D.        |
     FABER STAP.  | VAL. PACAEUS. |     USHER       |    VOSSIUS.     |
                  |               |                 |                 |
  1. Trallians    | _Mar. Cass._  | Smyrn.          | Smyrn.          |
  2. Magn.        | Trallians     | Polycarp        | Polycarp        |
  3. _Tarsians_   | Magnes.       | Ephes.          | Ephes.          |
  4. _Philip._    | _Tarsians_    | Magnes.         | Magnes.         |
  5. Philad.      | _Philip.      | Philad.         | Philad.         |
  6. Smyrn.       | Philad.       | Trallians       | Trallians       |
  7. Polycarp     | Smyrn.        | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |
  8. _Antioch._   | Polycarp      | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |
  9. _Hero_       | _Antioch.     | _Tarsians_      | _Tarsians_      |
 10. Ephes.       | _Hero_        | _Antioch._      |                 |
 11. Romans       | Ephes.        | _Hero_          |                 |
 12.              | Romans        | _Mart. Ign._    |                 |
 13.              |               | Romans          |                 |

I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well
as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,
the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have
an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is
obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and
the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not
contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle
to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression,
"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the
epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which
Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.

I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn
for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I
have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out
serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my
references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before
proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations.
Dr. Westcott says:--

    "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite
    capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his
    while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,
    arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many
    cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress
    the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics
    are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by
    evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1]

Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have
almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in
this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the
Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted
reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a
very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned
and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of
little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,
therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these
questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical
authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to
works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add,
that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to
critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is
right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and
recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as
they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as
English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott,
however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who
oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.

Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to
investigate. He says:

    "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion
    which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than
    this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One
    example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1]

Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I
shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.
The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by
a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed
contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he
does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely
worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be
unfair. The example selected is as follows:

    "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at
    all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,
    A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
    amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by
    the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)"
    [87:2]

    "'The references in support of these statements are the following:--

    "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,
    p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.
    N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,
    _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,
    _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,
    50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.
    pp. 121 f., 136.

    "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;
    _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f.
    Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.
    p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die
    ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._
    1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'"

Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:

    Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot
    but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are
    quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their
    testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1]

Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact
that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes
differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being
absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do
not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the
place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed
being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to
Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar
transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are
made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the
date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4,
placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is
made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but
which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,
although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that
there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only
as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have
in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my
omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.
The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add
to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or
115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a
majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later
date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the
text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at
the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but
unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of
this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the
writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite
regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,
therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in
Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred
to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references
[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two
notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.

                   NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.

   DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.       |     THE TRUTH.
                                    |
                                    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
                                    | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149,
                                    | Anm.) Baur states as the date of
                                    | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's
                                    | visit to Rome, "during which the
                                    | above order" (the sentence against
                                    | Ignatius) is said to have been
                                    | given, A.D. 115 and not 107.
                                    |
"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.   | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm.
Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155,     |
Anm. In this note, which is too     | After showing the extreme
long  to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances
so far as I see, _in any way        | under which the letters to the
bearing_ upon the history [90:1]    | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said
except a passing supposition 'wenn  | to have been written, Baur points
... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn       | out the additional difficulty in
[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...'         | regard to the latter that, if
                                    | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his
                                    | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him
                                    | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D.
                                    | 116, he must have become bishop at
                                    | least in his 35th year, and
                                    | continued so for upwards of half
                                    | a century. The inference is clear
                                    | that if Ignatius died so much
                                    | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves
                                    | the still greater improbability
                                    | that Polycarp must have become
                                    | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his
                                    | 26th year, which is scarcely to be
                                    | maintained, and the later date is
                                    | thus obviously supported.
                                    |
                                    | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_,
                                    | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.)
                                    |
                                    | Baur supports the assertion that
                                    | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in
                                    | Antioch, A.D. 115.
                                    |
"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same.
p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui |
circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' |
                                    |
"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144      | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144.
[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den       |
Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von  | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome
Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen  | under Trajan, A.D. 115.
115 _zu Rom_ als Märtyrer starb.'   |
                                    |
"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i.      | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148.
p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the     |
edition which I have used].         | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under
'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien  | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed
(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_  | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116.
wegen seines standhaften            |
Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan |
115 _nach Rom geführt, und hier 116 |
im Colosseum von Löwen zerrissen    |
wurde_ (vgl. § 23, i.)' [where the  |
same statement is repeated].        |
                                    |
"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I    | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f.
have not been able to see the book  |
referred to, but in his Lectures    | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his
'Die christliche Kirche der drei    | office about 40 years when the
ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853   | Emperor, in the year 115 (according
(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions   | to others still earlier), came to
the difficulty which has been felt  | Antioch. It was during his war
as to the execution at Rome, while  | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach
an execution at Antioch might have  | states some of the arguments for and
been simpler and more impressive,   | against the martyrdom in Antioch,
and then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former
and passes on with 'Wie dem such    | of which he seems to consider more
sei.']                              | probable.]
                                    |
"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i.     | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19.
p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of        |
Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite.
himself, who was not thrown to the  |
wild beasts in the amphitheatre at  | These "peremptory statements" are
Rome by command of Trajan, but at   | of course based upon what is
Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115.   | considered satisfactory evidence,
The Epistles were written after     | though it may not be adduced here.
150 A.D.' [For these peremptory     |
statements no authority whatever is |
adduced].                           |
                                    |
"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._  | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._
p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der          | p. 79.
spätestens 117 zu Rom den           |
Märtyrertod litt ..._'              | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome
                                    | at latest A.D. 117.
                                    |
"8. Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of  | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date
Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The       | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he
Ignatian letters are rejected       | repeats this statement, and gives
partly 'weil sie eine Märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his
des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on
schon früher erkanntes              | the 20th December, A.D. 115.
ungeschichtliches Wesen durch       |
Volkmar's nicht ungegründete        |
Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher   |
wird. Darnach scheint nämlich       |
Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl    |
des sanftmüthigen Trajans, sondern  |
zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines |
am dreizehnten December 115         |
eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer  |
eines abergläubischen Volkswahns am |
zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres  |
im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren  |
zur Beute überliefert worden zu     |
sein.'                              |
                                    |
"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52  | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52,
[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I     | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch,
have not been able to consult, but  | 20th December, 115.
from secondary references I gather  |
that it repeats the arguments given |
under the next reference.]          |
                                    |
"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der     | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom
Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius,    | at Antioch, 20th December, 115.
wurde, während Trajan dortselbst    |
überwinterte, am 20. December den   |
Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der   |
durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December |
115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi]       |
erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer      |
zugleich der Siegesfeste des        |
Parthicus, welche die Judith-       |
Erzählung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio     |
(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt  |
...'                                |
                                    |
"P. 136. The same statement is      | Ibid. p. 136. The same
repeated briefly." [93:1]           | statement, with fuller
                                    | chronological evidence.

It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the
later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in
which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history
except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it
and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,
that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not
perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as
statements of evidence.

To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine
writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,
three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to
Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is
doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the
martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the
purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,
and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,
regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of
the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which
I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's
statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention.

                               NOTE 4.

  DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.      |           THE TRUTH.
                                  |
1. Volkmar: see above.            | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
                                  | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.
                                  |
                                  | It will be observed on turning to
                                  | the passage "above" (10), to which
                                  | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes
                                  | a single sentence containing merely
                                  | a concise statement of facts, and
                                  | that no indication is given to the
                                  | reader that there is anything beyond
                                  | it. At p. 136 "the same statement
                                  | is repeated briefly." Now either
                                  | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most
                                  | serious charge against my work, based
                                  | upon this "one example," has actually
                                  | not taken the trouble to examine my
                                  | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,"
                                  | and p. 50 ff., to which he would
                                  | have found himself there directed,
                                  | or he has acted towards me with a
                                  | want of fairness which I venture to
                                  | say he will be the first to regret,
                                  | when he considers the facts.
                                  |
                                  | Would it be divined from the words
                                  | opposite, and the sentence "above,"
                                  | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate
                                  | argument, extending over a dozen
                                  | closely printed pages, to prove that
                                  | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,
                                  | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch
                                  | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,
                                  | probably as a sacrifice to the
                                  | superstitious fury of the people
                                  | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited
                                  | by the earthquake which occurred on
                                  | the thirteenth of that month? I shall
                                  | not here attempt to give even an
                                  | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall
                                  | presently reproduce some of the
                                  | arguments of Volkmar and others in a
                                  | more condensed and consecutive form.
                                  |
                                  | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.
                                  |
                                  | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which
                                  | he had fully argued in the above
                                  | work and elsewhere.
                                  |
2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc.,    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3,   | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.
p. 149 f.                         |
                                  |
"In this passage Baur discusses   | Baur enters into a long and minute
generally the historical          | examination of the historical
character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of
he considers, as a whole, to be   | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian
'doubtful and incredible.' To     | Epistles, and pronounces the whole
establish this result he notices  | to be fabulous, and more especially
the relation of Christianity to   | the representation of his sentence
the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He
which he regards as inconsistent  | shows that, while isolated cases of
with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under
and the improbable circumstances  | occurred during Trajan's reign may
of the journey. The personal      | justify the mere tradition that he
characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no
history of Ignatius, are, in his  | instance recorded in which a
opinion, all a mere creation of   | Christian was condemned to be sent
the imagination. The utmost he    | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;
allows is that he may have        | that such a sentence is opposed to
suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.)    | all historical data of the reign of
                                  | Trajan, and to all that is known of
                                  | his character and principles; and
                                  | that the whole of the statements
                                  | regarding the supposed journey
                                  | directly discredit the story. The
                                  | argument is much too long and
                                  | elaborate to reproduce here, but I
                                  | shall presently make use of some
                                  | parts of it.
                                  |
"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_,   | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,
1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1.          |  i. p. 440, Anm. 1.
                                  |
"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_  | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in
und die Abführung dazu nach Rom   | the year 115, when Trajan wintered
... mag auch unter Trajan nichts  | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered
zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein,   | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a
aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte     | sacrifice to popular fury
seines Märtyrerthums auch nach    | consequent on the earthquake of
der Vertheidigung derselben von   | that year. The rest was developed
Lipsius ... höchst                | out of the reference to Trajan for
unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische   | the glorification of martyrdom."
ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J.  |
115, als Trajan in Antiochien     |
überwinterte, in Folge des        |
Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in      |
Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer   |
der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer        |
wurde.'                           |
                                  |
4. Davidson: see above.           | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.
                                  |
                                  | "All (the Epistles) are posterior
                                  | to Ignatius himself, who was not
                                  | thrown to the wild beasts in the
                                  | amphitheatre at Rome by command of
                                  | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December
                                  | 20th, A.D. 115."
                                  |
5. Scholten: see above.           | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
                                  | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are
                                  | declared to be spurious for various
                                  | reasons, but partly "because they
                                  | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius
                                  | to Rome, the unhistorical character
                                  | of which, already earlier recognised
                                  | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,
                                  | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;
                                  | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.
                                  | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.
                                  | Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville,
                                  | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is
                                  | made all the more probable by
                                  | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.
                                  | According to it Ignatius is reported
                                  | to have become the prey of wild beasts
                                  | on the 20th December, 115, not in the
                                  | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of
                                  | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch
                                  | itself, as the victim of superstitious
                                  | popular fury consequent on an
                                  | earthquake which occurred on the
                                  | 13th December of that year."
                                  |
6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch.          | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,
Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative
[A discussion of the date of the  | reference to establish the important
beginning of Trajan's Parthian    | point of the date of the Parthian
war, which he fixes in A.D. 115,  | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.
but he decides nothing directly   | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf."
as to the time of Ignatius'       |
martyrdom.]                       |
                                  |
7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_,  | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff.
p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld   | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's
points out the objections to the  | argument which is referred to
narrative in the Acts of the      | above, and while declaring the
Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more
refers to the period between      | especially the journey to Rome,
Eusebius and Jerome: setting      | incredible, he considers the mere
aside this detailed narrative he  | fact that Ignatius suffered
considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding
of the general statements in the  | which the possibility has been made
letters. The mode of punishment   | out. He shows [97:1] that the
by a provincial governor causes   | martyrology states the 20th
some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,'  | December as the day of Ignatius'
he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were
andre Punct, die Versendung nach  | buried at Antioch, where they still
Rom.' Why was the punishment not  | were in the days of Chrysostom and
carried out at Antioch? Would it  | Jerome. He argues from all that is
be likely that under an Emperor   | known of the reign and character of
like Trajan a prisoner like       | Trajan, that such a sentence from
Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite
fight in the amphitheatre? The    | unsupported and inconceivable. A
circumstances of the journey as   | provincial Governor might have
described are most improbable.    | condemned him ad bestias, but in
The account of the persecution    | any case the transmission to Rome
itself is beset by difficulties.  | is more doubtful. He shows,
Having set out these objections   | however, that the whole story is
he leaves the question, casting   | inconsistent with historical facts,
doubt (like Baur) upon the whole  | and the circumstances of the
history, and gives no support to  | journey incredible. It is
the bold affirmation of a         | impossible to give even a sketch of
martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over
December, A.D. 115.'"             | five long pages, but although
                                  | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer
                                  | to the theory of the martyrdom in
                                  | Antioch itself, his reasoning
                                  | forcibly points to that conclusion,
                                  | and forms part of the converging
                                  | trains of reasoning which result in
                                  | that "demonstration" which I
                                  | assert. I will presently make use
                                  | of some of his arguments.

At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:

    "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments
    in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the
    references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,
    what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1]

It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of
the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in
support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon
any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate
idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but
I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to
Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be
evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he
expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity
of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer
to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to
be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.
A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,
but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all
when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld
is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:

    "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.
    Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,
    agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which
    runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous
    and misleading"--[99:1]

Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his
own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and
misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has
been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy
of my references.

As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in
regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,
and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme
brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and
must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to
suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the
Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing
Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his
journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as
well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various
Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding
the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases,
however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is
assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should
receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything
but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai
euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,
the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described
by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing
approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be
pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,
even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very
different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the
extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the
contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.

Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a
Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes
letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with
Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible
to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and
Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the
story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the
latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a
Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a
Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly
declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he
had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one
which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with
beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten
leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different
treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come
and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is
said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,
gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome
he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him
(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house
(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under
which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.

"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is
derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case
of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate
than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know
little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as
serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,
a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,
found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his
travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,
according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his
hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and
ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him
as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he
was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real
service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in
prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which
Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the
Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,
living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last
they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some
forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself
into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An
earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out
from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,
Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by
the fire.

Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct
satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the
history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any
of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is
obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to
prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to
Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of
the satire.

There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account
of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as
evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this
narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking
coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was
acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters."
These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in
referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not
express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is
conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners
were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On
the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true
that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles
and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as
independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be
shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical
value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man
confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and
not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius
condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,
cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of
pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of
Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free
intercourse as they represent.

I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of
the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,
in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,
demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered
martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into
the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and
I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the
source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when
necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies
set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at
least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch
during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in
the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,
he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more
difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by
himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to
secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but
all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he
"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely
receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being
molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to
accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,
but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,
which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words
which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled
with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the
episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions
of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.

When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by
historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known
of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as
of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a
provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.
It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of
Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent
members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular
fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom
of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not
condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In
fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although
Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is
no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to
Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of
Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere
fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined
with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open
demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by
persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and
the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the
policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this
severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation
excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a
long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some
of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the
fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have
been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and
enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results
of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to
accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole
tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the
Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore
cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well
as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
beasts." [106:2]

If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan
himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,
the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that
such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition
to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor
did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in
Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the
more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the
clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_
would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is
besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,
of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome
is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that
Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death
during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with
some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,
to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not
without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.

It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is
A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake
occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to
excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here
the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he
mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still
associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:
"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with
singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most
appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for
the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings
from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;
houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:
the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped
through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some
days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of
the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards
the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,
was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of
public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the
panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe
that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by
the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,
the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome."
[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution
in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the
earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took
place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His
remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,
interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the
only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome
but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against
the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.

I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just
made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first
place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.
I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important
statement. He says:--

    "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing
    in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the
    earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop
    of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:
    emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was
    exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]

Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.
He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,
and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece
of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere
may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish
stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything
else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are
disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot
also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced
by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who
gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to
the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts
it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before
him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by
the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the
Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas
is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the
main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually
makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--

    "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
    capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some
    earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.
    The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used
    especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,
    including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression
    [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either
    'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A
    blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either
    expression." [110:1]

This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not
sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his
language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:
marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,
were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express
martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in
the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so
implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.
"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify
'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]
only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's
own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such
quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems
excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.

That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the
Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that
none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian
Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,
Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and
Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is
the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and
different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to
Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas
lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet
he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against
Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of
Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,
and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,
some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly
have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have
been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have
shaped the prevailing tradition.

The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,
long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the
time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and
ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had
previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that
the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum
and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some
centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome
to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch
to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in
Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they
had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which
reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend
of the Ignatian Epistles.

The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in
the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is
undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated
on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin
Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that
this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was
evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively
contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci
vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta
testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus
reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn
[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was
celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance
which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]

On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess
regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that
Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and
all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles
themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in
Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the
statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based
upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in
discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And
what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles
and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,
are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles
all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down
together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin
only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of
which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven
there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,
known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected
as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics
assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.
Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,
the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine
letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal
and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.
The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I
venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous
than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the
simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample
justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,
that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification
and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as
genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this
mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents
which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove
anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the
value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in
favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.

I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their
attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,
and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of
"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally
advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is
impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,
to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but
I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to
think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the
actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has
been made.





III.

_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._


In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by
critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and
I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide
that it is either spurious or interpolated.

That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts,
but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual
Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of
course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part
of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that
supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom
of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly
believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167,
and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius
Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia
Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided
that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp
was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death
must have taken place in one of those years.

Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of
Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been
expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing
the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and
their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels
record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find
small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having
arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and
does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of
Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which
other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural
Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest
form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses
expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in
our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are
referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their
authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could
be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could
this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the
reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels
would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in
the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty
quite untouched.





IV.

_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._


Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,
although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.
I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject
fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to
refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is
merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few
words on the fundamental question at issue.

Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of
whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the
first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have
written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little
weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,
his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.

Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's
Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows:

    "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter
    of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
    without, however, recording in order what was either said or done
    by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
    but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his
    instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of
    giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]
    ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]
    or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus
    wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
    one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
    false statement therein." [118:1]

The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here
given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now
possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without
recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative
answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar
enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has
consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that
there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to
a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.
However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of
argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the
value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our
second Gospel.

In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who
is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the
circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that
he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.
It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy
of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false
statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one
supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented
what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can
be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.
The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,
confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to
attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his
information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal
evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.
Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says
so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of
the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the
Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so
Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with
Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason
whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the
contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render
more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as
it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not
here go.

Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability
of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have
been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly
appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required
as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself
seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer
examination of the supposed evidence.

    "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:
    'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles
    in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'"
    [119:1]

Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing
that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the
Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with
him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the
statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,
Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so
far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but
for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow
that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have
been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he
said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always
exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with
the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what
inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general
correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this
doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as
evidence?

I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground
of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt
as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in
the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them
as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our
first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the
original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at
the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,
because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our
synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if
it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a
translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and
no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may
be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.

The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw
from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his
severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.
Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of
Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the
verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the
present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias
contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one
interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the
necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives
at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a
recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek
St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all
considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any
other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the
time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the
"Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the
words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St.
Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth
while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to
interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot
well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the
substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and
Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that
our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have
been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not
a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would
have been nearer the truth." [122:1]

That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid
of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that
he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have
been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not
know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in
language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field
for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias
said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may
have said something more, which may have been consistent with any
theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot
continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which
some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think
that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me
for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of
vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot
continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to
conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion
unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of
the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself
any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,
and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly
demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the
Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions
upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.

In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel
of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,
in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,
has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general
flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,
the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,
Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation
which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which
he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least
that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our
present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three,
it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could
quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel
of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we
are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents
of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel
according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius
that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the
Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's
Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could
not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes
of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?

Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,
accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and
called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic
as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of
Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,
[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some
points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion
with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not
without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some
difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would
justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is
encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not
think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be
called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant
the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the
signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])
became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as
well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for
straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond
a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine."
[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any
force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that
books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be
called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine
sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,
could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike
are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers
proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the
discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.
[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's
Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,
that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:

    "The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
    instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
    they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
    suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
    by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
    of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
    fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
    Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
    the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
    wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21
    _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
    chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
    than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
    refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
    meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
    teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
    of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
    writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
    their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
    Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
    logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
    _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
    anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
    passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
    Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
    sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
    immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
    _sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
    precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
    Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
    the Lord." [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine
myself to that which I have quoted.

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were
entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but
the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues
Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not
refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or
revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately
to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,
according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the
Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to
mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,
where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on
Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to give
unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted
to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles
of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as
Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own
teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly
explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when
he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,
at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also
urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the
_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo
considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and
held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When
he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative,
but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained
in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant
manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the
expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"
([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the
New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement
of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell
against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the
oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from
the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are
contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the
whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much
"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the
Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus
regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.

In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I
have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in
connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have
concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but
he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not
scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in
suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It
comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account
of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we
have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,
we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or
incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards
establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine
Revelation.





V.

_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._


Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most
complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the
evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in
_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands
and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes
increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully
denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that
he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the
writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius
Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected
documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter
of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of
Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He
really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is
clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these
particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do
not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that
our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during
this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to
examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin,
authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of
miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.

I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by
any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other
apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my
argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few
sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to
restore the discussion to its proper lines.

In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally
concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--

    "Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
    embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
    the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
    supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
    complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
    any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
    Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
    clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
    from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
    to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
    have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
    miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
    conclusive." [130:1]

Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was
careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to
proceed. I said:

    "Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
    authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
    few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
    criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
    the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
    simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
    ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
    certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely
    conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively
    as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for
    information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged
    indications of their use ... It is still more important that we
    should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels
    existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most
    of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than
    refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement
    of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:
    polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the
    things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,
    evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar
    works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity
    of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that
    many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each
    other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,
    for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to
    the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with
    quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with
    passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
    however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the
    similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof
    that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from
    some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially
    not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from
    sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our
    Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources
    cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
    suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious
    that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot
    in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
    unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
    times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
    our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
    Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
    of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
    Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
    to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
    circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
    a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
    [132:1]

Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has
made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his
essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling
attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have
been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these
canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which
he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has
adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after
all, with many it is quite as effective.

It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for
such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be
done very simply from our own Gospels:

    "Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
    due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
    discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
    to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it
    stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment
    suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the
    'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works
    of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an
    unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de
    pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
    few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send
    forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):
    behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of
    wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and
    others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a
    compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first
    Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his
    disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathêtais autou]), The harvest,'
    &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: egô]) send you forth as
    sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'
    &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It
    would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a
    continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the
    probability of a different source, and still more so to point out
    that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,
    might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the
    first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation
    was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,
    is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,
    had been lost.

    "Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might
    find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to
    yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
    is hypocrisy ([Greek: hêtis estin hupocrisis]). For there is
    nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be
    revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,
    be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of
    our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very
    immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory
    words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a
    part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,
    'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the
    Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaiôn]), and Matt. x. 26,
    '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:
    kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not
    be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of
    Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in
    separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it
    is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly
    established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a
    combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according
    to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]

    "If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which
    differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.
    Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source
    assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the
    work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketês])
    can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the
    other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
    cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed
    as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly
    corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,
    [Greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
    and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
    first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
    from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
    Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
    Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
    source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
    Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
    philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
    synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
    and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
    damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
    from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
    couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
    46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
    critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
    derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
    instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
    extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
    passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
    trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
    kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
    memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
    the substitution of [Greek: trupêmatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
    would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
    [134:1]

Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it
must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels
existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from
circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the
laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to
others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived
from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is
not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,
but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring
evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.

Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"
it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the
account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the
more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a
note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative
are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like
Keim, Schürer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need
to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.
Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the
life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and
it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their
counterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by
the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he
relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that
not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document,
is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single
Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship
and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot
in connection with this document further on.

The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed
[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is
unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially
as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing
which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments
attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot
chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full
knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the
four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of
the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted
acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply
enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis,
in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly
versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our
four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the
fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not
add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their
composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.
If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a
corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books
of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even
in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the
names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything
to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached
by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for
which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of
vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings
merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if,
when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence
of Melito to greater account. [136:2]

Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris,
[137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract
preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of
which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the
writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm
that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels
seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the
passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic,
and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the
composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show
that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we
consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really
contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a
jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of
Divine Revelation.

With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius
preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years
of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force
the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In
this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,"
which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the
meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a
phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the
slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when
the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.





VI.

_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._


A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus
Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an
account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter
from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in
Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by
Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents
that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for
the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the
Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in
_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and
a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how
exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those
documents. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is
directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any
supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity
to passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness
which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the
object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course,
indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect
coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere
fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions
of his essay here.

    "Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,
    though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder
    Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zacharious
    marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the
    commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have
    the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias
    and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was
    filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]

Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression
"the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: tê Zachariou marturia]), which he
points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'
_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'
_i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was
accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in
a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was
almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.
Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent
to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the
interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon
the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could
not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the
passage in my complete edition:

    "The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian
    community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first
    of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that
    time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--
    martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the
    martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,
    we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the
    word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere
    description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."

This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld,
and many eminent critics.

It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to
be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say
anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in
Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to
another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.

    "Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,
    the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are
    supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable
    to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which
    likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in
    the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,
    although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any
    narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the
    Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered
    an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of
    his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written
    narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first
    chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth
    recognisable book.'" [141:1]

No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can
have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where,
then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited
to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the
prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work,
would lead us to infer a written source.

    "The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the
    history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
    which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
    the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
    history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
    'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
    not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
    of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
    it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
    use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
    far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
    he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
    observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
    that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
    acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
    [142:1]

Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader
whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced
without the slightest indication of the source from which they were
derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have
been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in
circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone
accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove
the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.

    "But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
    Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
    those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
    are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
    Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
    charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
    another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
    supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
    with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
    taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
    case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
    Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
    [143:1]

My reply to this is:

    "There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and
    the source from which the writers obtained their information about
    Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of
    the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,
    the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may
    well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings
    then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,
    Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts
    derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does
    not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never
    was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story
    must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,
    then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the
    use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus
    indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the
    Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of
    Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
    upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor
    its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be
    in the slightest degree established." [143:2]

Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under
examination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that
the "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The only
interest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the
paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has
been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the
apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took
in hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the
books of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian
literature in circulation in the early days of the Church.

I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the
fourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you
will think that he doeth God service." The Gospel has: "There cometh an
hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain
that the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any
other, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add
one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the
Gospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_
maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the
outside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public
document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our
canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels
instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are
actually found in our canonical Gospels." [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot
betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns
upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular
documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did
contain similar passages to those in debate.





VII.

_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_


I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what
I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may
here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has
appeared since the publication of my work.

An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of
Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as
1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a
Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and
this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument
regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more
important addition to critical materials was made by the publication
in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,
with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before
Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only
refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt
as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that
they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.

In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will
be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius
is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I
give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--

    "Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
    how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the Gospels, and called it
    _Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
    persons) even to the present day." [146:1]

I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--

    "His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
    altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
    personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
    speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
    contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
    the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
    he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
    that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
    contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
    the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
    commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
    often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]

If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance,
although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.

Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with
the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to
be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue
the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding
of its character and contents?

The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites
them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the
twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--

    "Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
    selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed
    a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.
    On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
    was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
    called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the
    _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
    the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
    _Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
    this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several
    things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and
    rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met
    with." [148:1]

This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it
remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for
this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that
Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It
is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by
Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius
in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a
third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of
the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:

    "It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of
    Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four
    Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of
    Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving
    its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages
    from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;
    of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could
    confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.
    Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in
    his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same
    place." [148:2]

Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse
them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen
more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.
The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of
Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its
continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite
different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the
supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the
work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,
in preference to making any statement of my own:--

    "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this
    Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon
    on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his
    brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his
    work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.
    Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out
    of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other
    hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,
    in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1]

This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_
of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--

    "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the
    corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a
    necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was
    destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2]

The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.
453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes
the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,
which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but
also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not
perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and
other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David
after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn
points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these
passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]
as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite
information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond
the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered
works.

I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some
called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same
ignorance as to its character.

It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding
the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should
not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it
told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]

We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the
Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.
1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of
which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the
judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the
fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be
received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the
author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the
authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In
any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.

The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of
Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one
belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from
Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.
states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic
translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the
presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have
flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of
these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,
which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end
of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the
original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only
ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."

So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the
language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name
would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek
composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere
fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and
that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of
Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it
was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can
be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the
original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,
even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the
_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the
original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to
a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.
Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,
the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.

It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of
the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the
composition and its object. We have met with three works of this
description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have
existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain
that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the
first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it
was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of
correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if
such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style
and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already
current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in
details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its
authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of
an arranger's name?

An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of
Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.

    "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
    anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence
    to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of
    such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the
    canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
    _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that
    the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in
    favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew
    continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as
    Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in
    the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin
    dress.

    "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the
    authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general
    plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke
    i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore,
    at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius."
    [153:1]

How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as
he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the
words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
discovered:--

    "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
    543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
    without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
    once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
    already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
    was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
    generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
    have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
    better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
    point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
    fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
    to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
    passu_." [153:3]

But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
about the reading _Diapente_?

I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing
how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the
Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not
at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the
recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,
I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the
assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or
less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony"
itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of
any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information
given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these
works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the
Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more
credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of
Divine Revelation.

       *       *       *       *       *

It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some
arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of
the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]

    "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an
    objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all
    the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
    at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
    supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early
    Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with
    notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more
    recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of
    Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which
    ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.

    "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is
    the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this
    might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances
    it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.
    But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent
    reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which
    had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice
    from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9).
    But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.
    The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.
    This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human
    utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr
    like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as
    a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been
    witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the
    martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet
    scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this
    phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the
    fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In
    another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions
    at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are
    told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
    stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet
    odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had
    been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai
    kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no
    burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must
    have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican
    martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more
    startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.

    "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the
    _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
    amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was
    accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense,
    'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
    the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification
    as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his
    forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
    of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
    burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo
    martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,
    when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common
    instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a
    prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'
    is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is
    sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to
    a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any
    Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at
    least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,
    is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,
    relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his
    master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac
    dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
    postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1]

I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written
long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents
Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity
of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards
freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of
supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the
authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with
which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into
naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without
doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of
miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and
insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to
explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which
he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but
very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the
imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,
I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.





VIII.

CONCLUSIONS.


We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we
could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which
are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested
in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.
It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the
specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of
which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its
doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be
pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just
and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
announcements."

On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine
Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the
supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would
be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to
one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are
performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and
are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive
and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are
beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a
nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the
Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of
performing.

The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is
not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common
also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or
details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first
promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for
centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has
flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed
through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has
entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and
commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to
convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The
selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more
characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.

The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that
their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance
and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or
place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and
ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There
is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate
the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so
freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the
witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of
knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No
miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent
reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
miraculous pretension.

There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have
sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a
single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,
wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure
occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely
acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and
'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as
knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural
interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles
have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the
present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and
phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of
natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken
order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for
ever annihilated them.

To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite
Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution
of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is
argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate
causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this
Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the
Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably
maintained.

The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and
unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can
possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working
miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order
of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is
further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is
avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other
spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to
prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not
with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of
Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived
from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise
the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as
arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine
design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and
opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any
theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the
human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of
creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as
inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed
punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them
are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.

Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena
must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute
knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and
it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of
nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously
greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On
the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of
the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only
possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of
phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and
superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only
reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the
probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of
miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the
order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation
and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the
circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are
examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which
wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.

When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian
miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising
the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case
turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere
narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years
ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force
and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should
be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,
however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the
writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are
even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and
third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor
eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we
are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding
the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.

In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite
principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the
date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the
Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for
information regarding the composition and character of these works and
even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these
could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the
date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were
guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based
upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and
character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition
preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details
of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second
Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been
composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever
directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to
whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no
value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence
from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With
one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a
half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,
does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually
in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere
suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence
shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to
which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our
third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the
existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest
information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against
it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end
anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not
themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from
the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the
inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor
contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to
reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be
pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by
unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous
occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They
cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of
Divine Revelation.

Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar
results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the
third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.
There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,
but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with
miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the
narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for
it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are
compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with
authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it
becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been
supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be
regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends
to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so
suspiciously abound.

The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate
examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional
testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief
in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is
unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles
believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so
supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic
Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of
four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders
it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters
attributed to him.

The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church
is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After
elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating
conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the
unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with
which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into
supernatural occurrences.

As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the
cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of
Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of
these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict
and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such
stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the
statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,
which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries
of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.
His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the
belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and
undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the
statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare
fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he
had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the
risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal
testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which
we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of
which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation
in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in
all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The
testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to
ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an
earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active
persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the
case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the
fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is
not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the
evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly
inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must
consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or
even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in
the case of any common question of property or title before a legal
tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be
established, the more complete must be the proof required.

If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,
we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing
original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,
and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,
or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.
There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst
men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written
books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There
is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not
substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single
phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous
conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and
ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.
Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held
an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The
same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated
precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had
already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated
by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality
of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity
has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,
and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could
practically interest us now.

There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which
can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the
salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a
single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for
whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost
unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to
be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the
present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of
salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a
third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as
Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical
position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to
Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even
now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries
never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme
Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human
race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the
cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be
regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate
for a system of elevated morality.

We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher
may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances
have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to
him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;
but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by
the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It
is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we
owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the
doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.
The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had
never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after
it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the
East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the
development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most
instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas
were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents
several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had
passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,
piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and
humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate
structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of
human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,
displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which
commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of
the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have
naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate
Conception and Papal Infallibility.

It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such
conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but
remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before
existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a
substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or
silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth
cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by
considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and
suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be
premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a
humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality
is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,
although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,
have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and
civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far
Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here
venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that
whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not
to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic
Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has
been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of
Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards
enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema
of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been
tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.
"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of
Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of
assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological
resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to
the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the
world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher
principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals
sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating
rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine
institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than
it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological
question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have
finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and
modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will
necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent
on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed
to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right
principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,
for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation
which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any
degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the
true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,
we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and
punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as
essential to Christianity.

As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by
such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any
means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The
Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an
illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and
its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the
traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and
green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool
fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his
wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.
Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the
desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not
vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other
horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to
ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search
elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of
the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make
four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose
fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is
it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five
than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who
represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special
illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a
former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of
existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we
believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to
repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at
least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.

The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is
necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation
are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived
from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing
absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must
our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the
expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through
natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we
desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to
complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To
attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should
be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be
certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is
as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires
to know.

We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human
invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the
incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine
government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the
place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic
visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of
unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered
from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our
eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured
in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of
life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light
of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable
horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless
victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation,"
it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways
of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the
perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call
wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now
the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns
to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.

As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be
baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass
away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although
it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for
so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can
rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish
between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from
characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.
That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply
an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which
excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.





[ENDNOTES]


[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.

[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.

[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.

[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the
similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards
referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this
interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_."

[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.

[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.

[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.

[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.

[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.

[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.

[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.

[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,
Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.

[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.

[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.

[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.

[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.

[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with
such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part
itself.

[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.

[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._
p. 4, n. 4.

[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the
example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he
introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within
brackets.

[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.

[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.

[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.

[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.

[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as
Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which
is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is
treated as a contemporary.

[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.

[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation
attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho
logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase
from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is
surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that
Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and
Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from
the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is
[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is
rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The
phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'
hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên
allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata
korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês
meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of
the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to
those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other
side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after
"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the
sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage
from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the
uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which
reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into
the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and
meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and
their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,
the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian
proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel
of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the
assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could
have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."

[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition,
as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting
the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence
of the words given above.

[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my
having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic
might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,
but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie
der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._
p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_,
p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.

[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.

[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above
reference, but does not quote the passage.

[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.

[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.

[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by
Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.

[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.

[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106.

[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.

[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].

[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].

[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].

[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not
refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.

[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]

[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].

[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.

[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]

[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.

[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.

[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].

[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly
suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."

[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].

[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].

[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that
such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage
Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the
contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the
allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even
by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument
regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)
sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.

[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].

[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].

[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.

[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.

[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.

[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.

[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.

[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.

[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.

[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being
silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the
Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point
out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,
and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the
doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it
had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the
composition of that work.

[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.

[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]

[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more
especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere
Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."

[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.

[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.

[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.

[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.

[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.

[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to
the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).

[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.

[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.

[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.

[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.

[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.

[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._
viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.

[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.

[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.

[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.

[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.

[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.

[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.

[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the
current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who
deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.
Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with
El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,
note 1.

[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.

[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.

[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.

[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.

[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.

[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]

[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.

[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.

[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.

[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.

[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.

[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)

[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.

[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].

[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].

[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].

[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.
p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used
the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and
not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this
edition I have made my meaning clear.

[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.

[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.

[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.

[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.

[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].

[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.
Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.

[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.

[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.

[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.

[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.

[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.

[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.

[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.

[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.

[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.

[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.

[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.

[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.

[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.

[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.

[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.

[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.

[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.

[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.

[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to
the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i.
p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and
the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.

[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.

[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].

[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59
ff.]

[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].

[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].

[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of
reference.

[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is
explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2).
Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.

[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].

[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.

[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have
added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the
text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.
vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this
appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.

[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].

[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.

[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]

[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.

[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.
Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,
where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages
further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the
authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority
of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].

[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii
nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum
impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr.
Rel._ i. 13, § 39).

[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.

[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.

[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].
Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).

[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).

[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].

[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.

[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.
p. xxxviii.

[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit.
Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.

[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]

[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.

[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]

[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.

[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].

[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.

[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].

[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].

[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.

[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.

[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.

[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.

[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in
the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight
lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)

[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.

[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.

[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].

[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].

[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.

[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The
Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is
embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection
in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before
the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles
come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles
in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are
together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,
_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."

[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.

[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.

[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.

[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.

[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.

[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.

[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.

[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.

[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;
Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,
Amstel. 1646.

[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.

[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the
Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.

[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
p. xix f.

[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.

[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.

[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first
quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second
note, but accidentally left out of note 3.

[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call
attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.

[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an
extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der
ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is
part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth
century.

[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,
but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to
'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different
object of the two notes.

[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.

[97:1] P. 213.

[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a
note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display
of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second
edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might
reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had
reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which
reference was necessary.

[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.

[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._
1631, p. 152.

[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.

[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].

[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].

[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether
inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.

[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.

[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.

[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.

[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,
1873, p. 517 ff.

[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].

[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.

[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the
almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the
Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of
Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of
Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.

[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.

[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.

[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.

[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352
[_ibid._ p. 79].

[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].

[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].

[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].

[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.

[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these
relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards
translated to Antioch.

[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.

[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.

[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of
the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.
(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)

[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.

[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in
Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere
allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"
the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been
celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is
nothing else to establish it.

[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.
Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)

[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in
these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.

[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.

[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]

[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.

[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.

[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.

[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.

[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.

[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.

[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.

[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.

[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.

[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.

[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.

[124:4] i. p. 463 f.

[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.

[125:2] i. 236 ff.

[125:3] Note.

[125:4] Note.

[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f.

[130:1] I. p. 210 f.

[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.

[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.

[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.

[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.

[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.

[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.

[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.

[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,
Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the
following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except
that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,
is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,
and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume
that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have
no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is
unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If
Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the
press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable
to those who have none.

[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.

[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.

[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.

[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.

[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.

[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.

[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.

[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257

[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.

[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.

[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.

[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)

[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a
note.

[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.

[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.

[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.

[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.

[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.

[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.
p. 159 sq.

[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.

[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.

[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by
Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).

[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.

[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.

[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.

[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.

[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.

[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.

[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.

[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.

[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.

[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.

[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different
religions is estimated as follows:

   Parsees                          150,000
   Sikhs                          1,200,000
   Jews                           7,000,000, being about ½ per cent.
                                             of the whole.
   Greek Catholics               75,000,000      "       6   "    "
   Roman Catholics              152,000,000      "      12   "    "
   Other Christians             100,000,000      "       8   "    "
   Hindus                       160,000,000      "      13   "    "
   Muhammedans                  155,000,000      "      12½  "    "
   Buddhists                    500,000,000      "      40   "    "
   Not included in the above    100,000,000      "       8   "    "
                                -----------
                              1,250,350,000

We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an
excellent little work recently published by the Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.





INDEX.


Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164
Addai, Doctrine of, 147
Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148
Anger, 5
Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f.
Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia
Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff.
Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137
Aristion, 55
Ascension, evidence for, 165
Aubertin, 65, 66
Aucher, 145

Baronius, 112 n. 3
Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f.
Basnage, 65, 66
Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72
Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79;
     date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.;
     on Peregrinus Proteus, 102
Beausobre, 70, 71
Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93
Blondel, 65, 66
Bochart, 65, 66
Böhringer, 59, 62, 63, 80
Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79

Calvin, 64
Campianus, 64
Casaubon, 65, 67
Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146
Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64
Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65
Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.;
     history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.;
     census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f.
Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f.
Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f.
Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f.
Cleophas, 52
Cook, 65, 66
Criticism, attitude towards, 1
Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f.
Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.

Dallaeus, 62
Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of
     Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96
Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32
Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1
Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff.
Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff.
Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's
     commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and
     Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.;
     Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.;
     Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the
     genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed
     in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the
     Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify
     it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated
     from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151;
     original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts
     in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of
     Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.;
     case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace
     says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154
Dionysius of Corinth, 56
Doctrine of Addai, 147
Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150
Dorner, 4
Dressel, 79

Ebrard, 7
Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons
     of Eusebius, 148
Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.;
     date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date
     of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.;
     Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154
Epiphanius, 150
Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence
     of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.;
     his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
     on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.;
     on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus,
     148 f., 152
Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141

Farrar, Dr., 34
Francke, 97

Gfrörer, 7, 75
Glaucias, 15, 18, 19,
Gobarus, Stephanus, 23
Godet, 32
Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2;
     Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.;
     Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.;
     evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135;
     alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
     alleged evidence of Polycrates 137;
     supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144;
     Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.;
     insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.;
     its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f.
Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.;
     object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels
     circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not
     necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.;
     evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of
     Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of
     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence
     is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff.
Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2
Grove, 34
Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93

Hadrian, 12
Hagenbach, 91, 93
Harless, 75
Hase, 76
Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150
Hefele, 80
Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius,
     52 ff.; on Simeon, 52
Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_?
     146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149;
     its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153
Hengstenberg, 31
Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79;
     place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and
     Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142;
     Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.
Hippolytus, 17 f.
Holtzmann, 135, 147
Hug, 32
Humfrey, 66

Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of
     his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.;
     his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.;
     compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to
     martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.;
     remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f.
Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of
     Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles,
     67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian
     Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as
     evidence, 113 f.
Irenaeus, 3 ff.

Jacobson, 65
Jerome, 110 f.
John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.;
     double use of name, 55 f.
Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.

Keim, 135
Kestner, 70, 71
Kirchhofer, 7

Lange, 32
Lardner, 70, 136
Lechler, 76 f.
Lightfoot, 32, 33
Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f.,
     13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f.,
     36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of
     Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott
     on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.;
     on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on
     Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations,
     23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character
     of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar,
     30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.;
     the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.;
     silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on
     Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements
     regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian
     Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey
     and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's,
     100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on
     John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his
     Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116;
     on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on
     Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of
     Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the
     Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can
     Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument
     of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of
     Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on
     Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on
     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias,"
     140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference
     to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's
     mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine
     of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius
     Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of
     Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.;
     similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of
     Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.;
     Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens,
     154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.;
     practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156
Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of
     Polycarp, 135
Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff.
Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1
Lucian, 12, 101 f.
Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne
     and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153
Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of
     Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.

Magdeburg Centuriators, 64
Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff.
Marcus Aurelius, 105 f.
Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter
     of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in
     _Diatessaron_, 149
Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in
     Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_
     of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f.
Matthias, 16, 18
Mayerhoff, 91, 93
Melito of Sardis, 135 f.
Merx, 78, 79
Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82
Mill, on miracles, 36 ff.
Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f.
Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150
Mozley, on belief, 35 f.

Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f.
Neubauer, 30, 34
Nicephorus, 111 n. 1

Olshausen, 7, 32
"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff.
Origen, on Celsus, 10 f.

Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of
     his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of
     the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had
     nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.;
     on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the
     Gospels, 127 f.
Parker, 65, 66
Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius,
     100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165;
     his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.
Pearson, 67
Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff.
Perpetua, Saturus and, 100
Petau, 65, 67
Petermann, 78 ff.
Phillips, 147
Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115
Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with
     the miraculous elements, 154 f.
Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137
Pressensé, de, 60
Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115

"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons
     of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of
     Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with
     Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically
     justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.;
     evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles
     as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence
     not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true
     character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in
     supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles,
     159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of
     Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.;
     evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which
     evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for
     Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence
     of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.;
     results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of
     Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.;
     history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.;
     census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was
     misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.;
     alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not
     valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to
     man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology
     to be mere human inventions, 173 f.
Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f.
Reuss, 147
Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32
Ritschl, 62, 63
Rivet, 64, 65, 67
Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4
Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112
Rumpf, 60

Sanday, 33
Saumaise, 65, 66
Schleimann, 75 f.
Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147
Schroeckh, 70, 71
Schürer, 135
Shechem, 30 ff.
Simeon, 52, 105 f.
Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f.
Socinus, 65
Stephen, 142 f.
Sychar, 30 ff.
Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f.

Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron
Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81
Thiersch, 7, 70
Tholuck, 7
Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.;
     does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80;
     "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142;
     it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff.
Tregelles, 60, 82 f.

Uhlhorn, 78, 79
Ussher, 67

Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of
     Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of
     evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155
Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice
     Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place
     of martyrdom, 94 ff.
Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f.

Wace, Dr., 153
Waddington, 115
Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79
Weissmann, 69 f.
Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.;
     on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion,"
     44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly
     acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147
Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32
Wieseler, 31, 32
Wotton, 68, 69

Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.
Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1,
     101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112;
     did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages
     regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged
     Armenian version, 150
Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5