Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the
text, and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and
footnote numbers.  Inconsistent hyphenations by the author (including
co-extensive/coextensive, foot-notes/footnotes, hundred-fold/hundredfold,
mis-statement/misstatement, re-written/rewritten, two-fold/twofold)
have been retained as printed.]




ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"

Reprinted from _The Contemporary Review_.

BY

J.B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.
LATE BISHOP OF DURHAM.




LONDON:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.
1893


_First Edition_, 1889.
_Second Edition_, 1893.




PREFACE.


This republication of Essays which were written several years ago has
no reference to any present controversies. Its justification is the
fact that strangers and friends in England and America alike had urged
me from time to time to gather them together, that they might be had in
a more convenient form, believing that they contained some elements of
permanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of
a Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more accessible to
students. I had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which
I shall explain presently; but a few months ago, when I was prostrated
by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became
necessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me. This
volume is the result. The kind offices of my chaplain the Rev. J.R.
Harmer, who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references,
correcting the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to
attend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out sooner
than I had hoped.

When I first took up the book entitled 'Supernatural Religion,' I felt,
whether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms were too loose and
pretentious, and too full of errors, to produce any permanent effect;
and for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the Divine
Life are best left alone. But I found that a cruel and unjustifiable
assault was made on a very dear friend to whom I was attached by the
most sacred personal and theological ties; and that the book which
contained this attack was from causes which need not be specified
obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to break
silence; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to see that, though
undertaken to redress a personal injustice, it might be made subservient
to the wider interests of the truth.

Paper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to cover the
whole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries
to the New Testament Scriptures. But my time was not my own, as I was
necessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which
claimed the first place; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and
more arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to postpone
indefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the
work.

In republishing these papers then, the only course open to me, in
justice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to reprint them in
succession word for word as they appeared, correcting obvious misprints;
though in many cases my argument might have been strengthened
considerably. Recently discovered documents for instance have
established the certainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's
_Diatessaron_, to which the criticism of the available evidence had led
me. Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully
elsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had expressed
indecision in these Essays. On the other hand on one or two minor
questions I might have used less confident language.

What shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or
the divergence from my own views; though I cannot pretend to be
indifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal
Him, whom I believe to be not only the very Truth, but the very Life. I
have often learnt very much even from extreme critics, and have freely
acknowledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from
his method) seemed to me, and not to me only [Footnote: See Salmon's
_Introduction to the New Testament_ p. 9.], where it was a question of
weighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical
investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the
least probable, which would enable him to score a point against his
adversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any
personal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct
from the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor
have I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know
not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I
am glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the
responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.

In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my
criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent
edition. In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this
volume to his later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last
word. He is welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial
critics shall read my statements and his side by side, and judge between
us. It is my sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found
[Greek: sunergos tê alêtheia].

BOURNEMOUTH,
_May_ 2, 1889.




      TABLE OF CONTENTS.

                                                           PAGE
   I. INTRODUCTION                                         1--31
  II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS                             32--58
 III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES                               59--88
  IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA                                  89--141
   V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I.                            142--177
  VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II.                           178--216
 VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN                        217--250
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL                               251--271
  IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON                               272--288

      DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES  291--302
      INDICES                                            303--324




SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.


I. INTRODUCTION.

[DECEMBER, 1874]


If the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by
withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend
the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in
his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the
pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was
secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was
promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears
of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious.
The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception)
lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition
was exhausted in a few months.

No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this
imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this
anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to
such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler
alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his
opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived
in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath
of suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities
obliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years
past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less
than this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous
author, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication
of an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was
preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining
Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt
any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men
talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained
great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the
rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty
of the basest fraud of which a man is capable.

And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this
identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics
of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and
cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of
resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the
theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch
writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions
of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a
reputation is traduced on these grounds.

I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural
Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers
have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of
Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this
assumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested,
it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd.
It is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual
reviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be
convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this
identification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have
read, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other
four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same
name and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics
quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me.

1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in
attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order.
'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has
learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second,
'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His
scholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.'
'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another
place, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third
reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the
first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect,
praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a
fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute
scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four
different quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already
mentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among
his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic.

Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are
written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be
assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an
adequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom
which will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the
work itself, which will throw any light on this point.

The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important
passage of Irenæus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier
authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded
only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:--

     'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the
     abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights
     of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city;
     for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see
     Him shall be worthy.'

Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by
our author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear
immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:--


          WESTCOTT.            |      SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
                               |
'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this
they taught, exists between    | distinction [4:4] of dwelling
those who brought forth a      | ([Greek: einai de tên diastolên
hundred-fold, and those who    | tautên tês oikêseôs]) of those bearing
brought forth sixty-fold, and  | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the
those who brought forth        | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of
twenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of
                               | whom some indeed shall be taken up
                               | into the heavens, some shall live
And it was for this reason     | in Paradise, and some shall
the Lord said that _in His     | inhabit the City, and for that
Father's House_ ([Greek: en    | reason ([Greek: dia touto]--
tois tou patros]) _are many    | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared
mansions_ (John xiv. 2).'      | many mansions to be in the (heavens)
[4:3]                          | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou
                               | patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.'

On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one
who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the
phrase we are considering is introduced by Irenæus himself, and is in
no case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the
relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks,
which I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the
other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel
himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our
author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite
unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative,
or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so
he boldly translates [Greek: einai tên diastolên] as though it were
[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: hê diastolê], and
[Greek: eirêkenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eirêken ho
Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to
persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and
between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our
author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view
by several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own
remarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto],
though in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is
used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr
Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],'
because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to
show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St
John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of
others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because
I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral
motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that
our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would
venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as
more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an
anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty
against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least
given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.
It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this
grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two
later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the
reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself,
and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at
all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it
will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which
'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to
find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of
grammar [6:3].

The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in
the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this
person had been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first
book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is
disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have
flourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close
of the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him
the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he
writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as
follows:--

     'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise
     after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise
     to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight
     books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and
     finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may
     answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]

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, for 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]) [7:4]. Thus
Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict
accordance with the earlier passages in his work.

These two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means
the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an
elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is
curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek
sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides
(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.
p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as
[Greek; ho logos edêlou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata
korrês propêlakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from
such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a
translation of [Greek: ouden hêmarte] in an important passage of Papias
relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist,
though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he
did record.

Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be
inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt
credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of
believers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of
believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is
still better illustrated by the following example:--

'Nam ex iis commentatoribus      | 'For of the Commentators
quos habemus, Lucam videtur      | whom we possess, Marcion seems
Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,
Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2.     | which he mutilates.' _S.R._
                                 | II. p. 99. [8:9]

Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect
subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same
time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the
Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Cæsar
[9:1].

Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge
which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to
inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,
which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating
tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether
again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and
might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries
ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and
reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These
qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my
subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for
forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to
remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to
contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.
Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel
at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:
'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it
was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards
the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely
forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the
other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did
originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted
from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to
make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why
the disputed words must have formed part of the original text.

It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the
_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural
Religion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias,
an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of
critical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot
possibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he
says that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and
doings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one
maintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our
Second Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological
sequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which
is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able
reviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical
nineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that
they must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic
and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?

2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to
increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also,
on which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the
author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.'
Our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with
excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment
must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony
of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same
direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer,
'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The
account given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a
perfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no
small prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an
error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and
scholarly criticism.'

Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author
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. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly
substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a
few samples.

Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism
[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to
be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is
requested regarding him "and those who are with him."' 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 retranslated into the original language, [Greek:
tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again,
when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias
[11:3], 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
illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written
documents? [11:4] 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. Again, when he
reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of
Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], 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, etc.',
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 know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the
view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's
consideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin
Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's
careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most
favourable specimen of his critical work, 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? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the
reviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took
a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. 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, mis-names, and
mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these
are unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these
omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.

Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted,
'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with
special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and
character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen
and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had
his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or
he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear
presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as
explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the
reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be
candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any
other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The
arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this
part of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such
writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments
remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth
Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of
Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and
love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to
such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of
this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion
is undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses
this same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers
and free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the
scandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct
antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on
this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to
deny, the Hebraic [14:3] 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 in the
Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness
of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its
authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the
'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no
difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the
identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have
been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments
as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1];
arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough
naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle
and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the
local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on
the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas,
more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the
like. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in
the literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable
probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which
(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and
uncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any
evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of
romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or
the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he
would at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when
he is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth
Gospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic
writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to
exist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3]
without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these
analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in
these two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs
more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel,
but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the
Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the
Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not
mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi.
27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me,
all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This
one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the
Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our
author says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the
ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his
preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career
culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth
Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,
Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and
refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then
does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
Matt. xxiii. 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
[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does
not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,
was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought
of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here,
as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical
difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the
course of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their
confidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3].

Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second
century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one
occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not
mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be
absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian
Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,
commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it
naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main
dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the
question whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th
Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus,
they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This
view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the
unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to
end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan,
as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the
_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were
certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]

The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and
geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. 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), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring
to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes
this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a
fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight
knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound
[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam
signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin
_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?
and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark
on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress
(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not
unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence
transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate
upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,
ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases
ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do
not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn
his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own
armour is gaping at every joint.

But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.

Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth
Gospel:--

     'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests
     principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other
     Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and
     also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the
     appellation [Greek: ho baptistês], whilst he carefully
     distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always
     speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but
     rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness
     of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]

Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes
this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the
other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be
natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay
great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because
it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle
indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a
forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author
considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,
when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it
is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to
whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer
stating that the Fourth Evangelist

     'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from
     the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein
     einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistês].' [19:2]

So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his
German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error
is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a
commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set
right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not
construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the
reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the
subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of
mistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the
critics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of
the original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead
authority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual
[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers]
is sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1]

3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third
point. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are
conducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union
with a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our
second reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this
part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they
leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had
our _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He
rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity
of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.'

Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which
bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,'
'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic
truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for
instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not
savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of
the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the
highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who
differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a
righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself
with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at
another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will
not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which
we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is
sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. 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."' [21:1]

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: (I) to assert the fact
     that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
     represented Mark to be; or (II) 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.' [21:2]

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 [22:1], 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.
I will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate
falsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not
believe that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this
highly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the
elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It
illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a
straightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper
of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said,
'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the
processes of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would
render life intolerable and history impossible [22:2].

It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all
this literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be
constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as
impossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by
an 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything
which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not
the Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the
works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles
and Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its
hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and
who, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such
abilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest
place among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of
dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him.

There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an
important part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in
the notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the
mode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author
in the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and
have found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions
to which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances,
these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is
strange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of
authority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on
his readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a
presumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on
examination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen
centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of
men in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present
themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit
of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past
times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the
intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance,
whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been
altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of
intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was
setting strongly in one direction.

This comparison is not without its use. Here were men eminently learned,
painstaking, minute; eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense,
eminently critical. In accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as
lay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work,
the rabbis of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis
of neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles for a
time; their work has not been without its fruits; many useful
suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of
later ages; but their characteristic teaching, which they themselves
would have regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has long since
been consigned to oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was
conceived in a false vein; it was essentially unhistorical, and
therefore it could not live. The modern negative school of criticism
seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though in a different
way; and therefore I anticipate for it the same fate.

Mr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing
tendencies written by an English scholar, and using M. Renan as his
mouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort
could never have come from Germany where there is a great force of
critical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him
straight.' [24:1] I confess that my experiences of the critical
literature of Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult,
I think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass of
absurdities, which several intelligent and very learned German critics
have conspired to heap upon two simple names in the Philippian Epistle,
Euodia and Syntyche; first, Baur suggesting that the pivot of the
Epistle, which has a conciliatory tendency, is the mention of Clement, a
mythical or almost mythical person, who represents the union of the
Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church [24:2]; then Schwegler,
carrying the theory a step further, and declaring that the two names,
Euodia and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the
true yoke-fellow is St Peter himself [24:3]; then Volkmar, improving the
occasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names,
Euodia, or 'Rightway,' and Syntyche or 'Consort,' denoting respectively
the orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other
[24:4]; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the New Testament
are not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the Old,
and maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs
Asher and Gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one
language to another--and represent the Greek and Roman elements in the
Church, while the Epistle to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from
the Agricola of Tacitus [25:1]. When therefore I find our author
supporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of
'Hitzig, Volkmar and others,' or of 'Volkmar and others,' [25:2] I have
my own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them
[25:3].

It is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so
far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training, that I
would rest the chief stress of my complaint. The whole tone and spirit
of the school in its excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be
fatal to the ends of true criticism. A reviewer of _Supernatural
Religion_ compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts
of certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to Sir G.C.
Lewis's objections to Niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of
early Roman history.' From one point of view this comparison is
instructive. We have no means of testing the value of that eminent
writer's negative criticisms of early Roman history. But where
additional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as,
for instance, respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic
language, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. It seems
to be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has its proper function
in scientific inquiry (though even here its excesses will often impede
progress), therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free
from danger in the domain of criticism. A moment's reflection however
will show that the cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to
morals and history--in short, to human life in all its developments--
where mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and where
consequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial
faculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as
credulity.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ proposes to himself the task of
demonstrating that the miraculous element in Christianity is a delusion.
The work is divided into three parts. The first part undertakes to prove
that miracles are not only highly improbable, but antecedently
incredible, so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections
to them. As a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of
evidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we should be
likely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought not to inspire
confidence. The second and third parts are occupied in examining the
actual witnesses themselves, that is, the four Gospels; the second being
devoted to the Synoptists, and the third to St John. The main contention
is that the four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to
satisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momentous
import of their contents. These portions of the work therefore are
chiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the
authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. In the case of St John the
internal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination.

Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
part, the second and third are altogether superfluous [27:1]. It is
somewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole
work should be devoted to this needless task. Impressed, as it would
seem, by the elaboration of these portions, reviewers have singled them
out for special praise, even when they have condemned the first as
unsatisfactory. With this estimate of their value I find myself
altogether unable to agree; and in the articles which will follow I hope
to give my reasons for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the
critical fallacies of the modern destructive school, _Supernatural
Religion_ well deserves examination.

For this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two
latter portions of the work, and more especially with the external
evidences of the Gospels; but there is one point, affecting the main
question at issue, which it is impossible to pass over in silence.
Anyone who, with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory,
will turn to the final chapter, in which the author gives a confession
of faith, must be struck with the startling dislocation between the
principles from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it
concludes. Our author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or
supernatural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say to
'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is meant the
Christianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He will not even hear of a
future life with its hopes and fears [27:1]. He will purge the Gospel of
all 'dogmas,' and will present it as an ethical system alone. The
extreme beauty, I might almost say the absolute perfection, of Christ's
moral teaching [27:2] he not only allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,'
he adds, 'was the essence of his system; theology was an after-thought.'
[27:3] And yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two
fundamental principles, Love to God and love to man.' He commends a
'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of Divine
Law, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man,' as 'the highest
conceivable by humanity.' [27:4] He speaks of the 'purity of heart which
alone "sees God.'" [27:5] He enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher
conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being ... whose laws of
wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation
around us.' [28:1] All this is well said, but is it consistent? This
universal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most
comprehensive application? This 'Love to God' springing from the
apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and the recognition of an
'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,'--in short, this belief in a
Heavenly Father, which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our
Lord's teaching, and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article
in his own creed,--what is it but a theological proposition of the most
overwhelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into
insignificance?

And what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a dogma? In
the first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define
his position. He has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief
in a universal Father or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God. If
he had done so, he would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the
reasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in
Christianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to the ground
when this proposition is assumed. His arguments prove nothing, because
they prove too much: for they are equally efficacious, or equally
inefficacious, against the doctrine of a Divine providence or of human
responsibility, as they are against the resurrection of Christ. The
truth is, that when our author closes his work, he cannot face the
conclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are
too startling for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked
deformity; and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas'
to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism.

Mr J.S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, as holding
up the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own narrow premisses this
eminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless
rigour. Our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis, and
truly enough finds no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed
there is none for any theory of a providential government. But at the
conclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously assumes
a much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, he himself would
have been edged off his footing, and hurled down the precipice. A whole
pack of 'pursuing wolves' [29:1] is upon him, far more ravenous than any
which beset the path of the believers in revelation; and he has left
himself no shelter. If he had commenced by defining what he meant by
'Nature' and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency,
though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed.
As it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of Nature. Nature
in the first part, where he is arguing against miracles, is the
aggregate of external phenomena--the same Nature against which Mr Mill
prefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice. But
Nature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral Governor
and a beneficent Father; and this idea can only be introduced by opening
flood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when
it is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author has
ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers,' of whom
Mr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has appealed, though he does not seem
to be aware of it, to the inner consciousness of man, to the instincts
and cravings of humanity, to interpret and supplement the teachings of
external Nature; and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he
has made to believers in revelation by so doing.

Even though we should close our eyes to all other considerations, it is
vain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this
mode of reasoning; for they are becoming every day more apparent. The
demand is made that we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which
logically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential
government of the world and in the moral responsibility of man. Young
men are apt to be far more logical than their elders. Older persons are
taught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses:
consciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of
their logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own
heart. But generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His
teacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. The teacher
becomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, and speaks of 'an
infinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but the pupil insolently points
out how

          Nature, red in tooth and claw,
          With ravin, shrieks against his creed.

The teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law
is prospered and brought to perfection:' [30:1] and the pupil replies:
'You have limited my horizon to this life, and in this life the facts do
not verify your statement.' The teacher says, Believe that you--you
personally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent
immutable power for which nothing is too great, nothing too
insignificant.' [30:2] The pupil says: 'My Christianity did show me how
this was possible; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a
delusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with the
principles you have laid down for my guidance. I have done as you told
me to do; I have "ratified the fiat which maintains the order of
Nature," [30:3] and I find Nature wholly

          Careless of the single life.

I will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks of 'the
purity which alone sees God;' and to him the expression has a real
meaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has
certainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy: but to the pupil it
has lost its articulate utterance, and is no better than sounding brass
or a tinkling cymbal. Hence the pupil, having thrown off his
Christianity, too often follows out the principles of his teacher to
their logical conclusions, and divests himself also of moral restraints,
except so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to
them. Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority
of instances. The permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of
teaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this
new philosophy, and (we may add also) the voice of an inward witness
whose authority is denied, but whose warnings nevertheless compel a
hearing, all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their
principles. The full moral consequences of the teaching would only then
be seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether under
its influences.




II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.

[JANUARY, 1875.]


'It is very important,' says the author of _Supernatural Religion_, when
commencing his critical investigations, 'that the silence of early
writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to
the Gospels.' [32:1] In the present article I shall act upon this
suggestion. In one province more especially, relating to the external
evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place. This
mysterious oracle will be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the
response elicited will not be at all ambiguous.

To EUSEBIUS we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost
ecclesiastical literature of the second century. This literature was
very considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in five books, and the
Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, likewise in five books, must have
been full of important matter bearing on our subject. The very numerous
works of Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, of which Eusebius has
preserved imperfect lists [32:2], ranged over the wide domain of
theology, of morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical
order; and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured
on the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents
of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century,
however important they may be from other points of view, give a very
inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the
Canonical writings. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not
from his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should
expect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point.
In works like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no
authority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for whom the
names of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he
refers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve.
On the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single
instance) had been preserved, we should probably have been placed in a
position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the
Canonical writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature,
the notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of
primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly
interpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on us not to assume
that his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean. Eusebius made it
his business to record notices throwing light on the history of the
Canon. The first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with
what aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his
work.

Now, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. His fundamental
assumption is that where Eusebius does not mention a reference to or
quotation from any Canonical book in any writer of whom he may be
speaking, there the writer in question was himself silent. This indeed
is only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken
possession of our author's mind. The argument from silence is
courageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is
unnecessary to accumulate instances, where 'knows nothing' is
substituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible terms;
for such instances are countless. But in the case of Eusebius the
application of the principle takes a wider sweep. Not only is it
maintained that A knows nothing of B, because he says nothing of B; but
it is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say
that A says anything of B. This is obviously an assumption which men
would not adopt in common life or in ordinary history; still less is it
one to which a competent jury would listen for a moment: and therefore a
prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it.

With what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position, will
appear from the following passages:--

Of Hegesippus he writes [35:1]:--

     'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the use
     of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety
     to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render his
     silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct
     utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.'

And again [35:2]:--

     'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the
     testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,
     regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have
     neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,
     for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with
     any opportunity.'

And again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any
Canonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second
volume he returns to the subject [35:3]:--

     'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our
     Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would
     have been recorded by Eusebius.'

Similarly he says of Papias[35:5]:--

     'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New
     Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that
     Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.'

And again, in a later passage [35:8]:--

     'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth
     Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this
     silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the
     Johannine Gospel.'

And a little lower down [35:10]:--

     'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
     Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11]

So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:--

     'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New
     Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still
     extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the
     Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not
     have omitted to do had they contained any.'

And lower down [36:1]:--

     'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New
     Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.'

Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author
has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It
is with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall
therefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the
consequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge
his trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism, where,
from the nature of the case, no test can be applied. In the land of the
unverifiable there are no efficient critical police. When a writer
expatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal
Gospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the present case,
as it so happens, verification is possible, at least to a limited
extent; and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity.

In the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what method he
intends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. After enumerating
the writings bearing the name of St Peter, as follows;--(l) The First
Epistle, which is received by all, and was quoted by the ancients as
beyond dispute; (2) The Second Epistle, which tradition had not stamped
in the same way as Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkon], 'included in the
Testament'), but which nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been
studied ([Greek: espoudasthê]) with the other Scriptures; (3) The Acts,
Gospel, Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects
as altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues [37:1]:--

     'But, as my history proceeds, I will take care ([Greek: prourgou
     poiêsomai]), along with the successions (of the bishops), to
     indicate what Church writers (who flourished) from time to time
     have made use of any of the disputed books ([Greek:
     antilegomenôn]), and what has been said by them concerning the
     Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) and acknowledged Scriptures, and
     anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong
     to this class. Well, then, the books bearing the name of Peter, of
     which I recognise ([Greek: egnôn]) one Epistle only as genuine and
     acknowledged among the elders of former days ([Greek: palai]), are
     those just enumerated ([Greek: tosauta]). But the fourteen Epistles
     of Paul are obvious and manifest ([Greek: prodêloi kai sapheis]).
     Yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons
     have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was
     disputed by the Church of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I
     will set before (my readers) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
     kairon]) what has been said concerning this (Epistle) also by those
     who lived before our time ([Greek: tois pro hêmon]).'

He then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he 'had not received as handed
down among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had
been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among
the acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was
used by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:--

     'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ...
     eirêsthô]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and
     those which are not acknowledged among all.'

This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is
thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows
an appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is
essentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision
of a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the
unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in
which our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not
settled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the
writings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question;
but there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about
which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore
proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways.
This is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he
pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book
belonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); 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 endiathêkôn eirêtai]). Any _anecdote_ of interest
respecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek: tôn mê
toioutôn]), will be recorded. But in their case he nowhere leads us to
expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and
however precise [38:1].

This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter
and St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings.
The Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as
Eusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the
Epistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the
historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act.
Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St
John, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St
John's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts
at this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as
follows [39:1]:--

     'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning
     these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly
     ([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
     kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been
     said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them.
     Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera])
     of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among
     our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients,
     while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse
     opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day,
     among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall
     receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from
     the testimonies of the ancients.'

After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the
results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage,
important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.

Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is
observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes
concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere
references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford
important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical
authority.

Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which
our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question,
after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he
actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with
the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means
of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus
and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping
assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next
to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us.
But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to
the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of
Polycarp, of Irenæus, and others; and, as these writings are still
extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a
definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this
test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not,
then it is worthless.

Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains
several references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written,
whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present
to discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and
martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself
allows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ...
makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than
this; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul
and Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He
simply remarks that Clement, by

     'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the
     (Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it
     word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the
     document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5]

This is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and
too close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the
Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is.

The IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of
their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven
letters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension,
whether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read;
and to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the
writer Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius
then presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels
(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire),
_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as
a dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that
receiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of
St John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it
goeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent
Him,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of
St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as
'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in
every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages
which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet
of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives
respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this
one sentence [41:9]:--

     'Writing to the Smyrnæans, he has employed expressions (taken) I
     know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--

     "And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after
     the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him
     ([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,
     feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,
     'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asômaton]]; and immediately they
     touched Him, and believed."'

It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of
this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the
Hebrews [42:1].

Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that
we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our
author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.
'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of
the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He
altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,
and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new
confirmation of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic
writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this
result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be
hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His
Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares
the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And
he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is
the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to
conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?

From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the
Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it
is confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In
Polycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our
Gospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in
the Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he
is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious
quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more
doubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So
far as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more
than that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: dêlôtheisê]) writing
([Greek: graphê]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek:
pheromenê]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the
First (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a
Judaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be
partially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in
an earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes
from Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be
mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is
purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely
ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language
nevertheless this Epistle is saturated.

When we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar.
This Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of
Evangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical
Gospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without
referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be
detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these
sayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of
the Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called
Gospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages
recall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New
Testament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made
mention ([Greek: memnêtai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying
that it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5]

His mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more
instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work
addressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_
[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work
Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention
points of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly
have been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the
Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning
of the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:--

     'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek:
     pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the
     beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at
     the first ([Greek: en prôtois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him.
     Then he says, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him,
     and without Him was not anything made."'

This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious
and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference
[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one
solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any
book of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But
of the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus)
has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all
the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of
Theophilus to the Canon.

One example more must suffice. IRENÆUS [44:6] in his extant work on
heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St
Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul,
the exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he
directly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the
exception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons
addressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of
references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of
three columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenæus_. Yet of all this
Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to
have quoted a passage from Irenæus, relating to the succession of the
Roman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St
Paul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the
Canon contains no hint that Irenæus recognised the existence of any one
of St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the
Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as
illustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by
referring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:--

     'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a
     promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities
     the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in
     which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached
     them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) writings, and
     Irenæus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and
     first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.'

He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the
circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two
quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which
Irenæus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers
to the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:--

     'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the
     Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle
     of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise
     also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows,
     but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then
     spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: hê graphê]] 'which says,
     "First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all
     things;"' and so forth.'

This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament
which he adduces from the great work of Irenæus. In a much later
passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this
Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he
mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of
Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.'

From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel
justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of
Eusebius:--

(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in
forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.

(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references
which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had
never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct
and by name, it had no value for him.

(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii)
the thirteen Epistles of St Paul.

(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes
which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they
were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias,
and of the Four Gospels in Irenæus.

(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the
_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally
acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for
instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to
the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was
acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy
an exceptional position.

Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit
in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent
procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with
tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the
books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he
mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias,
Polycarp, and Irenæus), though in the Church no doubt was ever
entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought
that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of
silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.

(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be
considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been,
disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting
either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in
Clement of Rome and Irenæus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in
Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and
Irenæus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing
the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only
thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews
with the rest.' [47:3]

(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but
which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier
Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he
mentions the one quotation in Irenæus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he
states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he
records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of
the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has
commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of
Peter [47:4].

It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his
treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication
of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his
contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.
The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the
whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one
isolated passage from Hermas in Irenæus, though it is quoted
anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul,
though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited
by name.

It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but
also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be
depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the
following rules for our guidance:--

(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the
books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits
which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenæus makes
this point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author
relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], 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 [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few
lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were
acquainted with St John [48:3], 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.

(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When
Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a
Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were
direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may
fairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or
both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is
the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the
Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter
in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a
doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might
fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for
instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have
passed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered
them decisive.

I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am
unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows
[49:2]:--

     'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies
     from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter."
     As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we
     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'
     [49:3]

For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and
I am not aware of any.

The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'

I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of
Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp
'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of
Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a
reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by
modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is
true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a
coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this
one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are
elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'
whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.
1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.
2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14);
'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the
dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust
warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our
sins with His own body ([Greek: to idiô sômati]) on the tree,' from 1
Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'
from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.
ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having
your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good
works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of
in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am
quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and
close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author
elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in
Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence
which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics,
yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of
passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has
overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references
to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to
test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion,
because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am
not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].

This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's
sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he
supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still
more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of
Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.

_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on
arbitrary _à priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must
mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted
him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him
his principles and mode of action. 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. If they are not, I shall be
obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I
pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a
subsequent number. 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.

Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively
enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a
powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its
correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of
this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have
taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.
Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had
preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I
mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The
silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is
an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been
questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius
was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was
not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of
Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes
it to mean.

If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other
hypothesis, to answer the following questions:--

(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the
universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, and Galatians?

(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony
in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a
reference in this same author to the Apocalypse?

And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by
his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts
relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.
Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its
authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic
sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed
even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The
phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century
are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a
long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that
the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the
alternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18,
and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of
the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up
respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in
the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations,
wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted
it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that
ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this
epoch--Irenæus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria,
Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?
that they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the
beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or
Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first
three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the
paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the
remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the
obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the
light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses
altogether to discuss Irenæus, though Irenæus was a disciple of
Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted
that the opinion of Irenæus, as an isolated individual, is not worth
much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his
whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment:
and Irenæus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of
the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his
ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with
just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up
overnight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its
continuous growth.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an
early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his
courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it
in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed
that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.
But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the
fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my
criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.

In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a
charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of
his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same
for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct
narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a
reference to St John) was Irenæus' own, whereas the grammar showed that
Irenæus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had
wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their
translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong
to Irenæus himself.

I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old
[54:1]:--

          FOURTH EDITION.         |   EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                  |
'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes
in this place, in previous        | this passage in a note (_On the
editions, has been understood as  | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates
an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling,
of deliberate falsification of    | they taught, exists" etc.
the text of Irenæus, we at once   | The introduction of "they taught"
withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and
that the expressions used could   | being inserted, without a word
bear an interpretation so far     | of explanation or mark showing
from our intention. _We desired   | its addition by the translator, in
simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation
of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,
p. 61, note 2), without some      | and whose origin is in dispute, it
indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the
original text, that these words   | text. Dr Westcott neither gives
were merely supplementary and     | the Greek nor the ancient Latin
conjectural. The source _of the   | version for comparison.'
indirect passage_ is, of course,  |
matter of argument, and we make   |
it so; but it seems to us that    |
the introduction of specific      |
words like these, without         |
explanation of any kind, conveys  |
to the general reader too         |
positive a view of the case. We   |
may perhaps be permitted to say   |
that we fully recognise Dr        |
Westcott's sincere love of truth, |
and feel the most genuine respect |
for his character.'               |

Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might
have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that
he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew
his own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that,
having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenæus' own, he
had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the
passage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right
and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best
to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the
authenticity of the fourth Gospel.

The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end,
the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression
that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr
Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or
have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a
juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions.


        FOURTH EDITION.            |      EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                   |
'Now, in the quotation from        | 'Now in the quotation from
Irenæus given in this passage,     | Irenæus given in this passage,
_Tischendorf renders the oblique   | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies
construction_ by inserting "say    | the text_ by inserting "say they;"
they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the
of Papias; and, as he does not     | original, the great majority of
give the original, he should at    | readers could never detect how
least have indicated that these    | he thus adroitly contrives to
words are supplementary. We        | strengthen his argument. As
shall endeavour' [55:2] etc.       | regards the whole statement of
                                   | the case we must affirm that it
                                   | misrepresents the facts. We
                                   | shall endeavour' etc.

Lower down he mentions how Irenæus 'continues with a quotation from
Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and
it might just as well be affirmed that Irenæus found the quotation from
the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the
reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under
consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that
the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the
direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in
the fourth edition.

In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de tên diastolên] we
notice this difference:--


          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                    |
But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this
                                    | distinction.'

The translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is
followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--


          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                    |
'Now it is impossible for anyone    | 'Now it is impossible for anyone
who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole
of this passage, and who makes      | of this passage, and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner  | himself acquainted with the manner
in which Irenæus conducts his       | in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it _with  | argument, and interweaves it _with
quotations, to assert that the      | texts of Scripture, to doubt that
phrase we are considering_ must     | the phrase we are considering is
have been taken from a book         | introduced by Irenæus himself_,
referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation
and _was not introduced by Irenæus  | from the work of Papias.'
from some other source_.'           |

Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few
weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has
substituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--


          FOURTH EDITION.           |    EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                    |
'In the passage from the            | 'The passage from the commencement
commencement of the second          | of the second paragraph (§ 2) is
paragraph Irenæus enlarges upon,    | an enlargement or comment on what
and illustrates, what "the          | the Presbyters say regarding the
Presbyters say" regarding the       | blessedness of the Saints, and
blessedness of the Saints, _by      | Irenæus illustrates the distinction
quoting the view held_ as to the    | between those bearing fruit
distinction between those bearing   | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one
fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and  | hundred-fold, so often represented
one hundred-fold, and _the          | in the Gospel, _by the saying_
interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being
regarding "many mansions."'         | prepared in Heaven.'

After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of
passages from Irenæus to support his view that the words in question
are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:
dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive
mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.

     'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenæus_,
     as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is
     introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is
     further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the
     fact that' etc.

All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the
sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_
(Irenæus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,
and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and
'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make
room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine
octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering
sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without
any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more
distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by
this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not
anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted
above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?

I add one other passage for comparison:--


           FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
                                     |
'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his
that the quotation being by "the     | alternative that the quotation,
Presbyters" was more ancient even    | being by "the Presbyters," was
than Papias, by showing that it      | more ancient even than Papias,
_may be referred to Irenæus himself  | by showing that it _must be
quoting probably from                | attributed to Irenæus himself_,
contemporaries_, and that there is   | and that there is no ground for
no ground for attributing it to the  | attributing it to the Presbyters
Presbyters at all.' [58:1]           | at all.'

Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in
charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and
deliberate evasion,' and the like.




III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.

[FEBRUARY, 1875.]


The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are
immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he
was passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their
representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome
to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The
exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility
are not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the
later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are
written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed
more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter
is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis
that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his
eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue
him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time
members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a
pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic
Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations,
friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against
heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in
personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their
delegates.

Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down
to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long
Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin
translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part
of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it
seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two
others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it
may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction;
its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers
of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth
century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of
the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.
Only, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of
our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in
the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability
of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this
reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth,
or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must
not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian
letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided
by independent evidence.

The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as
follows:--

(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him,
and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Polycarp.
It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them
in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong
to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is
preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian
versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from
which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was
translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in
the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original,
about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the
Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the
happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus
superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious
reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the
_Vossian._

(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of
the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in
a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the
Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I
shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.

Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon
fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is
raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or
the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the
Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or
whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and
abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the
prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.

The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the
case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light
of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial
prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the
dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the
investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of
Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with
equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are
affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved
have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and
Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth
century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the
eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions,
though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.

In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian
question as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the
statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these
papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to
early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot
be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to
indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid
testimony.

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.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject.
'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of
falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if
the Epistle [to the Smyrnæans] were genuine, which it is not, to base
any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--

     'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the
     Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the
     end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they
     possess any value at all.' [62:3]

And immediately afterwards:--

     'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
     Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
     to be spurious.' [63:1]

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 inquire whether the writer shows that
accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching
weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.

I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the
Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The
author writes as follows:--

     'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which
     space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics
     to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the
     letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of
     those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
     Epistles.' [63:3]

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. 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. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and
Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and
Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.
But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The
misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to
think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the
Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the
Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian
Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,
for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]
and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like
Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have
observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention
to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position
was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,
in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tübingen views of early
Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life
and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian
Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be
accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far
back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.
Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen
by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,
Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up
the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from
the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception
by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. 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 [64:8].

But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his
own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I
have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very
passages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light
on this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the
course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes
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,
     still 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, Dallæus, 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).'

The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--

     'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei ächt. u. d.
     vier unächt. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145;
     Böhringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The
     Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845;
     _Vindiciæ Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.
     d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.
     Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i.,
     1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.
     7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.
     Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'
     [The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be
     quoted.]

These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more
immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who
do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine
letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of
seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the
letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared
to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters
as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty,
while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain
the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].

As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered
that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the
discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were
weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the
Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The
criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages
which are found in the Long Recension alone. 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 etc.' [66:3]

The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--

     'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
     Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau,
     etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton,
     _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, 1846, appendix.'

Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it
easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus,
while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.
It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up
together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian
Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the
Ignatian controversy. 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.' The facts however are these
[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account
of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says
nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them
also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.
Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated,
but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them
'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624)
denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does
not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far
from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some
of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's
objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of
Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].
Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the
opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and
afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens
et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.

The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--

     [Wotton, _Præf. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into
     original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826,
     vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.
     88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184;
     Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre,
     _Hist. Crit. de Manichée, etc._, 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, 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, Præf.; 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. 357, anm. 1];
     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
     ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, 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. I f.]; _H'buch 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 _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, 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?

Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions
directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance
[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly,
and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer
the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and
genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly'
by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the
main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of
Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only
doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to
regard the Curetonian as excerpts. 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 [69:2].

The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as
unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as
belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian
Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of
these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite
opinion. Gfrörer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven
Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced
interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long
Recension and the Vossian). Harless 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 [70:1].
Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to
recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either
existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote
before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase
commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven
Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their
genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters
are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of
having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the
Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I
have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect
that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are
quoted by our author.

I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I
may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself
responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.'
[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the
work, and their effect on its reception has been far from
inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was
therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I
may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind.
If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more
irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer,
might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in
_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes,
in works of any critical pretensions.

In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost
entirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which
indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding
the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already
mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have
exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. 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 [71:1]. 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. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This
Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together
with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous
Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by
Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the
_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2)
This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian
letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the
Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this
version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian
letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of
letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the
latter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore 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.

I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own
view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered
inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has
followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since
studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question
or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:--

     '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.' [72:1]

And again:--

     '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.' [72:2]

with more to the same effect.

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. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles
are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and
Latin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come
after the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts
already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition,
borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian
letters.

Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point
without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or
misleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:--

     'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth
     century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius,
     exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.'
     [73:2]

In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author
has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19,
because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is
given in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations
in the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in
the Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which
Eusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words
which appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as
the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are
characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important
for the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only
directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives
a number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons
named, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than
many quotations.

Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the
main question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these
corrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third
centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian
and in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in
favour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of
Eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them.

Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the
genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on
his own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the
Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares
the whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and
fraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which
he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we
find to be twofold.

(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the
Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:--

     'The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as
     follows:--"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by
     sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten
     leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even when good is
     done to them render evil." Now if this account be in the least
     degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could
     have found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely
     into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and
     advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government?'

And again:--

     'It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation
     above describes 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. And not only this, but on his way to
     martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to
     see his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of
     various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and
     devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without
     hindrance from the "ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains,
     and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare
     themselves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole story is
     absolutely incredible.'

To this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a complete
answer is afforded by what is known of Roman procedure in other cases
[75:1]. As a matter of fact, Christian prisoners during the early
centuries were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same
laxity and indulgence which is here accorded to Ignatius. An excited
populace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a
Christian; a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to
the majesty of the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman
holiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even after
condemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of harsh. St
Paul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with almost as much effect
through the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large.
During his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers;
when he arrives at Rome, he is still treated with great consideration.
He writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates
with churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain is on his
wrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even at a much later
date, when the growth of the Christian Church may have created an alarm
among statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in
the age of Ignatius, we see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is
more important) the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions
accorded to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African
martyrs, who suffered under Severus [76:1] (apparently in the year 202
or 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they record the
extant history of their sufferings; and they too are visited in prison
by Christian deacons, as well as by their own friends. They owed this
liberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers; partly to
gratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers [76:2]. Even after
the lapse of another half-century, when Decius seriously contemplated
the extermination of Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount
of communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. The
Cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs
writing letters to their friends, visited by large numbers of people,
even receiving the rites of the Church in their prisons at the hands of
Christian priests.

But the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a
heathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen
within the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). Thus it is not very
far removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus
is represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (A.D.
165), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the
satirist thus describes the prison scene [76:3]:--

     'When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a great
     calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him.
     Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants
     in every other respect with unremitting zeal ([Greek: ou parergôs
     alla sun spoudê]). And from early dawn old women, widows, and
     orphan children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the
     prison; while their officers ([Greek: hoi en telei autôn])
     succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in passing the night inside with
     him. Then various meals were brought in, and religious discourses
     were held between them, and this excellent Peregrinus (for he still
     bore this name) was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover,
     there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the
     Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man.
     Indeed they show incredible despatch, when any matter of the kind
     is undertaken as a public concern; for, in short, they spare
     nothing. And so large sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time
     from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he made no
     inconsiderable revenue out of it.'

The singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of
Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression [77:1],
have led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian
history, if not with the Ignatian letters. For this view there is much
to be said; and, if it be true, the bearing of the fact on the
genuineness of the Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was
born in Syria somewhere about A.D. 120, and lived much in Asia Minor. 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. The reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence,
which have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the
Ignatian letters, appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's
account of Peregrinus [77:2].

In the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes quite
intelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers.
These ten men would relieve guard in turns, the prisoner being always
bound to one or other of them day and night, according to the well-known
Roman usage, as illustrated by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his
guards fierce and intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts,
he intimates, is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre;
it has been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His
friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but the
soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme [78:1]. The more
they receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep pace with his
exigencies. All this is natural, and it fully explains the language here
ascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally
dwells on the dark side of the picture, without thinking how a critic,
writing in his study centuries afterwards, will interpret his
fragmentary and impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius
as a man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, as
critics would have them talk.

(2) Having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible,' on
the grounds which I have just considered, our author continues [78:2]:--

     'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by
     facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. 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).'

The two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive
statement, though so much depends upon it; but the reader is there
furnished with a number of references to modern critics. These
references have been analysed by Dr Westcott [79:1], with results very
similar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has
yielded. In some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to
that for which they are quoted; in others they incline to views
irreconcilable with it; and in others they suspend judgment. When the
references are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his
assurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar [79:2], built upon a
statement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to examine. 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.' [79:3]

The earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 13th of
December, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined with the fact that the
day dedicated to St Ignatius at a later age was the 20th of December
[79:4], Volkmar builds his theory. It will be observed that the cause of
the martyr's death, as laid down by Volkmar, receives no countenance
from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the
irritating language used to the emperor.

Now this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the
sixth century, and possibly much later. His date therefore constitutes
no claim to a hearing. His statement moreover is directly opposed to the
concurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries, which,
without a dissentient voice, declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome.
This is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian
letters, of whom the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics
who deny their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of
the second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies
[80:1], which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr
to Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who
quote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom are
Irenæus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the case with
Chrysostom, who, on the day of the martyr's festival, pronounces at
Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see
[80:2]. It is the case with several other writers also, whom I need not
enumerate, all prior to Malalas.

But John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did Chrysostom some
two centuries at least before him. So did Evagrius, who, if the earliest
date of Malalas be adopted, was his contemporary, and who, together with
all preceding authorities, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If
therefore the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this
cloud of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as
a sober and trustworthy writer.

As a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian history are,
almost without exception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous
[80:3]. In the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted, he
relates how Trajan had five Christian women burnt alive; the emperor
then mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for
the baths were cast; the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in
consequence; the vessels were again melted up; and out of the same metal
were erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's
orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath to the present
day. As if this were not enough, he goes on to relate how Trajan made a
furnace and ordered any Christians, who desired, to throw themselves
into it--an injunction which was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the
domain of hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more
trustworthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded his
doctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still further
disseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian [81:1]. An anachronism
of a century or more is nothing to him.

We have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our author's
judgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is necessary for my
purpose. 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 Traïanou] 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 [81:2].

The objections of our author have thus been met and answered; and
difficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot, I venture to
think, be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of
external testimony in favour of the Epistles. The external testimony
however is considerable in this case [81:3]. The Epistle of Polycarp,
which purports to have been written so soon after this journey of
Ignatius through Asia Minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death
were not fully known there, speaks of his letters in language which is
entirely applicable to the existing documents. Our author indeed
declares this Epistle also to be spurious. But Irenæus, the pupil of
Polycarp, bears testimony to the existence of such an Epistle; and I
pledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged
against its genuineness by our author and others [82:1]. Besides this,
Irenæus, writing about A.D. 180-190, quotes a characteristic and
distinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not indeed
mentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the quotation as the words
of a member of the Christian brotherhood. And again, in the first half
of the next century Origen cites two passages from these letters,
ascribing them directly to Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more
explicit references and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are
in themselves. Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of
testimony very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would
hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds
of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We Christians are
constantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the
same standards which are applied to other writings. This is exactly what
we desire, and what we do not get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc
which would ensue, if the critical principles of the Tübingen school and
their admirers were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and
Rome.

External testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour
of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form or other; and
before rejecting them entirely, we are bound to show that internal
evidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their
authenticity. It is not sufficient, for instance, to allege that the
saint's desire for martyrdom, as exhibited in these Epistles, is
extravagant, because we have ample testimony for believing that such
extravagance (whether commendable or not) was highly characteristic of
the faith and zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution.
Nor again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought
or language, because there is no _a priori_ reason why St Ignatius
should not have indulged in such eccentricities.

Unless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by
all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all
events the shortest form in which these Epistles are presented to us. In
other words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as
these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third
centuries (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the
fourth), perhaps not more is required by the external testimony. Against
the genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced
what he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits; and I
have answered them. I am quite aware that other objections have been
alleged by other critics; but it will be sufficient here to express a
conviction that these have no real force against even the slightest
external testimony, and to undertake to meet them if they are
reproduced. Thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for
instance, was bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the
Romans could not have been written before the time of Constantine the
Great, because 'leopards' are mentioned in it, and the word was not
known until this late age. In reply to Bochart, Pearson and others
showed conclusively, by appealing (among other documents) to the
contemporary Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered
when Geta was Cæsar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called
more than a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good
reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I am able
to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. The word
occurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the middle of the
second century), without any indication that it was then a new or
unusual term. This passage, which (so far as I am aware) has been
hitherto overlooked, carries the use back to within some forty years, or
less, of the professed date of the Ignatian letters; and it must be
regarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed
in the scanty remains of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over
the interval. Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient
to say that its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have
been the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large amount
of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question, and by
substituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of
historical fact.

On the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with an
individuality of character which is a strong testimony to their
genuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression
seem to bespeak a real living man. On this point however it is
impossible to dwell here; anyone who will take the pains to read these
Epistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on
this evidence of style, than if he had been plied with many arguments.

But if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, what
must we say of the Vossian? Were the additional portions, which are
contained in the latter but wanting in the former, also written by the
saint, or are they later interpolations and additions? This is a much
more difficult question.

As a first step towards answering this question, we may observe that
there is one very strong reason for believing that the Vossian letters
cannot have been written after the middle of the second century. The
argument from silence has been so often abused, that one is almost
afraid to employ it at all. Yet here it seems to have a real value. The
writer of these letters, whoever he was, is evidently an orthodox
Catholic Christian, and at the same time a strong controversialist. It
is therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main
controversies which agitated the Church, and more especially the Church
of Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the second century.
There is not a word about Montanism or about the Paschal controversy. It
is difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of
these 'burning' questions, if he had lived in the midst of them. Even
though his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from
language involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a
distinct side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means.
Again, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic heresies of
this age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the Valentinians, even of
the Basilideans (though Basilides flourished under Hadrian), are not
touched. On the contrary, the writer several times uses language which
an orthodox churchman, writing in the second half of the second century
or later, would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expressions
he salutes the Church of the Trallians 'in the _pleroma_'--an expression
which could not escape the taint of heresy when once Valentinus had
promulgated his system, of which the pleroma was the centre. Nor again,
is it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions
which, however innocent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to
countenance the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for
instance, where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving
([Greek: philoülon]) fire (of passion),' [85:1] and the like. The
bearing of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and
yet it is highly important.

Having regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see how it is
reasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the middle of the second
century. But still it does not follow that they are genuine; and
elsewhere I had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who
ascribed them to an interpolator writing about A.D. 140 [85:2]. Now
however I am obliged to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts
whether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius
himself. The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1)
Petermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned,
respecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing
Syriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian letters. When it is
known that there existed a complete version of the Vossian letters in
this language, the theory that the Curetonian letters are excerpts
becomes at least highly plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters
were certainly not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding
Cureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abruptness of
the Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. Subsequent
writers, even while maintaining their genuineness, have recognised this
difficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. It is far from easy, for
instance, to conceive that the Ephesian letter could have ended as it is
made to end in this recension. (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce
many historical circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the
condition of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited
by him, no contradictions have yet been made out; but, on the contrary,
the several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events
shows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier. (4)
All the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these
Epistles fail on closer investigation. More especially stress has been
laid on the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal
Logos, not having proceeded from Silence;' [86:1] and objectors, have
urged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the
Valentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the
Valentinians did not represent the Logos as an emanation from Silence,
but from an intermediate Æon; and when the treatise of Hippolytus was
discovered, an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence
held a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians,
and the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their
teaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the Ignatian text,
which Cureton and Petermann have placed in our hands, seem to show very
clearly (though these editors have overlooked the importance of the
facts) that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and
'not' were wanting; so that the expression stood, 'Who is His Logos,
having proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the Armenian version
and in the passage as cited by Severus of Antioch [87:1]; while the
paraphrase of the Long Recension seems to point in the same direction,
though this is more doubtful. Severus more especially comments on the
quotation, so that his reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination
of early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission.
Moreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, should
have been omitted; whereas their insertion, if they were no part of the
original text, is easily accounted for. In the middle of the fourth
century, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his Sabellianism in almost
identical language [87:2]; he spoke of Christ as the Logos issuing from
Silence; and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save
the reputation of St Ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions, and
at the same time to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name.
I call attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked,
and because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to
those who charge these Epistles with anachronisms.

Of the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to say that the
writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and
teaching of St Ignatius. As regards the substance, they contain many
extravagances of sentiment and teaching, more especially relating to the
episcopal office, from which the Curetonian letters are free and which
one would not willingly believe written by the saint himself. But it
remains a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the
arguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown that they
exhibit any different type of doctrine, though the mode of
representation may seem exaggerated. As regards style, the Curetonian
letters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected
excerpts, they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features
prominently.

For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the
Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the
Vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for
the middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the
latter will be waived. I fear that my indecision on this point will
contrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the
author of _Supernatural Religion_. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help
it.




IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.

[MAY, 1875.]


Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person in the history
of the Christian Church during the ages immediately succeeding the
Apostles. In the eyes of his own and the next generations, Clement of
Rome appears to have held a more prominent position, if we may judge
from the legendary stories which have gathered about his name; but for
ourselves the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This
importance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any marked
greatness or originality of character. Two long lives--those of St John
and of Polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal
ministry of our Lord and the great Christian teachers living at the
close of the second century. Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and
Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's
teaching, if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as
genuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenæus, and of
these we may say generally that on all the most important points they
conform to the theological standard which has satisfied the Christian
Church ever since. But of the intermediate period between the close of
the first century and the close of the second, the notices are sparse,
the literature is scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has
busied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history
during this interval. It has been maintained that the greater part of
the writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of
this period. It has been supposed that there was a complete
discontinuity in the career of the Christian Church throughout the
world. The person of Polycarp is a standing protest against any such
surmises. Unless Irenæus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of
his master, unless the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether
spurious, these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for
the advocates of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the
Christian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both these
positions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. My object in
the following investigations is to show that neither position is
tenable.

Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first
century, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of
his birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70.
At all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his
martyrdom, which is now ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156
[90:1], he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years [90:2];
and, if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of
his life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried back
to the date which I have just given.

Thus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which was fraught
with momentous consequences to the Church at large, and which more
especially made itself felt in the Christian congregations of his own
country, proconsular Asia. The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn
of the year 70. But at the final assault the Christians were no longer
among the besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for
their departure from the doomed city. The greater number had retired
beyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies in Pella and the
neighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the Church--the surviving
Apostles and personal disciples of Christ--had sought a home elsewhere.
From this time forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to
proconsular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, that
we must look for the continuance of the original type of Apostolic
doctrine and practice. At the epoch of the catastrophe we find the
Apostle John for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or
constrained, it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of Patmos. Soon
after this he takes up his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been
his head-quarters during the remainder of his long life [91:1]. And John
was not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More especially
the companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this
neighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and fellow-countrymen of
Bethsaida this is distinctly recorded. Andrew, the brother of Simon
Peter, appears in company with John in these later years, according to
an account which seems at least so far trustworthy [91:2]. The presence
of Philip, the special friend of Andrew [91:3], in these parts is
recorded on still better authority [91:4]. Philip himself died at
Hierapolis in Phrygia; but one of his three daughters was buried at
Ephesus, where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other
personal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who dwelt in
these districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second John are mentioned,
with whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, had conversed [91:5].

Among these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own words, to which
I have already alluded, seem to show that he was born of Christian
parentage. At all events he must have been a believer from early
childhood. If his parents were Christians, they probably received their
first lessons in the Gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from
St Paul who had planted the Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who
appears to have watered them, [92:1] or from the immediate disciples of
one or other of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth
of Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. Irenæus
reports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his
statement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan [92:2], who
ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about
thirty years old at the time of St John's death. When therefore Irenæus
relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 'by Apostles,' [92:3] the
statement involves no chronological difficulty, even though we interpret
the term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme
for presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers say
distinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by St John
[92:4].

At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the
second century. When Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to
martyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where he is received by Polycarp. At a
later stage in his journey he writes to his friend. The tone of his
letter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing
to a younger, who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility,
and had shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his
thankfulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast
faith, which was 'founded as on an immovable rock,' he proceeds:--

     Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal
     or in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing
     is better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee.
     Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to
     unceasing prayer. Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch,
     and preserve a wakeful spirit.... Be thou wise as the serpent in
     all things, and harmless always as the dove.... The time requireth
     thee, as pilots require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a
     haven, so that it may find God.... Be sober, as God's athlete....
     Stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a
     great athlete to endure blows and to conquer.... Show thyself more
     zealous than thou art.... Let nothing be done without thy consent,
     neither do thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou
     doest not [93:1].

The close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnæans, enforcing
their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop.

This letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles may be
trusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was on the point of
embarking for Neapolis [93:2]. The next stage of his journey would bring
him to Philippi, where he halted. Thence he proceeded by the great
Egnatian road across the continent to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome.

Shortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the
Philippians. He had been especially invited by his correspondents to
write to them, but he had also a reason of his own for doing so. During
this season of the year, when winter had closed the high seas for
navigation, all news from Rome must travel through Macedonia to Asia
Minor. At Smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of
Ignatius; and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents,
who were some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his
friend had already suffered martyrdom [93:3].

This was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons possesses
the highest interest as a document of early Christian literature, though
far from remarkable in itself.

Its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the
Apostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testament, strictly so called,
it is not probable that Polycarp knew anything [93:4]. This idea was
necessarily, as Dr Westcott has shown, the growth of time. But of the
writings which are included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and
an ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably be
compared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there is good reason to
believe, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a
familiar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other
hand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of
Christian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest
childhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society
of Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself
apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear
indications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic
Epistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament.
Again and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at
length. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has
exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is
concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains
decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty
passages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single
exception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there
is no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere
indeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted
from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows
[95:1].

Not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the New
Testament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical references I shall
have occasion to speak in a subsequent article. Besides these there is a
strong coincidence with the Acts which can hardly be accidental [95:2];
and there are passages or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic
Epistles. Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer
to those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit.
It cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that Polycarp was
acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and with the two Epistles
to Timothy. Of the indisputable references to the First Epistle of St
Peter I have already spoken in a former paper [95:3].

But the most important fact, in its bearing on recent controversy, is
the relation of the writer to St Paul. According to the hypothesis of
the Tübingen school, there was a personal antagonism between St Paul and
St John, and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools. It
is therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most
eminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the
Gentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent place in
Polycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained by the fact that
he is writing to a Church of St Paul's founding, but this explanation
does not detract from its value. St Paul is the only Apostle who is
mentioned by name; his writings are the only Apostolic writings which
are referred to by name; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable
references to as many as eleven [95:4]; there are direct appeals to his
example and his teaching alike: there is even an apology on the writer's
part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the
Apostle by writing to a Church to whom he had addressed an Epistle
[96:1]. Altogether the testimony to the respect in which St Paul is held
by the writer is as complete as language can make it. If therefore the
Epistle be accepted as genuine, the position of the Tübingen school must
be abandoned.

From considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we pass by a
natural transition to the second point which I proposed to investigate,
the traditions of the author's teaching.

Polycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was written. But he
lived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age
afterwards; and as the companion of Apostles and the depositary of the
Apostolic tradition, his influence increased with his increasing years.
Before he died, even unbelievers had come to regard him as the 'Father
of the Christians.'

Of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an
eye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two youths,
companions for the time, but destined to stand far apart in after life--

     'Like cliffs that had been rent asunder;'

the elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader;
the younger, Irenæus, who stood forward as the great champion of
orthodoxy. The following is the remonstrance addressed by Irenæus to
his former associate after his defection:--

     These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are
     not of sound judgment; these opinions are not in harmony with the
     Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety;
     these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church
     have never ventured to broach; these opinions the elders before us,
     who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee.
     For I saw thee, when I was still a boy ([Greek: pais ôn eti]), in
     Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring
     prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well
     with him. For I distinctly remember ([Greek: diamnêmoneuô]) the
     incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for
     the lessons received in childhood ([Greek: ek paidôn]), growing
     with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that I
     can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to
     sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and
     his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses
     which he held before the people, and how he would describe his
     intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and
     how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard
     from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his
     teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of
     the life of the Word [97:1], would relate altogether in accordance
     with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to listen at the
     time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me,
     noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace
     of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully ([Greek:
     gnêsiôs]). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the
     blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he
     would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his
     wont, 'O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should
     endure such things?' and would even have fled from the place where
     he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed,
     this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the
     neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the
     brethren for their warning and exhortation [97:2].

Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to
enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with Polycarp, or
of the letter to Florinus in which Irenæus records it. In the year 155
or 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenæus became Bishop of Lyons.
Putting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenæus
must have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135-150. The
mention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of
a more precise solution; but even if this notice be taken to imply the
presence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia Minor, our
information respecting the movements of Hadrian and his successors is
too scanty to afford ground for any safe inference [98:1].

Of the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was at one time
a presbyter of the Roman Church; that he afterwards fell away, and
taught his heresy in the metropolis; that in consequence Irenæus
addressed to him this letter from which I have given the extract, and
which was also entitled 'On Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is no--the
author of evil' ([Greek: poiêtên kakôn])--this being the special heresy
of Florinus; and that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed
into Valentinianism, on which occasion Irenæus wrote his treatise on
the Ogdoad [98:2]. As the treatise of Irenæus on the Ogdoad can hardly
have been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in which
Valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial
treatment superfluous, and which dates from the episcopate of
Eleutherius (A.D. 177-190), we are led to the conclusion that the letter
to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this Father.

Thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of
Irenæus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But beyond this
uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired. All
experience, if I mistake not, bears out his statement respecting the
vividness of the memory during this period of life. In a recent trial,
the most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to
give any information respecting the games and studies, the companions,
the familiar haunts, of the school and college days of the person with
whom he identified himself. It is the penalty which mature age pays for
clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the recollection
of facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often an old man will
relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early
manhood, while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period.
Those who have listened to a Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy
years repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale, or
describing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the
battle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the
stories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his
intercourse with the last surviving Apostle--the memory of the narrator
being quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified, in this
case, by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts
such as the world had never seen before.

One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel. In
the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he
conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference
was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice
of St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for
observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the
day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact
that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to
the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the
anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a
Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the
week. Neither convinced the other, but they parted good friends. This
difference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality;
and, as a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the
Eucharist in his stead [100:1]. About forty years later, when the
Paschal controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus,
excommunicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenæus, though himself an
observer of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this
harsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by
Eusebius, in which these incidents respecting his old master are
recorded [100:2]. Irenæus insists strongly on the fact that "the
harmony of the faith" has never been disturbed hitherto by any such
diversities of usage.

To this visit to Rome Irenæus makes another reference in his extant
work against Heresies. The perfect confidence with which he appeals to
the continuity of the Apostolic tradition, and to the testimony of
Polycarp as the principal link in the chain, gives a peculiar
significance to this passage, and no apology is needed for quoting it at
length. After speaking of the succession of the Roman bishops, through
whom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation
without interruption, he adds--

     And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by
     Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse ([Greek:
     sunanastrapheis]) with many that had seen Christ, but also received
     his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of
     Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth ([Greek: en tê prôtê
     hêmôn hêlikia]) for he survived long, and departed this life at a
     very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having
     ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the
     Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To
     these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the
     successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more
     trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and
     Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to
     Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to the Church of God
     from following the aforenamed heretics, by preaching that he had
     received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was
     handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who
     have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he
     went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed
     away from the room without bathing, with the words, 'Let us flee,
     lest the room should indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of
     the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp himself also on one
     occasion, when Marcion confronted him and said, 'Dost thou
     recognize me?' answered, 'I recognize the firstborn of Satan.' Such
     care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any
     communication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the
     truth, as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic after a first
     and second admonition, avoid; knowing that such an one is perverted
     and sinneth, being self-condemned.' Moreover, there is an Epistle
     of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate
     ([Greek: hikanôtatê]), and from which both his manner of life and
     his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to
     learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the
     Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John
     survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the
     tradition of the Apostles [101:1].

I have given these important extracts at length because they speak for
themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many
arguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenæus, when he
thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he
holds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before
him. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the
present generation maintains that Irenæus was mistaken from beginning
to end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of
the Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that St John, as an
Apostle of the Circumcision, must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the
doctrine and work of St Paul; and that Polycarp, as a disciple of St
John, must have shared that aversion, and cannot therefore have
recognized the authority of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

It is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have
seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or have
attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this
revolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape
the notice of the next succeeding generations. I shall probably have
occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the Church at this
epoch. At present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal
testimony of Irenæus respecting Polycarp is by no means the only, or
even the greatest, impediment to this theory. He constantly appeals to
the Asiatic elders, the disciples and followers of the Apostles, in
confirmation of his statement. Among the Christian teachers of
proconsular Asia who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous
names, Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They
must already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyrdom. They
were not merely practical workers, but voluminous writers also. The
lists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of
topics; they handle questions of Christian ethics, of Scriptural
interpretation, of controversial divinity, of ecclesiastical order, of
theological metaphysics. Was there then any possibility of a mistake
here? To us the history of the Church during the second century is
obscure, because all this voluminous literature, except a few meagre
fragments, has been blotted out. But to the contemporaries and
successors of Irenæus it was legible enough. 'Who does not know,'
exclaims his own pupil Hippolytus, 'the books of Irenæus and Melito and
the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man?' [102:1]

This mission of peace to Rome must have been one of the latest acts of
the old man's life. The accession of Anicetus to the see of Rome is
variously dated; but the earliest year is about A.D. 150, and an eminent
recent critic, who has paid special attention to the subject, places it
between A.D. 154 and A.D. 156 [103:1]. In the year 155, or 156 at the
latest, Polycarp fell a martyr.

The details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary document,
which takes the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, addressed
more immediately to the Church of Philomelium but challenging at the
same time a wider circulation [103:2]. The simplicity with which the
narrators record omens and occurrences easily explicable in themselves,
but invested by their surcharged feelings with a miraculous character,
is highly natural. The whole narrative is eminently touching and
instructive; but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate
purpose. It is sufficient to say that Polycarp had retired into the
country to escape persecution; that the populace, not satisfied with the
victims already sacrificed to their fury, demanded the life of Polycarp,
as the 'father of the Christians;' that his hiding-place was betrayed by
a boy in his service, under the influence of torture; that the
magistrates urged him to save his life by submitting to the usual tests,
by pronouncing the formula, 'Cæsar is Lord,' or offering sacrifice, or
swearing by the fortune of the Emperor, or reviling Christ; that he
declared himself unable to blaspheme a Master whom he had served for
eighty-six years, and from whom he had received no wrong; and that
consequently he was burnt at the stake, Jews and Heathens vying with
each other in feeding the flames. The games were already past; otherwise
he would have been condemned to the wild beasts--the usual punishment
for such contumacy.

Polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus. The
commonly received date of his death is A.D. 166 or 167, as given in the
Chronicon of Eusebius. Quite recently however, M. Waddington has
subjected the proconsular _fasti_ of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous
scrutiny [103:3]. This Statius Quadratus is mentioned by the orator
Aristides; and by an investigation of the chronology of Aristides' life,
with the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at
the result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155; and, as Polycarp
was martyred in the early months of the year, his martyrdom must be
dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan [104:1], and
substantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius [104:2], who however (for
reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here) postpones the
martyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments
seem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some
stumbling-blocks. The relations between St John and Polycarp for
instance, as reported by Irenæus and others, no longer present any
difficulty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap
each other is thus extended. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ very
excusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, being
unaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations.

In this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness of the
Epistle ascribed to him; but the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has
taken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious, and I am
therefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence.

So far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed that the
Epistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional
value. The instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can
claim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is
ascribed. The statement of Irenæus respecting the authorship of this
Epistle is explicit; and indeed, as the reference is not denied either
by the author of _Supernatural Religion_ or by other critics, like
Lipsius and Hilgenfeld, who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as
spurious, I am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our
author indeed is content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of
Irenæus is not ... entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse
with Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme
youth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent
communication with him.' [105:1] I do not see how the notice of Irenæus
justifies the statement that the period was short; but the passage has
been given above, and the reader may judge for himself. Nor does it seem
probable, considering that the communications between Asia Minor and
southern Gaul were close and frequent, that the pupil should altogether
have lost sight of the master whom he revered, when he migrated to his
new and distant home in the west. But, even though all this be granted,
the fact still remains, that the testimony is exceptionally good and
would in ordinary cases be regarded as quite decisive. I do not say that
it is impossible Irenæus could have been mistaken; there is always risk
of error in human testimony; but I maintain that, unless we are required
to apply a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is
held satisfactory in other cases, we approach this Epistle with a very
strong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be invalidated by
solid and convincing proofs, and against which hypothetical combinations
and ingenious surmises are powerless [105:2]. Whether the objections
adduced by the impugners of this Epistle are of this character, the
reader will see presently.

From the external we turn to the internal evidence. We are asked to
believe that this letter was forged on the confines of the age of
Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. But can anything be more unlike the
ecclesiastical literature of this later generation, whether we regard
the use of the New Testament, or the notices of ecclesiastical order, or
the statements of theological doctrine? The Evangelical quotations are
still given (as in Clement of Rome) with the formula, 'The Lord said;'
the passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still, for the most part,
indirect and anonymous. Though two or three chapters are devoted to
injunctions respecting the ministry of the Church, there is not an
allusion to episcopacy from beginning to end. Though the writer's ideas
of the Person of Christ practically leave nothing to be desired, yet
these ideas are still held in solution, and have not yet crystallized
into the dogmatic forms which characterize the later generation. And
from first to last this Epistle is silent upon those questions which
interested the Church in the second half of the second century. Of
Montanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the developed Gnostic heresies
of this period, it says nothing. A supposed reference to Marcion I shall
have to discuss presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that
an allusion so vague and pointless as this would be must certainly have
missed its aim.

But this argument from internal evidence gains strength when considered
from another point of view. The only intelligible theory--indeed, so far
as I remember, the only attempt at a theory--offered to account for this
Epistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity, connects it
closely with the Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged by the same
hand which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles; if interpolated, it was
interpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine Epistles into
the seven. According to either hypothesis, the object was to recommend
the Ignatian forgery on the authority of a great Dame; the motive
betrays itself in the thirteenth chapter, where Polycarp is represented
as sending several of the Ignatian Epistles to the Philippians along
with his own letter. This theory is at all events intelligible; and, so
far as I can see, it is the only rational theory of which the case
admits.

Let us ask then, whether there is any improbability in the
circumstances, as here represented. Ignatius had stayed at Philippi on
his way to martyrdom; the Philippians had been deeply impressed by their
intercourse with him; writing to Polycarp afterwards, they had requested
him to send them a copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him; he
complies with the request, and appends also copies of other letters
written by Ignatius, which he happened to have in his possession. Is
this at all unnatural? Suppose on the other hand, that the letter of
Polycarp had contained no such reference to Ignatius and his Epistles,
would it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance,
that, writing to the Philippians so soon after Ignatius had visited both
Churches, Polycarp should have said nothing about so remarkable a man?
When I see how this argument from silence is worked in other cases, I
cannot doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable
objection either to the truth of the Ignatian story, or to the
genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, or to both. My conclusion is that
this notice proves nothing either way, when it stands alone. If the
other contents of the Polycarpian Epistle are questionable, then it
enforces our misgivings. If not, then this use of the notice is only
another illustration of the over-suspicious temperament of modern
criticism, which, as I ventured to suggest in an earlier paper, must be
as fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early Christian
history, as it is manifestly in matters of common life. The question
therefore is narrowed to this issue, whether the Epistle of Polycarp
bears evidence in its style and diction or in its modes of thought or in
any other way, that it was written by the same hand which penned the
Ignatian letters.

And here I venture to say that, however we test these documents, the
contrast is very striking; more striking in fact than we should have
expected to find between two Christian writers who wrote about the same
time and were personally acquainted with each other. I will apply some
of these tests.

1. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of
ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy, is well
known. Indeed it is often supposed that the Ignatian Letters were
written for this express purpose. In Polycarp's Epistle on the other
hand, as I have already said, there is no mention of episcopacy. He
speaks at length about the duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of
the widows, and others, but the bishop is entirely ignored. More
especially he directs the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters
and deacons, as to God and Christ,' but nothing is said about obedience
to the bishop [108:1]. At a later point he has occasion to speak of an
offence committed by one Valens, a presbyter, but here again there is
the same silence. All this is quite intelligible, if the letter is
genuine, on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the
Philippian bishopric at this time, or, as seems more probable, that the
ecclesiastical organization there was not yet fully developed; but it
is, so far as I can see, quite inconceivable that a forger whose object
was to recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so
damaging to his main purpose. The supposed forger indeed shows himself
throughout quite indifferent on this subject. There is every reason for
believing that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at this time; yet in the
heading of the letter he does not assert his title, but writes merely,
'Polycarp and the presbyters with him.'

2. If we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal statement,
the contrast still remains. We meet with no such strong expressions as
are found in the Ignatian letters; Polycarp, never speaks of 'the blood
of God,' 'the passion of my God,' 'Jesus Christ our God,' and the like.
Even in the commoner modes of designating our Lord, a difference is
perceptible. Thus the favourite mode of expression with Ignatius is
'Jesus Christ' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred times; whereas in
Polycarp it is only found twice (one passage being a quotation). On the
other hand, the usual expression in Polycarp is 'Our Lord Jesus Christ,'
which apparently occurs only twice in the Ignatian Epistles, and in both
instances with various readings. Again the combination 'God and Christ,'
occurring three times in Polycarp, does not appear once in the Ignatian
letters [108:2].

3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is
still more remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are together at
least five times as long as the Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from
the Apostolic Epistles in the latter are many times more numerous, as
well as more precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are
made up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius they are
very rare, being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated
coincidences of language or thought. Nor indeed is their range
coextensive. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former
article [109:1], is pervaded with the language of St Peter's First
Epistle, but in the Ignatian letters there is no trace of its use
[109:2].

4. But this divergence only forms part of a still broader and more
decisive contrast. The profuseness of quotation in Polycarp's Epistle
arises from a want of originality. The writer reproduces the thoughts
and words of others, because his mind is essentially receptive and not
creative. He is altogether wanting in independence of thought. On the
other hand, the Ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality.
Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect.
They are full of idiomatic expressions, quaint images, unexpected turns
of thought and language. They exhibit their characteristic ideas, which
obviously have a high value for the writer, for he recurs to them again
and again, but which the reader often finds it extremely difficult to
grasp, owing to their singularity. I venture to think that any one who
will carefully consider these contrasts--more especially the last, as
extending over the whole field--must be struck with the impossibility of
the theory which makes this letter part of the assumed Ignatian
forgeries. This hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical
age produced a literary fiction, which, for subtlety and naturalness of
execution, leaves the most skilful forgeries of the nineteenth century
far behind.

And the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with difficulties of
the same kind, and hardly less considerable. This hypothesis was shaped
and developed by Ritschl [110:1], whose theory has been accepted by some
later writers. He supposes that the greater part of the Epistle is the
genuine production of the person whose name it bears, written however,
not immediately after the death of Ignatius, but in the later years of
Polycarp's long life. The three passages which relate to Ignatius,
together with other parts which he defines, he supposes to have been
interpolated by the same forger who amplified the three genuine letters
of the martyr of Antioch into the seven of the Vossian collection. But
if any one will take the passages which Ritschl has struck out as
interpolated, he will find that the general style is the same; that
individual expressions, more especially theological expressions, are the
same; that the quotations are from the same range of books, as in the
other parts, extending even to coincidences of expression with the
Epistle of Clement of Rome; and that altogether there is nothing to
separate one part from another, except the _a priori_ assumption that
the references to Ignatius must be unhistorical. I do not know whether
these facts have been pointed out before, and I cannot do more here than
hint at lines of investigation which any one may follow up for himself.
But when the phenomena are fully recognized, I venture to think that the
difficulties in Ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times greater
than those which it is framed to remove.

Of the general character of the Epistle, as affecting the question of
its genuineness, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has said nothing.
But he has reproduced special objections which have been urged by
previous writers; and to these I wish to call attention, because they
are very good, and not unfavourable, illustrations of the style of
criticism which is in vogue with the negative school.

1. Our author writes in the first place:--

     We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
     epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
     to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers
     to the martyr-journey (c. ix), but to the Ignatian Epistles which
     are inauthentic (c. xiii), and the manifest inference is that it
     also is spurious.

Of the fabulous character of the martyr-journey I have already disposed
in my previous article on the Ignatian letters [111:1]. For the present
I reserve what I have to say concerning the assumed reference to the
'inauthentic' Epistles, as this objection will reappear again.

2. Our author on a later page urges that--

     In the Epistle itself, there are many anachronisms. In ch. ix the
     'blessed Ignatius' is referred to as already a considerable time
     dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul
     and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience: men who have
     not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii he is
     spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him,
     'and those who are with him.'

To this objection I had already supplied the answer [111:2] which has
been given many times before, and which, as it seemed to me, the author
ought in fairness to have noticed. I had pointed out that we have only
the Latin version here, and that the present tense is obviously due to
the translator. The original would naturally be [Greek: tôn sun autô],
which the translator, being obliged to supply a substantive verb, has
carelessly rendered 'his qui cum eo _sunt_.' If any one will consider
what has been just said about the general character of the Epistle, he
will see that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact,
whether we regard the work as genuine or not. If it is not genuine, the
forger has executed his task with consummate skill and appreciation; and
yet here he is charged with a piece of bungling which a schoolboy would
have avoided. It is not merely an anachronism, but a self-contradiction
of the most patent kind. The writer, on this hypothesis, has not made up
his mind whether Ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time,
and he represents the fact differently in two different parts [112:1].

But our author apparently is quite unaware that [Greek: hoi sun autô]
might mean equally well, 'those who _were_ with him,' and those who
_are_ with him.' At least I cannot attach any other meaning to his
reply, in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere, and
speaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar.'
[112:2] If so, I can only refer him to Thucydides or any Greek
historian, where he will find scores of similar instances. I need hardly
say that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning
nothing more than 'his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied
according to the context or the known circumstances of the case. But I
am not sorry that our author has fallen into this error, for it has led
me to investigate the usage of Polycarp and his translator, and has thus
elicited the following facts:--(1) Unless he departed from his ordinary
usage, Polycarp would have employed the short expression [Greek: hoi sun
autô] or [Greek: hoi met' autou] in such a case. Thus he has [Greek: ou
sun autô] in the opening paragraph, and [Greek: tois ex humôn] in c. 9,
with other similar distances. (2) The translator, if he had the words
[Greek: tois sun autô] before him, would almost certainly supply the
substantive verb, as he has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo _sunt_
presbyteri;' in c. 3, 'illis qui tunc _erant_ hominibus,' and 'quae
_est_ in Deo;' in c. 9, 'qui ex vobis _sunt_;' and probably also in c.
12, 'qui _sunt_ sub coelo' (the Greek is wanting in this last passage).
(3) The translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give
the wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle where
it was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point;
he has translated [Greek: hên kai eidete ... en allois tois ex humôn]
mechanically by a present tense, 'quam et vidistis ... in aliis qui ex
vobis _sunt_,' though the persons are mentioned in connection with St
Ignatius and St Paul, and though it is distinctly stated immediately
afterwards that they _all_ were dead, having, as we may infer from the
context, ended their life by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very
same blunder which I ascribe to him here.

This objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the notices
which I have been considering suggest another reflection. Is the
historical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like
the invention of a forger? Would he have thought of placing himself at
the moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred, but
when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna? If he
had chosen this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of
leaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are
scattered through the Epistle--notices moreover, which, though entirely
consistent with each other, are so far from obvious that his translator
has been led astray by them, and that modern critics have woven out of
them these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel?

3. But our author proceeds:--

     Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already
     knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written
     by him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference
     here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the
     Smyrnæans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles
     which are not included in the Syriac version.

I have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive; but, if he
had been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not have known of his
Epistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian letters four claim to have
been written from Smyrna, when the saint was in some sense Polycarp's
guest, and two to have been written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven
Epistles, supposing them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost
necessarily have been acquainted with six.

By the 'other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Polycarp is
supposed to recognize, I presume that our author means the four of the
Vossian collection, which have no place in the Syriac. If so, I would
reply that, supposing the three Syriac Epistles to represent the only
genuine letters _extant_, these Epistles themselves bear testimony to
the fact that Ignatius wrote several others besides; for in one passage
in these Syriac Epistles (_Rom._ 4) the martyr says, 'I write to _all
the Churches_ and charge _all men_.' And again, when Polycarp writes,
[Greek: tas epistolas Ignatious tas pemphtheisas hêmin hup' autou] it is
sufficient to advert to the fact that, like the Latin _epistolæ_, the
plural [Greek: epistolai] is frequently used convertibly with the
singular [Greek: epistolê] for a single letter [114:1], and indeed
appears to be so used in an earlier passage by Polycarp himself of
St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [114:2]; so that the notice is
satisfied by the single Epistle to Polycarp which is included in the
Syriac letters, and does not necessarily imply also the Epistle to the
Smyrnæans which has no place there. But of this passage generally I
would say, that though it may be a question whether the language does
not favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the
Curetonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle
of Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, by Irenæus, and
exhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of genuineness in itself.

4. Our author then continues:--

     Dallæus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts
     the conclusion of the Epistle.

In what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is
difficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which would naturally be
assigned to such personal matters; for it follows upon the main purport
of the letter, while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the
bearer and the final salutation. On the same showing the conclusion of
the greater number of St Paul's Epistles is 'abruptly interrupted.'

5. The next argument is of another kind:--

     The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the
     Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not
     exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he
     refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in
     speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenæus
     to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in
     Rome about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion 'the
     first-born of Satan,' ([Greek: prôtotokos tou Satana]), and the
     same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to every one who
     holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies,
     therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at
     earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is
     further confirmed by other circumstances.

I will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting however
one or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investigations, to which I
have already alluded [115:1], oblige us to place Polycarp's visit to
Rome some few years before 160, since his death is fixed at A.D. 155 or
156. Again, Irenæus does not state that the interview between Polycarp
and Marcion took place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it
may have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region
Marcion was a native [115:2]. These however are not very important
matters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about A.D.
140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied the
expression 'first-born of Satan' to Marcion, while in the Epistle,
purporting to have been written many years before, he appears as using
this same expression of other Gnostic teachers. This argument is a good
illustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like Lipsius and
Hilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial mind, I imagine, this coincidence,
so far as it goes, would appear to point to Polycarp as the author of
the Epistle; for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the
one from oral tradition through Irenæus, the other in a written
document older than Irenæus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the
other, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is
much more probable. Irenæus, as he tells us in the context, was
acquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating
the story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently imported
into it the expression which he had read in the Epistle. But the
independence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do repeat
the same expressions again and again, and this throughout long periods
of their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies,
and so become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, and
in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he
had a habit of repeating favourite expressions. Irenæus, in a passage
already quoted, mentions his exclamation, 'O good God,' as one of these
[116:1].

Our author however declares that the passage in the Epistle which
contains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and his followers;
and, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before
A.D. 130-140 at the earliest, this fact, if it be a fact, condemns as
spurious a work which professes to have been written some years before.
But is there anything really characteristic of Marcion in the
description? Our author does not explain himself, nor can I find
anything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom I
am referred in his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves--

     For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in
     the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the
     testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth
     the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that
     there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a
     first-born of Satan [116:2].

To illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite
doctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by a
Nonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned with the
truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the doctrines of
episcopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptismal regeneration,
and the like. It is wholly silent about claims to Papal domination,
about infallibility, about purgatory and indulgences, about the worship
of the Virgin or of the Saints. Am I justified in concluding that the
writer is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome,
because the Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches,
holds the doctrines attacked? Would not any reasonable man draw the very
opposite inference, and conclude that the writer cannot mean the Church
of Rome, because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets
of that Church?

So it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic sects, held
some views which are here attacked. But Marcion had also doctrines of
his own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. Marcion taught that the God of
the New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he
identified with the God of Nature; that these two Gods were not only
distinct but antagonistic; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine
feud between them; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to
rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This was the head and
front of his offending; and consequently a common charge against him
with orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes God.' [117:1] Of this there
is not a hint in Polycarp's denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the
authority of the Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he
confined his Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again,
Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married
persons. On these points also Polycarp is silent.

But indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would
appear from the illustration which I have used. Not only is there
nothing specially characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies
denounced by Polycarp, not only were the doctrines condemned held by
divers other teachers besides, but some of the charges are quite
inapplicable to him. The passage in question denounces three forms of
heretical teaching, which may or may not have been combined in one sect.
Of these the first, 'Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has
come in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It way refer,
for instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the
spiritual Being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism, and
left Him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ
remained impassible [118:1]; or it may describe the pure docetism, which
maintained that our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His
birth and life and death alike were only apparent, and not real [118:2];
or it may have some reference different from either. I cannot myself
doubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle of St John,
and there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the contemporary of the
Apostle [118:3]; but Polycarp may have used it with a much wider
reference. Under any circumstances, though it would no doubt apply to
Marcion, who held strong docetic views, it would apply to almost every
sect of Gnostics besides. The same may be said of the second position
attacked, 'Whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross,' which
might include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well.
But the case is wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth
the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there
is neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this type of error, and this
only, the description 'first-born of Satan' is applied in the text, and
of this I venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to Marcion.
No doubt Marcion, like every other heretical teacher of the second
century, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord'
by his tortuous interpretations; but he did not pervert them 'to his own
lusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is
recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century; the worst
charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an
ascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but
regard it as a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this
denunciation on Marcion, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the
Lord,' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts,'
though these contain the very sting of the accusation [119:1]. Obviously
the allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early Gnostic
teachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel.
We find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the
professed date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which
St Paul rebukes at Corinth [119:2]. We have still clearer indications of
it in the Pastoral Epistles; and when we reach the epoch of the
Apocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in the year 68 or
69, the evil is almost full blown [119:3]. This interpretation becomes
more evident when we consider the expression in the light of the
accompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying that
there was 'no resurrection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything
else than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so
broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences.
Here again, they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators
belonging to the Christian community at Corinth who maintained that
'there is no resurrection of the dead,' [120:1] and whose Epicurean
lives were a logical consequence of their Epicurean doctrine. And here,
too, the Pastoral Epistles supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at
a loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of
'the oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel
case of Hymenæus and Philetus, who taught that 'the resurrection had
already taken place,' [120:2] or in other words, that all such terms
must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual
change, the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present
world'. Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching is altogether
foreign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh,
and the future body of the redeemed [120:4]. This was a necessary tenet
of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this
sense only he denied a resurrection; and he did not deny a judgment at
all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or
punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged
to recognize a judgment in some form or other. His Supreme God indeed,
whom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an
avenger, but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging
and punishing to the Demiurge [120:5]. To revert to my illustration,
this is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge of
Erastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom he was
attacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the
Church of Rome.

6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind:--

     The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which
     Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life,
     and of which we first have evidence about A.D. 160, when he was
     deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion.

This argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any power, when they
remember that the ablest and most powerful Prime Minister whom
constitutional England has seen assumed the reins of government at the
early age of twenty-four. But Polycarp was not a young man at this time.
M. Waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we
take the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp was now in
his fortieth year at least; if the later date, he was close upon fifty.
He had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged
Apostle St John. He was specially commended by Ignatius, who doubtless
had spoken of him to the Philippians. History does not point to any
person after the death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high
among his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from
silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church. What wonder
then that the Philippians should have asked him to write to them? To
this request, I suppose, our author refers when he speaks of the writer
'assuming a position in the Church;' for there is nothing else to
justify it. On his own part Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He
associates his presbyters with himself in the opening address; he says
that he should not have ventured to write as he does, if he had not
received a request from the Philippians; he even deprecates any
assumption of superiority [121:1].

7. But our author continues:--

     And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization of
     that period.

This argument must, I think, strike any one who has read the Epistle as
surprising. There is, as I have said already, no reference to episcopacy
from beginning to end [122:1]; and in this respect it presents the
strongest contrast to writings of the age of Irenæus, to which it is
here supposed to belong. Irenæus and his contemporaries are so familiar
with episcopacy as a traditional institution, that they are not aware of
any period when it was not universal; and more especially when they are
dealing with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary
of the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and
practice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle is a
strong testimony to its early date.

8. Lastly, another argument is alleged:--

     Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in
     the injunction 'Pray for the kings' (Orate pro regibus), which, in
     1 Peter ii. 17, is 'Honour the king' ([Greek: ton basilea timate]),
     which accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated
     Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or better still,
     with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his
     colleague, A.D. 161.

Here we have only to ask why _Orate pro regibus_ should be translated
'Pray for _the_ kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and the ghost of a
divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. There is no reason
whatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a
general reference. Even if the words had stood in the original [Greek:
huper tôn basileôn] and not [Greek: huper basileôn], the presence of the
article would not, according to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit
the reference to any particular sovereigns. But there is very good
reason for believing that the definite article had no place in the
original. The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with
the First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (§ 4), he combines two
passages which occur in close proximity in that Epistle; 'The love of
money is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. vi. 10): knowing therefore
that we brought nothing into the world, neither are we able to carry
anything out (1 Tim. vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes
highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same
Epistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings, and for
all that are in authority' (ii. 2) [123:1], where it is [Greek: huper
basileôn]. After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other
expressions that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings
(Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest
possible range to his injunction; 'Pray for all the saints; pray also
for kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute and
hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc.' We may therefore bid
farewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.

Our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the
authenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but who
certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt
to refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over in silence all
answers which have been given to the objections alleged by him.
Doubtless he considered them unworthy of notice. I have endeavoured to
supply this lacuna in his work; and the reader will judge for himself on
which side the weight of argument lies.

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ in his Reply, which appeared in
the January number of the _Fortnightly Review_, pointed out two
inaccuracies in my first article. In adverting to his silence respecting
the occurrence of the Logos in the Apocalypse [123:2], I ought to have
confined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting
the doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the Apocalypse, where
especially some mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere
alluded, as his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the
Apocalypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he charges
Dr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be
true respecting Basilides. While commenting on his omission of Dr
Westcott's inverted commas in the extract which I gave [124:1], I
overlooked the fact that he had just before quoted Dr Westcott's text
correctly, as it stands in Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still
more difficult to understand how he could have brought this most
unwarrantable charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was
distinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of an
oversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I shall not
attempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, which he
throws back upon me.

For the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of my
criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply.

I cannot, for instance, take any blame to myself for not foreseeing the
misprints which our author pleads, because they must have baffled far
higher powers of divination than mine. Thus I found [124:2] the author
stating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once distinguishes John the
Baptist by the appellation [Greek: ho baptistês],' [124:3] whereas, as a
matter of fact, he never does so; and comparing the whole sentence with
a passage in Credner [124:4], to which the author refers in his
footnote, I found that it presented a close parallel, as the reader will
see:--

Während der Verfasser die           | He [the author] _only once_
beiden Apostel gleiches Namens,     | distinguishes John the Baptist
Judas, sorgfältig unterscheidet     | by the appellation [Greek: ho
(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas     | baptistês], whilst he carefully
näher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24;   | distinguishes the two disciples
21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus,      | of the name of Judas, and always
nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus,      | speaks of the Apostle Peter as
nie Simon allein nennt (s. § 96,    | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but
Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht für nöthig | rarely as 'Simon' only.
gefunden, den Täufer Johannes       |
von dem gleichnamigen Apostel       |
Johannes _auch nur ein einziges     |
Mal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho    |
baptistês] zu unterscheiden         |
(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.).           |

Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to
the other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had
traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two
particular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have
stumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than
once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New
Testament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last
and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels,
though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant
variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember
'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have
himself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his
exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This
explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably
evident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_
once,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all
the four editions.

But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further
removed from the possibility of detection. I had called attention
[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author
had written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3,
4)--

     This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel,
     and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1].

whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the
passage was genuine; and I had pointed out that the last words stood
'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the
passage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been
suffered to remain.

In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:--

     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 [126:2].'

To this the following note is appended:--

     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.

This omission runs through four editions.

But more perplexing still is the author's use of language.

The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenæus,
where this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer
to the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my
first article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction
between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct
narrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might
very well be Irenæus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out
that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in
the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found
out his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in
its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives
in his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his
language. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1)
That there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all,
or that Irenæus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp.
326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no
ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of
Papias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned
myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when
I shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first
point alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in his
reply that his meaning was the same throughout, that he knew all the
while Irenæus must be quoting from some one else, and that he 'did what
was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction.'
[127:2] Why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were
direct? Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in
Irenæus containing quotations, did he add, 'These are all direct
quotations by Irenæus, as is most certainly that which we are now
considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way?' [127:3] Why
in his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recognition of the
oblique construction, did he withdraw all these supposed parallels,
which, if his opinion was unchanged, still remained as good for his
purpose (whatever that purpose might be) as they had ever been? Further
discussion on this point would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any
reader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and
more especially to compare the fourth [128:1] with the earlier editions,
that he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, except
that which I and others besides myself [128:2] have put upon his words,
was natural. The author has declared his meaning, but I could only judge
by his language.

I now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's
reply; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order
adopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder.

1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I spoke
disparagingly of his scholarship [128:3]; and in reply he says that the
criticism in which I have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction
of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.' [128:4] I cannot help
thinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view; but let
that pass. If the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my
article, he will find that, so far from occupying the main part of it on
points of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under
discussion, as the author seems to hint, I have taken up about
two-thirds of a page only [128:5] with such matters. In the other
instances which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument
for the time being at some vital point. It would have been possible to
multiply examples, if examples had been needed. I might have quoted, for
instance, such renderings as [Greek: katabas peripateitô] 'come down let
him walk about [129:1];' or [Greek: Iousta tis en hêmin esti
Surophoinikissa, to genos Chananitis, hês to Thugatrion k.t.l.] 'Justa,
who is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose
daughter' etc. [129:2] Both these renderings survive to the fourth
edition.

I must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes,
though only a few words will be necessary. I do not see that he has
gained anything by sheltering himself behind others, when he is
obviously in the wrong. Not a legion of Tischendorfs, for instance, can
make [Greek: epangellomenon] signify 'has promised,' [129:3] though it
is due to Tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation
he has seen through the meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened
an error upon himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done.
And in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the
responsibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant
than the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a scholar,
having translated _quem caederet_ [129:4], 'whom he mutilates,' could
have brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' [129:5]. I am not at
all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with
having unduly depreciated his scholarship.

But our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth
establishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel sure that, if he
had been dealing with some indifferent matter, as for instance some
question of classical literature, he would not have received any more
lenient treatment from independent reviewers; and I do not see why the
greater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for
immunity from critical examination. It does not seem to me to be a light
matter that an author assuming, as the author of _Supernatural Religion_
does, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, should
betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. But in the present
case there was an additional reason why attention should be called to
these defects. It was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of
the author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the
public, and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not
entitled.

2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality
with which the work entitled _Supernatural Religion_ had been credited.
And here I would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's
reviewers than with the author himself. I can understand how he should
omit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity.
It appeared from the book itself, and it has become still more plain
from the author's Reply, that he regards 'apologists' as persons from
whom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments therefore he need
not for the most part concern himself. But the fact remains that the
reader has had an _ex parte_ statement presented to him, while he has
been assured that the whole case is laid before him.

Of this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. To these
our author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, I believe that the
present article has entirely justified my allegation. Of Papias,
Hegesippus, and Justin, I shall have occasion to speak in subsequent
articles. At present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to
what Dr Westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer, and ask
readers to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case
impartially before them.

Several of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St. John. Of these
our author has taken exception more especially to three.

As regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because he has quoted
my own words, and I am well content that they should tell their own
tale. If our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself, and
irrelevant to the direct purpose of the work,' [131:1] I venture to
think that discerning readers will take a different view. I had directed
attention [131:2] to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.
xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34) as implying other visits to Jerusalem which
these Gospels do not themselves record, and therefore as refuting the
hypothesis that our Lord's ministry was only of a single year's
duration, and was exercised wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood
until the closing visit to Jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on
the arbitrary assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete
and continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative on
this fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the Synoptists
give no continuous chronology in the history of our Lord's ministry
between the baptism and the passion; the incidents were selected in the
first instance (we may suppose) for purposes of catechetical
instruction, and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject,
sometimes (though incidentally) by sequence of time. In St. John, on the
other hand, the successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebræ of
the chronological backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account
of Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure even
here that the vertebræ are absolutely continuous; many festivals may
have been omitted; the ministry of Christ may have extended over a much
longer period, as indeed Irenæus asserts that it did [131:3]; but the
three passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three
years at the least.

The second point has reference to the diction of the fourth Gospel, as
compared with the Apocalypse [131:4]. Here I am glad to find that there
is less difference of opinion between us than I had imagined. If our
author does not greatly differ from Luthardt's estimate of the language,
neither do I [132:1]. On the other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as
I am aware) nobody has denied, that there is a marked difference between
the Apocalypse and the Gospel, in respect of diction; only it is
contended that two very potent influences must be taken into account
which will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of
the two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of the one
book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong
Hebraic colouring, which we should not expect to find in a historical
narrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time separates the two works.
The Apocalypse was written, according to the view which our author
represents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics,' about
A.D. 68, 69 [132:2]. It marks the close of what we may call the
_Hebraic_ period of St John's life--_i.e._, the period which (so far as
we can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history) he
had spent chiefly in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The
Gospel on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the
last years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or
more probably dictated) at the end of the _Hellenic_ period, after an
interval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had lived at
Ephesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our author appears to be
astonished that Luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the Apocalypse
as not arising out of ignorance, but as 'intentional emancipations from
the rules of grammar.' Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must
be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's
reflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho ôn,
k.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that
[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of
writing any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book,
after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable
command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a
familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this
language.

On the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four
pages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the
manner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth
Gospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its
identification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable
solutions. To this remark I had appended the following note:

     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: Suchar]], 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 sq. Our
     author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f.
     Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article,
     for these Talmudic references are its main purport._

Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as
they are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish
especially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds
that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary
Review_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,'
to which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2].

I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the
obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the
historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will
most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself
first. I am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person
who penned certain sentences in _Supernatural Religion_. I am not a
little perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he
would lay down; for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt
language, of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others
with 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation
upon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsification,'
with 'disingenuousness' [134:1] and other grave moral offences of the
same kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that offences of
this class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or
the grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore obliged to ask whether he is
not imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe
himself, when he objects to what I have said. Nevertheless I will
apologize; but I cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to
withdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of
proceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it
another which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I saw in his
text the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no such
place,' [134:2] and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a
reference to an article by an eminent Hebraist devoted to showing that
such a place is mentioned several times in the Talmud, I could draw no
other conclusion than that he had not read the article in question, or
(as I might have added), having read it, had forgotten its contents. The
manner in which references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have
shown in my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this
inference. His own explanation however is quite different.--

     My statement 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.

Certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added; for no reader
could have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be
understood with this all-important reservation. Unfortunately however
this explanation is not confined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it
is adopted by M. Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position)
would altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who
nevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, without
considering whether it will or will not tend to establish the
credibility of the Evangelist.

But after all, the really important question for the reader is not what
this or that person thinks on this question, but what are the facts. And
here I venture to say that, when our author speaks of 'assertions and
conjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's article, such language is quite
misleading. The points which the Talmudical passages quoted by him
establish are these:--

(1) A place called 'Suchar,' or 'Sychar,' is mentioned in the Talmud.
Our author speaks of 'some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat
similar, but not identical, name.' But the fact is, that the word
[Greek: Suchar], if written in Hebrew letters, would naturally take one
or other of the two forms which we find in the Talmud, [Hebrew: Sukh'r]
(Suchar) or [Hebrew: Sykh'r] (Sychar). In other words, the
transliteration is as exact as it could be. It would no doubt be
possible to read the former word 'Socher,' and the latter 'Sicher,'
because the vowels are indeterminate within these limits. But so far as
identity was possible, we have it here.

(2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of 'Sychar,' but of
'Ayin-Sychar,' _i.e._, 'the Well of Sychar.'

(3) The 'Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing
country. This is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of
the place in the two principal Talmudical passages where it appears,
_Baba Kamma_ 82b, _Menachoth_ 64b. It is there stated that on one
occasion, when the lands in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid
waste by war, and no one knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal
offering, the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they
were obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the Well of
Sychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the interview with the
Samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn,
unbroken by boundary or hedge'[136:1]--as it is described by a modern
traveller; and indeed the prospect before Him suggests to our Lord, as
we may well suppose, the image which occurs in the conversation with the
disciples immediately following--'Lift up your eyes, and look on the
fields; for they are white already to harvest.' [136:2] It is true that
the Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin-Sychar;'
but all the circumstances agree. It was just from such a country as this
(neither too near nor too far distant for the notices) that the
Pentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency.

The reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge for himself
whether the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no
such place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. He will form his own
opinion whether a writer, who deliberately ignores these facts, because
they are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything,' is
likely to form an impartial judgment.

The identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent opinion has
been tending, is a question of less importance. Notwithstanding the
difficulty respecting the initial _Ain_ in the latter word, an
identification which has commended itself to Oriental scholars like
Ewald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible. I
venture to suggest that the initial Ain of 'Askar' may be explained by
supposing the word to be a contraction for _Ayin-Sychar_, the 'Well of
Sychar.' This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic word
would furnish another example of a process which is common where one
language is superposed upon another, _e.g._, Charter-house for
Chartreuse.

3. The third point to which I called attention [137:1] was the author's
practice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty. This
seemed to me to be a very grave offence, which deserved to be condemned
by all men alike, whatever their opinions might be. And in the present
instance I considered that the author was especially bound to abstain
from such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as he
was otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. Moreover, the
offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had
especially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his
moderation of tone, and for his generous appreciation of the position
and arguments of his adversaries.

This is our author's reply--

     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 recognize, 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 on 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 [137:2].

I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this
explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it
redressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's
meaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine
respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet
reserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,'
of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,'
of 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very
passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with
yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and
'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting
Basilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling
matter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his
rebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which
could only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so
grievously misrepresented his true meaning.

I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he
has brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I
certainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he
deserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came
forward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with
attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have
been no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed
with him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant
'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary readers would
imagine, that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty. I
am content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an
unconscious bias.

In our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument,
there is one point which seems to call for observation. Of all my
remarks, the one sentence which I should least have expected to incur
his displeasure, is the following:--

     Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the
     first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous
     [138:2].

I fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own opinion
into other words. I imagined that he himself wished the second and third
parts to be regarded as a work of supererogation. Was I altogether
without ground for this belief? I turn to the concluding paragraph of
the first part, and I find these words:--

     Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of
     testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the
     reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which
     is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize
     that, _even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels
     could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds_, the
     testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their
     contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--_would be
     utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles_ [139:1].

What does this mean, except that even though it should be necessary to
concede every point against which the author is contending in the second
and third parts, still the belief in the Gospel miracles is irrational?
Is the language which I have used at all stronger than our author's own
on this point? But I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of
opinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the
first part [139:2].

For some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely thank the
author, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with either the
tone or the substance of the preceding reply. I trust that I have
already relieved him from the apprehension that I should confine myself
to 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped that some of the topics in my first
article might have been laid aside for ever, but his reply has compelled
me to revert to them. He does me no more than justice when he credits me
with earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. But it
seems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more
intense in my case than in his; for (to say nothing else), as I read
history, the morality of the coming generations of Englishmen is very
largely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at
issue between us. As he has withheld his name, he has deprived me of the
pleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect. Thus he
has placed me at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and
can speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that one who
has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far
entitled to every consideration. And, if this had been all, I should
have entertained and expressed the highest respect for him, however
faulty his processes might appear to me, and however dangerous his
results. But, when I observed that the author, not content with ignoring
the facts and reasonings, went on to impugn the honesty of his
opponents; when I noticed that again and again the arguments on one side
of the question were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other
side were altogether omitted; when I perceived that he denied the
authenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of every
reference, which made against him; when in short I saw that, however
sincere the writer's personal convictions might be, the critical portion
of the work was stamped throughout with the character of an
advocate's _ex parte_ statement, I felt that he had forfeited any claim
to special forbearance. For the rest, I do not wish to be unjust to the
book, and I am sorry if, while attempting to correct an exceedingly
false estimate, I have seemed to any one to be so; but I do not see any
good in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the
heart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of
the highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think that so much
energetic work had been thrown away. If the publication of this book
shall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most
momentous subjects, it will have achieved an important result. But I
would wish to add one caution. No good will ever come from merely
working on the lines of modern theorists. Perhaps the reader will
forgive me if I add a few words of explanation, for I do not wish to be
misunderstood. I should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German
writers, I used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any
recent theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it is
the German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to men of this stamp.
All diligent students of early Christian history must have derived the
greatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research,
and frequently also from the acute analysis, even of writers of the most
extreme school. But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating
speculations should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to
exercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will take the
pains to read Irenæus through carefully, endeavouring to enter into his
historical position in all its bearings, striving to realize what he and
his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New
Testament and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all,
resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines,
will be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early
history of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which
have issued from the German press during the last half century.




V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

[AUGUST, 1875.]


Two names stand out prominently in the Churches of proconsular Asia
during the age immediately succeeding the Apostles--Polycarp of Smyrna,
and Papias of Hierapolis. Having given an account of Polycarp in my last
article, I purpose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These
two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition.
Papias, writes Irenæus, was 'a hearer of John and a companion of
Polycarp.' [142:1] On the latter point we may frankly accept the
evidence of Irenæus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely
to be misinformed here. But to the former part of the statement
objections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike; and it
will be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into
its credibility. Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St
John, still his age and country place him in more or less close
connection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact
which gives importance to his position and teaching.

Papias wrote a work entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' in
five books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved,
chiefly by Irenæus and Eusebius. The object and contents of this work
will be discussed hereafter; but it is necessary to quote at once an
extract which Eusebius has preserved from the preface, since our
estimate of the date and position of Papias will depend largely on the
interpretation of its meaning.

Papias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to whom the
work was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as follows [143:1]:--

     But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my
     interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and
     remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing
     their truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those
     who have so very much to say ([Greek: tois ta polla legosin]), but
     in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign
     commandments, but in those [who record] such as were given from the
     Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And
     again, on any occasion when a person came [in my way] who had been
     a follower of the elders ([Greek: ei de pou kai parêkolouthêkôs tis
     tois presbuterois elthoi]), I would inquire about the discourses of
     the elders--what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or
     by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the
     Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the
     disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so
     much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a
     living and abiding voice ([Greek: ou gar ta ek tôn Bibliôn tosouton
     me ôphelein hupelambanon, hoson ta para zôsês phônês kai
     menousês]).

This passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, though
Irenæus calls Papias a hearer of John,

     Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly
     does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of
     the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses,
     that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their
     friends.

Then follows the extract which I have given; after which Eusebius
resumes:--

     Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the name of
     John. The former of these he puts in the same list with Peter and
     James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly intending
     the Evangelist; but the second John he mentions after an interval
     ([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside
     the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he
     distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account
     of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in
     Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus,
     each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.

Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the
author of the Apocalypse, he continues:--

     Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from
     those who had been their followers ([Greek: tôn autois
     parêkolouthêkotôn]), but says that he himself was an immediate
     hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them
     many times in his writings, and records their traditions.

The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers,
who maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both
passages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his
interpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed
with the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that
John is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence
the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,'
this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper
name. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle
and John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from
inconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion.

But it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenæus was
incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support
to the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of
Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenæus does
not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed
from any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp
while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he
had other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor
indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that
he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias
himself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this
confusion which Eusebius lays to his charge; and the value of his
testimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby.

It will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias professes to
derive the traditions of 'the elders,' with which he illustrated his
expositions, from two different sources. He refers _first_, to those
sayings which he had heard from their own lips, and _secondly_, to those
which he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers.
What class of persons he intends to include under the designation of
'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would
include not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal
disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other
words, the term with him is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in
the first generation. This meaning is entirely accordant with the usage
of the same title elsewhere. Thus Irenæus employs it to describe the
generation to which Papias himself belonged [145:1]. Thus again, in the
next age, Irenæus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus [145:2]. And,
when we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using the term so as to
include even writers later than Irenæus, who nevertheless, from their
comparative antiquity, were to him and his generation authorities as
regards the traditions and usages of the Church [145:3]. Nor indeed did
Papias himself invent this usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for
instance, we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' [145:4];
where the meaning is defined by the list which follows, including Old
Testament worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this
sense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very nearly to
our own usage of 'fathers,' when we speak of the Fathers of the Church,
the Fathers of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Fathers, and the like.

Thus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not
office, but authority and antiquity [146:1]. It is equivalent to 'the
ancient' or 'primitive worthies' [146:2]. But at its last occurrence in
the extract of Papias, where it is applied to the second John, this is
apparently not the case. Here it seems to be an official title,
designating a member of the order of the presbyterate. Though modern
critics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word [Greek:
presbuteros] in the same context, it would create no difficulty to the
contemporaries of Papias, to whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a
common mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,'
and to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself.
Instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two
senses, official and non-official, in the same passage [146:3].

Of the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, we can only
name with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter John; but as regards
these Eusebius is explicit. To them the Apostle John may perhaps be
added, as we have seen, on the authority of Irenæus. Beyond these three
names we have no authority for extending the list, though there is a
possibility that in very early life he may have met with others, more
especially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in these
parts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from the words of
his preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal
disciples of the Lord had not been great. It was probably confined to
the earlier part of his life, before he had any thought of writing his
book; and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and
fragmentary. When he set himself to collect traditions for this special
purpose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the information
collected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders.

We are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias; but, as a
preliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say something
about the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in
connection with him. In my article on Polycarp, I pointed out that
recent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom
several years farther back, and that some chronological difficulties
attaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed [147:1]. A
similar difficulty meets us in the case of Papias; and it disappears in
like manner, as I hope to show, before the light of criticism. The
_Chronicon Paschale_, which was compiled in the first half of the
seventh century [147:2], represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about
the same time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in
the year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date his
birth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to a very
advanced age. But there is a certain difficulty [147:3] in supposing
that one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted
with so many personal disciples of our Lord. No earlier writer however
mentions the date, or even the fact, of the martyrdom--not even
Eusebius, who has much to say both about Papias and about the
martyrologies of this epoch; and this absence of confirmation renders
the statement highly suspicious. I believe that I have traced the error
to its source, which indeed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition
of the passage in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the
History of Eusebius [148:1], will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale.


        CHRONICON PASCHALE.           |        EUSEBIUS.
                                      |
In the 133rd year of the Ascension    | At this time _very severe
of the Lord _very severe persecutions | persecutions having disturbed_
having dismayed_ ([Greek:             | ([Greek: anathorubêsantôn])
anasobêsantôn]) _Asia_, many were     | _Asia, Polycarp_ is perfected by
_martyred_, among whom _Polycarp_.... | _martyrdom_ ... and in the same
                                      | writing concerning him were
                                      | attached other martyrdoms ...
  *       *       *       *       *   | and next in order ([Greek: hexês])
                                      | memoirs of _others_ ([Greek:
                                      | allôn]) also, who were martyred
and in _Pergamum others_ ([Greek:     | _in Pergamum_, a city of Asia,
heteroi]), among whom was PAPIAS and  | _are extant_ ([Greek: pheretai]),
many others ([Greek: alloi]), whose   | Carpus and PAPYLUS and a woman
martyrdoms _are extant_ ([Greek:      | Agathonice....
pherontai]) also in writing....       |
                                      |
  *       *       *       *       *   |  *       *       *       *       *
                                      |
_Justin_, a philosopher of the        | And at the same time with these
word received among us ([Greek: tou   | ([Greek: kata toutous]) _Justin_,
kath' hêmas logou]), _having          | also who was mentioned shortly
presented a second book in defence of | before by us, _having presented
the doctrines received among us_ to   | a second book in defence of the
Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus,  | doctrines received among us_ to
the emperors, _is decorated_ not      | the aforementioned rulers, _is
long after _with the divine_ crown of | decorated with divine martyrdom_,
_martyrdom, Crescens_ accusing (?)    | a philosopher _Crescens_ ...
him.                                  | having hatched the plot against
                                      | him, etc.

The sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual phrases,
alike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived his information
from the History of Eusebius [148:2]. But either he or his transcriber
has substituted a well known name, _Papias_, for a more obscure name,
_Papylus_. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in
his copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change.
It is only necessary to write the two names in uncials, [Greek: PAPIAS
PAPYLOS], to judge of its likelihood [149:1]. This explanation indeed is
so obvious, when the passages are placed side by side, that one can only
feel surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the
martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they
are), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the
author of _Supernatural Religion_, that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom
under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of
the Apostles' [149:2].

Thus we are left to infer the date of Papias entirely from the notices
of his friends and contemporaries; but these will assist us to a very
fair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at least two personal
disciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter John. If we suppose that
they were among the youngest disciples of our Lord, and lived to old
age, we shall be doing no violence to probability. Obviously there were
in their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with
them possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or later,
and have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their intercourse
with Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85-95, or thereabouts. (2)
He was acquainted with the daughters of Philip, who dwelt with their
father at Hierapolis, where they died in old age. Whether this Philip
was the Apostle, as the earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as
others suppose [149:3], is a question of little moment for my immediate
purpose--the date of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be
the same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to
Jerusalem, A.D. 58, apparently as already grown up to womanhood [149:4].
On the former supposition they would belong to the same generation, and
probably would be about the same age. As a very rough approximation, we
may place their birth about A.D. 30, and their death about A.D. 100-110.
(3) Papias is called by Irenæus a 'companion' of Polycarp, whose life
(as we saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 [150:1]. The word admits a
certain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something
approaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices affecting
his relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of
the two. At all events Eusebius discusses him immediately after Ignatius
and Quadratus and Clement, _i.e._ in connection with the fathers who
flourished in the reign of Trajan or before; while the notice of
Polycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history, where it
occurs in close proximity with Justin Martyr [150:2]. This arrangement
indicates at all events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having
been martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his surviving
to so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have inserted his
account of him in this place. If it is necessary to put the result of
these incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias
was probably born about A.D. 60-70.

But his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of
his personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing of the remote past
[150:3]. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical
records had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be
wrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or
even later. Our author places it at least as late as the middle of the
second century [150:4].

The opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at this early
date, and had conversed with these first disciples, are not without
importance, even though his own mental calibre may have been small. But
the speculations of the Tübingen school have invested them with a
fictitious interest. Was he, or was he not, as these critics affirm, a
Judaic Christian of strongly Ebionite tendencies? The arguments which
have been urged in defence of this position are as follows:--

1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian. The
Chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with
Eusebius, who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the
Apostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense. This tendency
appears also in the one passage which Irenæus quotes from Papias. But
the answer to this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception,
with the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears
combined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found in Justin
Martyr, in Irenæus, in Tertullian [151:1]. It is found even in the
unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas [151:2],
which is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism
to everything Judaic.

2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius does not mention
his quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline writings of the Canon. I
have already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the
'Silence of Eusebius' [151:3]. I have shown that Papias might have
quoted St Paul many times, and by name, while nevertheless Eusebius
would not have recorded the fact, because it was not required by his
principles or consistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that
this interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where we
are able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly
wrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it would most certainly
conduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the Ignatian Epistles
was an Ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts
of the case [152:1].

3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because he quoted
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first place, however, the
premiss is highly questionable. Eusebius does not say, as in other
cases, that Papias 'uses' this Gospel, or that he 'sets down facts from'
it [152:2], but he writes that Papias 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), and he adds 'which
the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' [152:3]. This does not
imply that Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it
there. Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which
Eusebius alludes, 'from oral tradition'([Greek: ek paradoseôs
agraphou]). But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion
does not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is
quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, though these two
fathers accepted our four Gospels alone as canonical [152:4]. It may
even be quoted, as Jerome asserts that it is, and as the author himself
believes [152:5], by the writer of the Ignatian letters, a most
determined anti-Ebionite. If Papias had cited the Gospel according to
the Hebrews only once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because
he made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena; whereas
he would have passed over any number of quotations from the Canonical
Gospels in silence.

As all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have failed, we are
led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other
quarters.

And here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias was bishop of
Hierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. At all events he
seems to have lived there from youth; for his acquaintance with the
daughters of Philip, who resided in this city, must have belonged to the
earlier period of his life. Now Papias was a designation of the
Hierapolitan Zeus [153:1]; and owing to its association with this god,
it appears to have been a favourite name with the people of Hierapolis
and the neighbourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions
belonging to this city and district [153:2]. In one instance we read of
a 'Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name 'Zeus-begotten' being
apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the Phrygian word [153:3].
We find mention also in Galen of a physician belonging to the
neighbouring city of Laodicea, who bore this name [153:4]. Altogether it
points to a heathen rather than a Jewish origin.

But more important than his name, from which the inference, though
probable, is still precarious [153:5], are his friendships and
associations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of Polycarp [153:6].
The opinions of Polycarp have been considered in it previous article
[153:7]; and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of Ebionite
leanings in his case is not only unsupported, but cannot be maintained
except by an entire disregard of the evidence, which is of different
kinds, and all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias
therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence,
that his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his
friend's. Moreover, the five books of Papias were read by Irenæus and
by Eusebius, as well as by later writers; and, being occupied in
interpretation, they must have contained ample evidence of the author's
opinions on the main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the
Catholic--the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle Paul,
the conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore important to
observe that Irenæus quotes him with the highest respect, as an
orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of Apostolic tradition.
Eusebius again, though he is repelled by his millennarianism, calling
him 'a man of very mean capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage
him in every way, has yet no charge to bring against him on these most
important points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last.
Anastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half of the
sixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox, according
to the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five General
Councils, had the work of Papias in his hands. He mentions the author by
name twice; and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the
highest admiration. Papias is to him 'the great,' 'the illustrious'
[154:1].

But indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of
Papias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that Papias 'employed
testimonies from the First Epistle of John.' How far this involves a
recognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall have to consider hereafter. At
present it is sufficient to say that this Epistle belongs to the class
of writings in our Canon which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism.

It may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. But
unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one
form of Christian belief--or unbelief either.

The work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of
the Lord,' or (more strictly), 'of Dominical Oracles' [155:1]. But what
was its nature and purport? Shall we understand the word 'exposition' to
mean 'enarration,' or 'explanation'? Was the author's main object to
construct a new Evangelical narrative, or to interpret and explain one
or more already in circulation? This is a vital point in its bearing on
the relation of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring
what Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly assumes
the former alternative without attempting to discuss the question. Yet,
if this assumption is wrong, a very substantial part of his argument is
gone.

The following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author of
_Supernatural Religion_ towards this question:--

     This work was less based on written records of the teaching of
     Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from
     tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his
     contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any
     written works with which he was acquainted [155:2].

I venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his information
that Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with
which he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of
this writer which have been hitherto published.

After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been
given above, our author resumes:--

     It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels,
     he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely
     nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was
     evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the
     discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously
     existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated
     by his own words, and by the title of his work, [Greek: Logiôn
     kuriakôn exêgêsis] [156:1].

'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to
believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is
made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has
appealed to Cæsar, and to Cæsar he shall go.

What then is the natural interpretation of the title 'Exposition of
Oracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a
preconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else
but explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the
original word [Greek: exêgêsis] might, in other connections, be used in
reference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same
which it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words,
it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has
an exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when,
speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces
into his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine
Scriptures' ([Greek: graphôn theiôn exêgêseis]), or when he says that
Irenæus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions
of Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is
used more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as
we shall see presently, by Irenæus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of
Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his
context shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1].

'The title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the
kind which our author assumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not
suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of
an existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more
strongly, when from the title we turn to the words of the preface;
'_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along with my
interpretations_ ([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermêneiais]) to all that I
learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.'
Here the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the
unambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important
point. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something.
Of what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the
interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned
subsequently, being introduced to illustrate the interpretations. The
words which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,'
which (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The
expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one
meaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the
passage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following
sequence.--(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the
preceding passage, for it is assumed in the extract itself. (2) The
interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object
of the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows,
were subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a
slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong
attraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and
illustrate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of
language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations
[158:1].

A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his
preface is accidentally preserved by Irenæus [158:2]. This father is
discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the
saying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of
the fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally,
and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of
flesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by
appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels--the
one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those
who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke
xiv. 13, 14); the other the assurance that those who have forsaken
houses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now _in
this present time_ (Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30)
[158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by
an earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises
to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they
have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of
the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance.

     As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that
     they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those
     times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow,
     each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand
     branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each
     twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand
     grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty
     measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold
     of one of their clusters, another shall cry, "I am a better
     cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain
     of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things
     Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an
     ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books,
     for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying,
     'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when
     Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such
     growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord
     said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].'

I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in
this story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, as it passed
through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my
purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the
preface of Papias would lead us to expect: _first_, the saying or
sayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels: _secondly_, the
interpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial;
_thirdly_, the illustrative story, derived from oral tradition, which
relates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along
with his interpretation' [159:1].

So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the
disparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently asserted by our
author and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly
explained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a
different aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works
commenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and
written Gospels, but between oral and written _aids to interpretation_.
Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or
John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to
their authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than
the capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his
critical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have
been highly important.

The leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute a correct
narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false
exegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The
opening passage of Irenæus supplies the answer. This father describes
the Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek:
ta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said'
([Greek: exêgêtai kakoi tôn kalôs eirêmenôn ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we
have the very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenæus
after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism.
If, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the
Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic
doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended
in the same way as Irenæus, though probably to a greater degree. The
Gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were
almost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenæus and
Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as
recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians,
Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same
way. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic
literature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent
the work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very
appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when
he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the
Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years.
Basilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1]
(A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion
in Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla
legousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching
foreign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing
this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus,
as from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false
interpretations of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from
several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general
character of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria
quotes it under the title of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible
too, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias
wrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his
school. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism
was rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent.

This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from
the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And
it alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that
Eusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for
otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without
expostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies
these 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges
him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand
report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the
account of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set
down in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value
outside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation
repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same
events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the
language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about
which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's
record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his
one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any
false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book
to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]

But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,'
can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere
supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives
written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the
obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for
his work.

An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been
maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not
our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will
be necessary in refutation of it.

The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by
St Mark, is 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: lôgon]). 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.

Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark,
the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is
apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately
before.

Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that
Papias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the
Evangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena
in it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place,
it is not a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are
not recorded in _strict chronological order_. These two phenomena are
explained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were
necessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St
Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary
and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher
having no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could
not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge
for an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before
him some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings
or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those
which he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he
desires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel,
as I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the
author of the Muratorian Canon.

This is the plain and simple inference from the passage; and we have
only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of
our St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied.
As regards _completeness_, it is sufficient to call attention to the
fact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and
above all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards
_order_ again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a
'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events
exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be
strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the
narrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our
Lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by
notices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if
the author had derived his information in the way reported by the
Presbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any
important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it
'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement'
[165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but
if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of
Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant
transpositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to
bring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how
far this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no
doubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person
obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself
describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall
not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of
'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which
refers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not
require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed
however, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the
other two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in
view was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the
Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another
Synoptic narrative, but _from St John_? I shall return to this question
at a later point in these investigations.

Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present
Gospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by
the Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias
becomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The
novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the
assumption.

Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that
he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which
the work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the
present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it' [166:1]. But
others are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with
this difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They
will venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest,
indication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the
remains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date
which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenæus was already grown
up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that
Irenæus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of
Papias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to
Christian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of Papias.
They will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and
holding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the
conviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the
title-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven
and earth for analogies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry
their investigations further, and discover that Irenæus not only
possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present
ending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part
of the original work. They will then pass on to the Muratorian author,
who probably wrote some years before Irenæus, and, remembering that
Irenæus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they
will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of
the Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with
Irenæus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the
traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is
mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two
Evangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously
questioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria
and Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also
possessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of
testimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a
loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing
in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently
substituted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and
consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was
received by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt
against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite
commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.'

Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale
denunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of
his own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question
of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of
the _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian
Fathers] _ever_ indulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same
time to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent
criticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of
Irenæus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2].
They will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in
Dionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' anticipates by nearly
sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the
differences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse
[167:3].

From St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of
this Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a
case of mistaken identity.

After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:--

     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.'

The assumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the
authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in
which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded
as highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been
wide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove
conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just
as the [Greek: hôs ephên] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that
it was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence
of a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged
edge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind
in any criticisms which the passages suggest.

In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each
man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no
authoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be
correct. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the
time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his
book, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but
'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the
tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything
depends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He
does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by
others:--

     Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past
     tense, [Greek: hêrmêneuse], as contrasting the time when it was
     necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period
     when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no
     longer necessary for them to do so [169:1].

Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as
follows:--

     The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is
     at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was
     requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no
     recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse.
     There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion
     that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version,
     although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of
     some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,
     imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2].

Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard
pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous
use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are
perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without
alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether
obscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact
is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes
'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the
necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it
implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias
wrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no
respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not
from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only
infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past
tense.

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. As in the case of St Mark, so
here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of
improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem
verbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a
mistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the
improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of
the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would
be.

The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as
regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does
not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not
have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know
exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this
fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact
relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to
the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our
First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been
translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more
than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous
Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been
nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may
have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.
Or on the other hand 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. 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.

Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias
speaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's
life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is
urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek:
xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this
explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked
upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement,
of the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how
or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give
this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This
hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has
found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have
been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by
disengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond
to this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without
its attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but
hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its
acceptance.

Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases
largely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our
actual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same
sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely
influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language
is only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection
of discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who
apparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at
all. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias
expresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have
expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our
New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents
were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided
too is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be
swayed by any bias in this direction.

Indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties. In
the first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such
'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers
from Pantænus and Irenæus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of
St Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in
Hebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it
is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so
as to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and
as our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the
more important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew
St Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of
discourses.

Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis.
Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on
grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that
Papias mentions only the _sayings_ of Christ, not because St Matthew
recorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with
these, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the
great storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however
think that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek:
logoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia]
('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are
expressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of
Antioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the
Oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of
the Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which
occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the
Gospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges
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 again, 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 [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must
involve one or both of these 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.

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 much more on the narrative of
God's dealings than of 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 God 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' [174:1]. 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,' [174:2] 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.' [174:3] How much he included under
this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not
write [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta
logia] 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in
Papias--but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,'
which form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker.
Again Irenæus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current
among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta
kuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning,
yet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as
the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a
saying, but an incident in the Gospels--the healing of the ruler's
daughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to
sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find
that the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,'
while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the
'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly
Origen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the
oracles of God' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two
passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is
contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St
Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,'
[175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages
might be largely extended.

This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully
substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But
our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias
himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If
Papias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather
'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include
narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from
the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the
contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely
with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in
other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the
sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the
corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its
use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father,
as we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order
the things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou
Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within
the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our
Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who
consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of
giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch
hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]). Here the obvious
inference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is
equivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta]
the first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause
corresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however,
following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the
oracles,' explains it differently [176:1].

     There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: ê lechthenta
     ê prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses,
     but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly
     distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of
     what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a
     collection of his discourses [176:2].

This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the
extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same
context; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the
extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested
by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading
idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St
Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in
question is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek:
taxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If
our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a
contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work
relating sayings only; and [Greek: logiôn], as bringing out this idea,
would demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hôsper tôn logiôn
suntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely
subordinated to other words in the clause.

The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia])
can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai])
in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles'
([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical
Scriptures' (_Dominicae Scripturae_, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])--an
expression occurring in Irenæus and in Dionysius of Corinth
[177:1]--or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any
difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the _second_ of the two
assumptions which I mentioned above--namely, that no Evangelical record
could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the
use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture.
This assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew
is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the
quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural
reference--'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author
puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt
to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the
proper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the
only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two
quotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew
could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words,
it is a _petitio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on
any showing, was written before the date which our author himself
assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70,
or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the
later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century.
If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it
could _à fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.




VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

_Continued._

[OCTOBER, 1875.]


It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone
survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew
and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different.
Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our
author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer.
I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1],
that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that
the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles
which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2],
while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes
a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a
test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only
pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give,
traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is
not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer
to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by
name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of
times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel
not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would
not have cared to record the fact.

All this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is
unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he
does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am
quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it
is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction
which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between
_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_
the Gospels on the other?

At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He
quotes a passage from my article, in which it is directly stated
[179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances
where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical
Scriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes
anonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not
mention the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts--

     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 [179:3].

Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own
argument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the
single direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New
Testament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is
the single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus.
What would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat
for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the
Alps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without
having noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could
have overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked
anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any
omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any
fairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care,
by his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed
quotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other
supposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous
and direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven
Epistles of St Paul in Irenæus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a
word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence
can be placed on the author's use of language.

But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for
discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment,
but I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he
finds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary
sense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him,
that under certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a
particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever
we are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances, he acts
in precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes,
but systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and
the Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and
however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he
adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of
these books.

But our author asks [180:2],

     Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias
     known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he
     would not have inquired 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?

To the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible
to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only
possible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite
alternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the
motive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any
preference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for
supposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St
Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they
were connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an
exhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted. On
the contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we
take the passage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference
is that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage
where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another
authority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which
he found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of
the presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the
divergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring
from the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or
might not, have been able to communicate information respecting it,
beyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared
to repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or
might not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him
to repeat his information, assuming he had received any from them.

As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed
surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius
as he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and
impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself
have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this
matter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of
the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had
reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I
should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an
illustration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John
the disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root
out that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and
long before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that
effect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it;
because Irenæus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and
Eusebius does not allude to the fact.

But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his
knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it'
[182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have
cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should
have arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing
altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed
by Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have
said, as Irenæus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay
upon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia'
[182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were
to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the
French who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the
genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been
altogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the
Gospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later
generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have
communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not,
there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage.

So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I
drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But
elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he
boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:--

     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 his 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 [183:1].

What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have
quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the
Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing
on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of
that Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting
its composition?

So again a few pages later, he writes--

     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 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 [183:2].

Yes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording
any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of
times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares
to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words
would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference
which will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores
another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and
practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets
down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but,
as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our
four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his
procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note
every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he
deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical
Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single
instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenæus, he
singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas
[184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very
considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?

But the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the
unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two
meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several
instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last
edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying
the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he
writes of Dionysius [184:3]--

        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION [184:4].
                                    |
It is certain that, had Dionysius   | It is certain that had Dionysius
_mentioned_ books of the New        | _said anything about_ books
Testament, Eusebius would, as       | of the New Testament, Eusebius
usual, have stated the fact.        | would, as usual, have stated the
                                    | fact.

And again of Papias [184:5]--

        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION.
                                    |
Eusebius, who never fails to        | Eusebius, who never fails to
_enumerate the works of the New     | _state what the Fathers say about
Testament to which the Fathers      | the works of_ the New Testament,
refer_, does not pretend that       | does not mention that Papias
Papias knew either the Third or     | knew either the Third or Fourth
Fourth Gospels.                     | Gospels.

These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression,
'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by
the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.

Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly
ignored. Thus he still writes--

     The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
     Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].

I have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on
this side.

Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus--

     It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say
     particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by
     Eusebius [185:2].

I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is
all the other way.

I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may
indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or
even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the
writer himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of
Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel
confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of
_Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others,
they must be ultimately accepted in the main.

The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the
use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one
way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.

Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have
been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into
less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to
five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we
find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.

As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate.
They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they
will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and
Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in
the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's
record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not
warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the
purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the
overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears
to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least
there is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently
be referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It
must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been
unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of
Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at
this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent
document [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence
derivable from Papias himself.

The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have
a combination of circumstantial evidence, which is greater than we had
any right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a
very high degree of probability.

1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 'has employed
testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from
that of Peter.' The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily
carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship
in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree
of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged
facts.

But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is
not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection
between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a
preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a
commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the
two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written
or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of
disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and
circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of
correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the
Evangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden
transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and
looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--'He that saw, it hath
borne record ... that _ye_ might believe.' 'These things are written that
_ye_ might believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we
may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the
Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could
guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of
the last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders--'This
is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
things, and _we know_ that his testimony is true.' After the narrative
is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First
Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with
the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles
proper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle's name. It
begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this
hypothesis) has preceded--'That which was from the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our
hands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard
declare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of
the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by
associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the
authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he
changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name--'I write.' The
opening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is
explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the
Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the
main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of
Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the
Epistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is
illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came
forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so
much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this
point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would
attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power.

This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the
Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is
strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved.
The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written
about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more
than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage
relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.

     The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage
     describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins
     with the closing sentence in the description of the Second
     Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: 'At which however he
     was present, and so he set them down.'

     'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.'
     The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the
     Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he
     compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither did
     _he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down
     incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his
     narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues--

     'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal)
     disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his
     fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for
     three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been
     revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of
     the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own
     name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes
     suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various
     elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the
     Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer,
     since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit,
     concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His
     intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in
     despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the
     magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder
     then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle
     ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we
     have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have
     handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows
     himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a
     recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.'

     After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous
     writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_
     Epistles of St John as received in the Church.

I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with
Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the
account which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel
[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account;
the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have
been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the
results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be
regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to
ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical
insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.
But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.
The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and
Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some
earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript
in which it occupied this position.

But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius
respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his
earlier editions:--

     As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we
     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds
     [191:1].

In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to
produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and
I emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can
test gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not
proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.
In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my
article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.

Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he
has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted
above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I
offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion
here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:--

     The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note
     relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the
     First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which
     he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_,
     which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by
     Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch
     unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But
     no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and
     unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author
     speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations
     from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.

I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St
Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal;
almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the
resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies
in his preface:--

     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 [192:1].

Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the
words:--

     Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the
     Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more
     definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions
     [192:2].

But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as
elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he
leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to
c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately
ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and
very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was
quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were
meant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to
the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The
charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which
no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own
explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he
regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled
me to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted
in these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by
early writers.

2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius
supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.
The extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are
all the more important because they are incidental. In the words, 'What
was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or
by John or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in
which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this
order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural
order, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these
four hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold
in the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic
Evangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said
indeed that the position assigned to the name of John by Papias in his
enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote
a Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so
important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this
argument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account
can be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 'in
order of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and
John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James
here mentioned is the Lord's brother) at all events next but one. This
would have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any
Judaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is
imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it
is a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and
associated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom
alone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of
John and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis,
it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition.

Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our
Lord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any
intermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as
'coming from the Truth's self' [193:1] ([Greek: ap' autês tês
alêtheias]). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is confined
to the Fourth Gospel.

3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenæus, we meet with other evidence
pointing to the same result. I refer to a passage with which the readers
of these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to
it more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its
connection with Papias. Irenæus writes [194:2]:--

     As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed
     worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy
     the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the
     brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be
     seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say]
     moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of
     them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth
     sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the
     first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall
     dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that
     therefore our Lord has said, 'In my Father's abode are many
     mansions' ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for
     all things are of God, who giveth to all their appropriate
     dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto
     all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy.
     And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who
     are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The
     presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the
     arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they
     advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son,
     and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His
     work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 'for He must
     reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc. [194:3]

I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this
passage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are
mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference
to our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel are attributed to the elders
who are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that 'it
is unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of
Papias,' He urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of
presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of
Irenæus may with equal right be ascribed' [195:1]; in another, that
'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day' [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient
to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists
whom Irenæus recognized; to the other, that when Irenæus wrote there
were no 'disciples of the Apostles' living, so that he could have used
the present tense in speaking of them.

This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance.
Critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the
presbyters in Irenæus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter
may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into
the account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence
the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This
caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without
limitation. The reports in Irenæus are of two kinds. In some cases he
repeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives
his information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is
prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall
generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though
there may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenæus is
most commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions
of the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral
teaching; for he writes, 'The presbyter used to say,' 'The presbyter
would entertain us with his discourse,' 'The old man, the disciple of
the Apostles, used to dispute' [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the
passage before us he employs the present tense, 'As the elders say,'
'The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say,' he is clearly
referring to some _document_. No one would write, 'Coleridge maintains,'
or 'Pitt declares,' unless he had in view some work or speech or
biographical notice of the person thus quoted.

We may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us Irenæus
is citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at
issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether
this book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the
supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to
my position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of
the same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons
combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to
Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he
himself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural passages are
interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the
interpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his
Expositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological
topics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are
limited by the language, which confines our search to written documents.
So far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenæus, no Christian
work which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at
the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, 'The elders,
the disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The connection with a previous
passage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the
thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenæus gives the
direct reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in
the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are
now concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these
two passages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us
in answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction.
(i) The subject of the two passages is the same. They both treat of the
future kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view
as a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the
authorities in the two passages are described in similar terms. In the
first passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw
John, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told that
'Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not
clear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or
the class to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he
represents. Since Irenæus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John,
this latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable
as the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question
at issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in the
opening as 'the elders' simply, and at the close as 'the elders, the
disciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second
passage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description, as
if they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the
persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The
subject is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it
extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion
starts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about drinking the fruit
of the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders,
recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal
interpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the
believers. Irenæus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell
the reign of peace on God's Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This
leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of
Israel and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are
interpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth.
Creation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be
inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah
lxvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains the
interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying concerning the
many mansions in His Father's house. A few lines lower down Irenæus
refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he
had started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends.

These seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to
Papias. And probably the two passages which I have been considering do
not stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenæus
writes [198:2]:--

     Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is
     written 'And God planted a paradise....;' and he was cast out
     thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also
     the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were
     translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for
     righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was
     carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the
     end of all things ([Greek: heôs sunteleias]), preluding immortality.

On this passage our author remarks:--

     It seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of
     the Apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters
     the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v.
     36. §§ 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1].

With this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is nothing
whatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am obliged to join issue.
It seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there
is the description of the authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the
Apostles,' which exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own
preface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This
latter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which
strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenæus.
The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a
terrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world,
to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenæus
says, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom
these two respectively are types; their translation preludes the
immortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second passage where
paradise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the
'many mansions' in the Father's house. But it is clear from this latter
passage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted
must have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position
there assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom
does not explain itself, and must have required some previous
discussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy
himself with this subject?

The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we
have seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his
'Hexaemeron' [200:2] that 'the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated
the sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the
Church of Christ.' They 'said that there was a certain _spiritual_
paradise' [200:3]. Among these 'more ancient interpreters,' of whom he
gives a list, he names 'the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of
John the Evangelist, and Irenæus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated
together as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of
the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to
these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is
impossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression 'the
delight of the paradise,' in the saying of the elders reported by
Irenæus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the
Prince of Tyre is addressed, 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise
of God;' and that Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom
he had previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their
views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 'where
God seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from
heaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the 'stones
of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards
quotes in illustration our Lord's words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan
as lightning fall from heaven' [201:1]. 'See,' he concludes, 'we have
heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of
delight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii.
16)'

From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the
Apocalypse, bearing the names of Oecumenius and Arethas, which was
published by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On
Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of
St Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there
was a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man,
the other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds--

     Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly
     hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago
     cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as
     Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst
     of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because
     'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the
     coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more
     completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers,
     especially of Papias ([Greek: kai paterôn paradosis kai Papiou]), a
     successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse
     with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning
     the war in these express words: 'It so befell that their array,'
     that is, their warlike enterprise, 'came to nought; for the great
     dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil,
     was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his
     angels' [201:3].

I turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that 'the above-mentioned
interpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the
teaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the
Ophites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the
ground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the
woman, the whole race of mankind had been born' [202:1]. This notice
again confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of
Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus
everything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of
ancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it
has at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings
of the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenæus, must be
attributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenæus cites by name in
the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add
my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of
Irenæus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the
exegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the
eyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially
Irenæus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony
to the debt of Irenæus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by
early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to
concern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the
obligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they
had all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work,
tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for
word, from Irenæus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not
acknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which
Hippolytus takes with his master Irenæus, might well have been taken by
Irenæus himself with his predecessor Papias.

4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story concerning
a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and he adds that it is
'contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'

The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken
in adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel,
vii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope,
the _Codex Bezæ_, the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in
sin.' In the _Apostolic Constitutions_ [203:1], where this incident is
briefly related, the woman is described as 'having sinned.' And again
Rufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an
adulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of
Eusebius.

But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where
it stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is
wanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally
absent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it
is not referred to, as part of St John's Gospel, before the latter half
of the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is
expressed in language quite foreign to St John's style, and it
interrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating
Christ's discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast' of
Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the
ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and
the illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple
area. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own
person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows
directly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living
water_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks 'again' ([Greek: palin]),
and declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But
the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative,
introducing a change of time, of scene, of subject.

On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced
here, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above
anything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and
followers, 'whose character and idiosyncrasies,' as Mr Mill says, 'were
of a totally different sort' [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to
imagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the
loftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in
its moral tendencies.

But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John's
Gospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was
originally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript, to
illustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 'Ye judge after the
flesh; I judge no man.' This hint he has not followed up, but it seems
to me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most
authorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands
after vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel.
This is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the
first instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on
a page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a
place somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the
narrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to
the end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it
at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate
position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an
independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on
critical grounds, it is not easy to say.

But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have
we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which Papias derived
from the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give
a place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its
introduction as an illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus
be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29,
as described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or
transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his
margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews;
and hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezæ_, the oldest Greek
manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is
remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides
this pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom
He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work
of Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some
strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters
more or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikôtera]),' which Papias derived from
oral tradition.

5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark
in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the
Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing
alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher
importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of
Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same
motive.

The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has
been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting
for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is
mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First
Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the
Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen
posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as
dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information
respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from
having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If
the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up
by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke,
he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but
_neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the
flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the
other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a
personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of
other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there
must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the
faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main
points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At
the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the
record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for
himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has
written what he himself had seen and heard.

Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the
coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it
stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The
Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's
account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First
Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what
object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at
least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the
Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions
Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the
First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together
in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is
quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations
existing between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which
gives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a
preceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.'
Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the
reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son
saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's
notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably
have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the
resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was
acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast
between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St
John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly
natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder
respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as
we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its
relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two
drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could
not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be
strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other
evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_
and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield
many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few
years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the
Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian
writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius
Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps
immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the
showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one
another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the
Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.

It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St
Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect
much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did
Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We
may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the
secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call
attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but
a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this
father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this
very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii.
1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the
evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbatôn]), whereas
St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week
[Greek: tê mia tôn sabbatôn]; and among other explanations which he
offers is the following:--

     The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the
     translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published
     [Greek: paredôke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person
     who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the
     hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbatôn] [208:1].

He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might
arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day
of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was
yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have
borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from
him.

But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must
have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius
must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have
had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and
none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed
circumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter
of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a
fragment from a passage in Irenæus which intimately affects the
relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the
middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate
purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I
can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenæus, he says,
'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than
to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not
indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius.
Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it
baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the
difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly
before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a
topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once
started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover
it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice
over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits
which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his
readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has
passed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further
information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his
notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we
may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material
which this father afforded for such extracts.

6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late
anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would
be decisive on the point at issue.

In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is
assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:--

     The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the
     Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in
     corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a
     beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in
     his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque
     libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John,
     correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But
     Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him,
     because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat),
     was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him
     from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].

No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains
such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of
Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the
endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to
dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When
attention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf,
Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a
spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged
five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had
gathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them
'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he
assigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name
of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it
had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been
recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric'
books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this
source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a
notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius
Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].

This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or
trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover
these titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five
genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books
'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in
error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of
Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin
lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as
Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who
will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and
which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again
does the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this
theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the
twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katêxiôtai]),
continues:--

     For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of
     him, says in the second book [Greek: logô] of the 'Oracles of the
     Lord' ([Greek: tôn kuriakôn logiôn]) that he was slain by the Jews,
     having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the
     prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]

Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is
attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting
directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of
John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the
ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly
quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias'
book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it
by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most
easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom
Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or
two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in
the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti
Iôannês [men hupo tou Rhômaiôn basileôs katedikasthê marturôn eis
Patmon, Iakôbos de] hupo Ioudaiôn anêrethê], 'Papias says that John [was
condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness
(to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].

The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and
we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS.
This passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different
sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an
anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a
confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that
between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenæus in the same
context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best
explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather
than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be
read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth
century, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for
EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which
should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the
false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to
Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having
reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on
somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own
Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body'
[Greek: eti en tô sômati kathestôtos]. In this contrast between the
story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips
during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc
in corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.
The word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have
been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel
had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have
repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other
hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can
hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was
derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would
be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may
have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_
wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos
autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek:
apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias
himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is
suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also.
Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius
would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made
thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the
whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence.
Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I
considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its
companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so
flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not,
like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding
centuries.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which
he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias
recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--

     Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the
     Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'
     ([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its
     Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the
     book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show
     that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the
     author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a
     witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].

This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics
of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works
cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether
they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second.
In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single
writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the
authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or
two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the
Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this
negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference
arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown
[215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and
references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the
authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church
writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in
the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been
entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely
what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the
Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The
inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the
direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or
section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the
second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the
Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and
(what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a
contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel
in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of
the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other
hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far
as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The
most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the
Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the
use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented
on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show
hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike
are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike
are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by
Irenæus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the
third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them
on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first
distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books
appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle
or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues
entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend
to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he
questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the
Apocalypse.




VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN.

[FEBRUARY, 1876.]


It has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a
remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive
disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony
Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is
reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a
century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial
throne A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the
earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted
disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of
a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly
rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian
society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal
influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly
missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct,
more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the
other Apostles.

Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St
John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the
veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author
of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as
writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but
also of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose
teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very
school [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the
neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways
for the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenæus,
who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate
disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as
preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic
doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the
elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord'
[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying
more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the
Apostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to
face' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord'
[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also
were pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have
their succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders,
disciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere.
The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of
Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the
middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years
before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of
Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third
quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of
whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man,
when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged
him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church.

Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of
Christendom in literary activity, during the second century. This
pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already
mentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and
primitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the
Asiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the
pressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the
arena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main
subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have
involved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with
its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem,
would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the
Apocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal
controversy courted investigation into the relations between the
narratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism,
resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's
Epistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to
preserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a
less degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with
Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics,
could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of
Irenæus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of
written documents--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of
authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our
New Testament Canon. To men like Irenæus or Eusebius, who had this
extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church
generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging
to it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its
orthodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or by studied panegyric, is
a fact of real moment.

Over and above this relation to the books of the New Testament
generally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention,
and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the
writers belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what
indications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they
recognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be
learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they
accorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles.

Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1].
In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel
has been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of
the latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the
testimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be;
while, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in
themselves warrant any inference on this point.

The next extant document in chronological order is the account of
Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D.
155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of
Pontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter
the brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their
martyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested by some
remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the
outset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pass that the Lord might
exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for
Polycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord'
[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type
of hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and
imaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and
mediæval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal
conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document.
Some of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the
parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate
is Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The
time of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath,' as it is
here called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from
information elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his
employ. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly
compared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our
Lord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When
apprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back to the city
[221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as
against a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will
of God be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time
that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a
valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much
violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7].

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. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in
which the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where
the writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their
mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice
came from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp'
[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice
those of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the
voice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as
imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in
consequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2],
though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild
beasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates
this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the
manner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel
Jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die'
[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time,
for His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of
punishment; but by an accidental turn of circumstances He was
transferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled
[222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the
body of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to
him and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are
told, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood' [222:6]. The
parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the
crucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress
on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these
hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We
saw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we
have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8].
And lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was
accomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of
Polycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been
and shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added
that the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the
phraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true
God' [223:2].

MELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second
century. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able
to assign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,'
he himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of
Asia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the
fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate
should probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are
informed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180)
[223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the
colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of
prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his
brother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of
the year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology
to the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their
statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of
Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from
internal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the
latest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works
comprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must
have extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall
probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as
an author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon
after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century
Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to
their rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be
inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous
contemporaries, but died a natural death.

These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early
part of the second century, within a very few years after the death of
St John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have
been a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at
an advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had
conversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have
survived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications
between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other,
were easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on
one occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure
to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if
circumstances did not throw him directly in their way.

Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the
same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the
succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders,
whose authority Irenæus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a
prominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom
Clement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is
quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the
generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by
Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by
Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome.

I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius
gives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be
complete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the
contents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together
at Cæsarea. The titles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal
Festival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On
the Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_,
_On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body
[and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of
Christ_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and
on the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to
Antonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides
these works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted
elsewhere under the titles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the
Passion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these
may perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under
other names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal,
exegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have
furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for
determining his exact theological position. To them it must have been
clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St
John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write
on the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth
Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a
controversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself
respecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which
have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances,
from which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in
the twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday.

Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_,
which is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised passages
from the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the
Christian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Sôtêros kai pasês tês
pisteôs hêmôn]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been
accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical
import of the several passages, as Melito understood them. In the
preface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work
had been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East
and visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself
respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list.
The language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes
that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_
books' ([Greek: mathein tên tôn palaiôn bibliôn eboulêthês akribeian]).
He adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate
information respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribôs
mathôn ta tês palaias diathêkês biblia]).' From these expressions Dr
Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a
corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of
the New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what
nobody denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,'
did not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so
refer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire
misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The
contention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself
signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another
collection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and
reiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to
the existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the
force of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this
implied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to
read the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without
throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have
therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for
the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in
maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New
Testament literature.

And if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis, it
alone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a
century, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle
bearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a passage found in St
Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is
a fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter
which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic
Epistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before
Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical
Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as
being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious
services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the
subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact
that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual
practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia
Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating
the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It
is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of
certain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical
Scriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a
fact that Irenæus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor,
writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito,
quotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of
the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more
especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the
Churches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with
the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations
of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do
not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the
New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the
banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this
state of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the
Syriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made careful
inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the
very land where those Scriptures had their birth.

The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered
[228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence
of the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate
his general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken.
The genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously
questioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve
every consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be
set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all
those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of
_Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he
evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On
the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such
interpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of
'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either
suspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in
circulation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments
have been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish
interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second
century. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may
confidently assume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree
with me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr,
in Irenæus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
Only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than
redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt
on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were
certainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some
mediæval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to
anonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Passing away of the
Blessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Passion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's
reflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered
quite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great
majority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the
most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do
not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take
the fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and
I refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this
ancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection.

We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next
age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been
in circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the
former point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke
of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the
latter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with
Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus and
Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man' [230:1].
The fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully
with both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their
superior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of
the same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version.
They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed
antithesis.

Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted
by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of
Christ [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:--

     The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the
     miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and
     assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at
     the same time, He assured us of His two essences ([Greek:
     ousias])--of His Godhead by miracles in the three years after His
     baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek:
     chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his
     immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata
     sarka]), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, although He was
     true God from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alêthês proaiônios
     huparchôn]).

The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the
general considerations which have been already discussed, partly on
special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must
here be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of
Melito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation.
It has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment,
since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age;
but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if
so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word
([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that
there may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But
the work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by
Anastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism
attacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick
of the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On
the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part
of the fourth century, was one of the principal figures in the Arian
controversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions
of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so
comparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no
instance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion
between the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the
Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of
Melito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of
Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted,
is a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if
their genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed
later than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal
statements.

But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author
of _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to
postulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply
the facts thus assumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited
cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will
find themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty
years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar
passage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration
of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned by St
John.

Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not
only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but
because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical
history and doctrine [232:1].

     We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
     those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
     that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the
     Word of God: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator
     together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all
     things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the
     law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings
     Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel,
     and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the
     Father the Son, in God God, the King for ever and ever. For this is
     He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with
     Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who
     was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with
     Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and
     the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at
     Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who
     was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was
     worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered
     together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the
     maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who
     appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who
     was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was
     condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was
     hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the
     dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who
     sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those
     that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light
     of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are
     captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of
     the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the
     Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, God who is of God, the Son who
     is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen.

This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to
evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of
doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments
ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these
fragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two
exceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in
Greek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness.
But the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into
a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of
Melito rested.

And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are
derived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some
unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as
wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized
our four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And,
when they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most)
Irenæus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate
relations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again
and again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the
traditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that
the Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning,
it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the
solution is so very obvious.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment
taken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports
to be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are
mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be
pronounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are.

1. He writes first:

     They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac
     translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless.

The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, classical
and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely
dependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has
shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is
accepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is
found to be satisfactory, and _à priori_ probabilities are very strongly
against the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth
exception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion
has its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other
principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to
believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour
thieves and liars.

2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions,
and here he tells us that--

     The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything
     else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of
     theological development.

It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on
this point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style
of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus
and Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially
true of the passage under consideration. What the 'later stage of
theological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the
contrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all
theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all
the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though
it lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic
of the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon;
but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a
quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the
conception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin.
Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God
before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord,
sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word,
while sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek:
archistratêgos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun
([Greek: tô tou Nauê Iêsou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ
is 'King and Priest and God and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain
and Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the
Scriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third passage he says that the same
Person, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, went
forth from the Father before all created things through His power and
counsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and
Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in
another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man
through the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these passages stand alone. This
same conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through
it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained.

Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite
statement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is
introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he
has mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at
which Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the passage before us the
only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin'
(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the
same kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the
statements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the
Virgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he
will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1].

3. But our author states also:

     In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of
     the same passage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the
     extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly
     ascribed to Irenæus.

This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed
attention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate
in his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the
shorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same
as our passage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences,
'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc.,
as quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenæus, runs thus:
'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ
was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised
from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth
for ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of God,' etc.
[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that
in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the passage in its original
setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenæus, it has been
altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently.
The reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted,
while the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the
Prophets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know,
did make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as
is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and
the correspondence of language in this opening passage with the
dedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is
sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and
external alike, requires us to ascribe the passage. But, if so, how came
the name of Irenæus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I
think not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenæus should
introduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either
anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already
had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of
their predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In
this particular case, Irenæus may or may not have acknowledged his
obligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double
ascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention
another fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, 'The
saying of Irenæus' [237:2]. I turn to the passage, and I find that it
contains not the words of Irenæus himself, but of Papias quoted by
Irenæus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has
entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenæus directly mentions
Papias as his authority.

The attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears
clearly enough from the title of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of
Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and
also from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the
form of a servant' [237:4].

CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of
Melito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years.
His date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an
Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and
as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering
Legion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written
before that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons,
though not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much
later [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close
of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and
judging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been
very recent [238:3].

Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the
titles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned),
_Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books),
_Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings
_Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tês Phrugôn haireseôs], which he
places later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list
comprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were
extant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three
works only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On Godliness_, is
not in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author
also are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them'
[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from
a treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and
Theodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encratites
[238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his
works, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material
for a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings
against the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his
relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is
attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates,
and by Photius [239:1], from different points of view.

Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves
the name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these
voluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal
Festival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal
Chronicle_.

The first runs as follows:--

     There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions,
     acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper
     subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the
     fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His
     disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened
     bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they
     interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the
     law ([Greek: asumphônos nomô]), and on their showing the Gospels
     seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei
     kat' autous ta euangelia]).

The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the
same context.

     The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great
     sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that
     was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being
     judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands
     of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns
     of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same
     that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and
     blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the
     passover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre.

If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on
the same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about
A.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious.
In the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of
reconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with
the narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he asserts that the date
fixed for the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can
only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two
accounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are
reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in
harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the
14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the antitype, must have been
crucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question
whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed
is that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at
least St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received
documents to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this
respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or
in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty
in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears
out the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the
blood is taken from the Fourth Gospel; but a theological interpretation
is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist.
Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the
subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike
suggest that the Fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when
they were written.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ meets the inference by denying
the genuineness of the extracts. I hardly think, however, that he can
have seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement. He
elsewhere asserts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that
the Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the 14th Nisan
was the day of the Last Supper or the day of the Crucifixion, the
Quartodecimans maintaining the former [240:1]. In other words, he
believes that it was the anniversary, not of the Passion, but of the
Last Supper, which the Quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the 14th,
and that therefore, as they pleaded the authority of St John for their
practice, the Fourth Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle,
since it represents the Passion as taking place on the 14th. As I have
before intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me to be
altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. But it depends,
for such force or plausibility as it has, almost solely on these
fragments from ancient writers quoted in the _Paschal Chronicle_, of
which the extracts from Apollinaris are the most important. If therefore
he refuses to accept the testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_ to their
authorship, he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests.

On this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The authorship of these
extracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers [241:1], but on
entirely mistaken grounds; and at the present time the consensus among
critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. 'On the
genuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now
no more dispute, writes Scholten [242:1]. Our author however is far too
persistent to let them pass. Their veracity has once been questioned,
and therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the
witness-box.

It may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their
genuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest, and I will
therefore consider his objections. They are twofold.

1. He urges that the external testimony to their authorship is
defective. His reasoning is as follows [242:2]:--

     Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passion, and
     quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and
     antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this
     fragment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of
     his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome,
     Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works; nor
     is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, nor
     by any of those who took part in the great controversy.

Here is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions. In the first place, it is
a _petitio principii_, as will be seen presently, that Apollinaris was
an antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, there is not the
smallest evidence, nor any probability, that Apollinaris would have
written before Melito, so that the latter could have quoted him. How,
again, has our author learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having
composed such a work'? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not seen
the work when he composed his list of the writings of Apollinaris; but
it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence. The very
language in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list
seems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers,
which he had not read or seen himself. Theodoret does not 'enumerate
other of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to
the reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing the sects of
the Severians and Montanists respectively, that Apollinaris had written
against them [243:1]. There is not the smallest reason why he should
have gone out of his way in either passage to speak of the work on the
Paschal Festival, supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where
else does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be made to
yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise? Nor
again does Jerome, in the passage to which our author refers in his note
[243:2], allude to a single work by this writer, but simply mentions him
by name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature.
Elsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings
[243:3], but there he simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius
again, the statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether
misleading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, which he
read during his embassy, but he does not profess to give a list; and he
says distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author
which he had not seen. Who the 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate
other of his works,' I am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last
sentence, 'Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria,
Irenæus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of the
treatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short fragments are
preserved. He does not mention any person in these, nor could he have
done so without going out of his way. For the rest, Clement is reported
by Eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it
by Melito's treatise on the same subject [243:4]. Eusebius is there
discussing Melito, and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite
out of place. What ground is there then for the assumption that Clement
did not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius has not recorded the fact?
When at a later point Eusebius comes to speak of Clement, he says of
this father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions
Melito and Irenæus and _certain others_, whose explanations also he has
given' [244:1]. Why may not Apollinaris have been included among these
'certain others' whom Clement quoted? The same fallacy underlies our
author's reference to Irenæus. The work of Irenæus is lost. Eusebius,
it is true, preserves some very meagre fragments [244:2]; but in these
not a single writer on either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is
mentioned, not even Melito. Irenæus may have quoted Apollinaris by name
in this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name in his extant
work on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius does not care to record
the fact. All this assumed silence of writers whose works are lost is
absolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the
_Paschal Chronicle_.

2. But secondly; our author considers that the contents of these
fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to Apollinaris. His
argument is instructive [244:3].

     It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the
     most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and his
     own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on the
     14th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the
     country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this
     fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert
     to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so vast
     and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised
     contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic Churches
     at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, and in
     doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates
     represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their
     fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John
     himself?

with more to the same effect.

I will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views
on the point at issue in the Quartodeciman controversy. Certainly I
cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is
here put. But what, if the writer of these fragments was not an
'isolated convert to the views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself?
What, if the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of
the last Supper, but of the Passion, so that Melito himself would have
heartily assented to the criticisms in these fragments? [245:1] This is
the obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in
Eusebius, and in Irenæus as quoted by Eusebius; and it gains
confirmation from these fragments of Apollinaris. It seems to me highly
improbable that Apollinaris should have been an exception to the
practice of the Asiatic Churches. So far I agree with our author. But
this is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the
Quartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the genuineness of
the fragments attributed to Apollinaris.

After this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief
representatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth while
to call attention to a statement of Irenæus in which he professes to
record the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting
the credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the chronology of our Lord's life
and ministry [245:2].

The Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, sought for
analogies to the thirty æons of their pleroma, or supra-sensual world,
in the Gospel history. Among other examples they alleged the thirty
years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the Gospel
chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by
themselves. At the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He
had completed His twenty-ninth and was entering upon His thirtieth year,
and His ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month, 'the
acceptable _year_ of the Lord' foretold by the prophet. Irenæus
expresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the
deep things of God should have overlooked the commonest facts of the
evangelical narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in St
John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of
the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenæus has an _à priori_ reason
of his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than thirty years. He
came to sanctify every period of life--infancy, childhood, youth,
declining age. It was therefore necessary that He should have passed the
turn of middle life. From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still
reckoned young (_juvenis_).

     But from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining
     into older age, which was the case with our Lord when he taught, as
     the Gospel and all the elders who associated with John the disciple
     of the Lord in Asia testify that John delivered this account. For
     he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of them
     saw not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard these same
     things from their lips, and bear testimony to such an account.

Irenæus then goes on to argue that the same may be inferred from the
language of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked: 'Thou art not yet
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' This, he maintains, could
not properly be said of one who was only thirty years of age, and must
imply that the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at
least, and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth.

On this passage it must be remarked that the Valentinian chronology was
derived from a _prima facie_ interpretation of the Synoptic narrative;
whereas the Asiatic reckoning, which Irenæus maintains, was, or might
well have been, founded on the Fourth Gospel, but could not possibly
have been elicited from the first three Gospels independently of the
fourth.

On this question generally I have spoken already in a former paper
[247:1]. Though it seems probable that our Lord's ministry was confined
to three years, yet there is not a single notice in any of the four
Gospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it extended over a much
longer period, and that He was some forty years old at all events at the
time of the Passion. The Synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing
about the interval which elapsed between the Baptism and the Passion. St
John mentions three passovers, but he nowhere intimates that he has
given an exhaustive list of these festivals. The account of Irenæus
therefore is not so unreasonable after all; and we need not have
hesitated to accept it, if there had been any definite grounds for doing
so.

It will be seen however, that Irenæus, while maintaining that our Lord
was forty years old, grounds his opinion mainly on a false inference
from John viii. 57. At the same time he adduces the testimony of the
Gospel and 'all the elders,' not for this particular view of our Lord's
age, but for the more general statement that He was past middle life;
and this vagueness of language suggests that, though their testimony was
distinctly on his side as against the Valentinians, it did not go beyond
this. It is very far from improbable indeed, that he borrowed this very
interpretation of John viii. 57 from one of these Asiatic elders, just
as we have seen him [247:2] elsewhere borrowing an interpretation of
another passage of this Gospel (xiv. 2) from the same source. But, as he
has here forced the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to say more than it
really does say, so also he may have strained the testimony of 'all the
elders' in the same direction. Yet the broad fact remains that he
confidently appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the
Fourth Gospel, but certainly not deducible from the Synoptic narratives.

And the extant remains of this school support the appeal so qualified.
We have seen that its two most famous authors, Melito and Apollinaris,
distinctly follow the chronology of the Fourth Evangelist, the one in
the duration of the Lord's ministry, the other in the events of the
Paschal week [248:1].

Of the special references to these fathers of the Asiatic Church, which
appear elsewhere in Irenæus, it is sufficient to say that in one
instance an elder is represented as quoting a saying of our Lord
contained only in the Gospel of St John [248:2] while the words ascribed
to another are most probably suggested by the language of the same
Evangelist [248:3]. This latter elder, whose speculations are given at
great length, also introduces two direct quotations from St Paul's
Epistles, and treats the Apostle's authority throughout as beyond
dispute [248:4].

The last father of the Asiatic school, whom it will be necessary to
mention, is POLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus. When Victor of Rome in the
closing years of the second century attempted to force the Western usage
with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians, Polycrates wrote to
remonstrate. The letter is unhappily lost, but a valuable extract is
preserved by Eusebius [248:5]. In this the writer claims to speak
authoritatively on the subject of dispute, owing to the special
opportunities which he had enjoyed. He states that he had received the
observance of the 14th by tradition from his relations, of whom seven
had been bishops; he says that he had conferred with the brethren from
all parts of the world; and he adds that he had 'gone through every holy
scripture.' When we remember the question at issue, and recall the
language of Apollinaris respecting the Gospels, in writing on the same
subject, we see what is implied in this last sentence. The extract,
which is short, contains only two references to the writings of the New
Testament. The one is to the Fourth Gospel; St John is described in the
very words of this Gospel, as 'he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord'
([Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Kuriou anapesôn]) [249:1]. The other is to
a book of the Pauline cycle, the Acts of the Apostles; 'They that are
greater than I,' writes Polycrates, 'have said, _We must obey God rather
than men_' [249:2].

We have now reached the close of the second century, and it is not
necessary to pursue the history of the School of St John in their
Asiatic home beyond this point. But in the meantime a large and
flourishing colony had been established in the cities of southern Gaul,
and no account of the traditions of the school would be adequate which
failed to take notice of this colony. This part of the subject however
must be left for a subsequent paper. Meanwhile the inferences from the
notices passed under review cannot, I think, be doubtful. Out of a very
extensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the
extant remains are miserably few and fragmentary; but the evidence
yielded by these meagre relies is decidedly greater, in proportion to
their extent, than we had any right to expect. As regards the Fourth
Gospel, this is especially the case. If the same amount of written
matter--occupying a very few pages in all--were extracted accidentally
from the current theological literature of our own day, the chances,
unless I am mistaken, would be strongly against our finding so many
indications of the use of this Gospel. In every one of the writers, from
Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed phenomena which bear
witness directly or indirectly, and with different degrees of
distinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical
ingenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An
objector may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery; in
a second, that the particular passage is an interpolation; in a third,
that the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the
Evangelist the copy; in a fourth, that the incident or saying was not
deduced from this Gospel but from some apocryphal work, containing a
parallel narrative. By a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie
beyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the
early existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple
postulate which explains all the facts. The law of gravitation accounts
for the various phenomena of motion, the falling of a stone, the jet of
a fountain, the orbits of the planets, and so forth. It is quite
possible for any one, who is so disposed, to reject this explanation of
nature. Provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every
new fact with which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will
then
                  "gird the sphere
          With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,
          Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,"

happy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail nevertheless by
reason of its simplicity.




VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL.

[AUGUST, 1876.]


In the preceding papers I have investigated the testimony borne by the
Churches of Asia Minor to the Canonical Gospels, and more especially to
the Fourth Evangelist. The peculiar value of this testimony is due to
the close personal relations of these communities with the latest
surviving Apostles, more particularly with St John. At the same time I
took occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards St Paul
and his writings, because an assumed antagonism between the Apostle of
the Gentiles and the Twelve has been adopted by a modern school of
critics as the basis for a reconstruction of early Christian history. I
purpose in the present paper extending this investigation to the
Churches of Gaul. The Christianity of Gaul was in some sense the
daughter of the Christianity of Asia Minor.

Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of the second
century we have no certain information. It seems fairly probable indeed
that, when we read in the Apostolic age of a mission of Crescens to
'Galatia' or 'Gaul' [251:1], the western country is meant rather than
the Asiatic settlement which bore the same name; and, if so, this points
to some relations with St Paul himself. But, even though this
explanation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later
tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is
impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies these
comparatively recent stories.

The connection between the southern parts of Gaul and the western
districts of Asia Minor had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul
was indebted for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like
Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries
before the Christian era; and close relations appear to have been
maintained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the people
of Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly along with the
vernacular Celtic of the native population and the official Latin of the
dominant power [252:1]. When therefore Christianity had established her
head-quarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the Gospel should
flow in the same channels which had already conducted the civilization
and the commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward.

At all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities,
the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A.D. 177, under
Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the
Rhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its
extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant
historical notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the
martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from
the persecuted Churches, addressed to 'the brethren that are in Asia and
Phrygia' [252:2]. The communities thus addressed, it will be observed,
belong to the district in which St John's influence was predominant, and
which produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in
the preceding papers--Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates.
Of the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall
speak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the very
fact of their addressing the communication to these distant Churches
shows the closeness of the ties which connected the Christians in Gaul
with their Asiatic brethren. Moreover, in the body of the letter it is
incidentally stated of two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia
Minor--Attalus a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from
Phrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul;' while
nearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs the most
conspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, who was more than
ninety years old when he suffered. A later tradition makes him a native
of Asia Minor [253:1]; and this would be a highly probable supposition,
even if unsupported by any sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from
unlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has
not preserved the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he
must have been a growing boy when St John died; and through him the
Churches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the full light of
history, are linked directly with the Apostolic age.

Immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these
distant parts of Christendom was manifested in another way. The
Montanist controversy was raging in the Church of Phrygia, and the
brethren of Gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted
points [253:2]. To this communication they appended various letters of
the martyrs, 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in
Asia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent Irenæus, then a
presbyter, as their delegate with letters of recommendation to
Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of conferring with him on this
same subject [253:3].

Some twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a close, another
controversy broke out, relating to the observance of Easter, in which
again the Asiatic Churches were mainly concerned; and here too we find
the Christians of Gaul interposing with their counsels. When Victor of
Rome issued his edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia
Minor, Irenæus wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion
however did not merely represent his own private views, for we are
especially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in Gaul over
whom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the Roman bishop alone, but he
exchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the Churches
concerning the question which had been stirred' [254:1].

Bearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we have a right
to infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most part inherited the
traditions of the Asiatic school of St John, we look with special
interest to the documents emanating from these communities.

The Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, already mentioned,
is the earliest of these. The main business of the letter is a narrative
of contemporary facts, and any allusions therefore to the Canonical
writings are incidental.

But, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the references to St
Paul, for instance, there can be no doubt. Thus the martyrs and
confessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that _the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
shall be revealed in us_,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in
the Greek is given _verbatim_ as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again,
they are described as 'imitators of Christ, _who being in the form of
God thought it not robbery to be equal with God_,' where in like manner
a sentence of twelve words stands _verbatim_ as we find it Phil. ii. 6.
No one, I venture to think, will question the source of these passages,
though they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation.
Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is
called 'the pillar and ground' ([Greek: stulon kai hedraiôma]) of the
Christians at Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or
that when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water,
received a revelation rebuking him for 'not using _the creatures of
God_, in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and _gave
thanks_ to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. These passages
show the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards St
Paul; but I have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation
which prevails in this letter, and thus indicating what we are to expect
in other cases.

From the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations analogous to
these.

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 Zachariou 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 Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover,
it is stated lower down of this same martyr, that he was 'called the
paraclete (or advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in
himself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This maybe compared
with Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy
Ghost.'

The meaning of the expression 'The testimony of Zacharias' ([Greek: tê
tou Zachariou marturia]) has been questioned. It might signify either
'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or
'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom. I cannot doubt
that the former explanation is correct; for the connecting particle
([Greek: goun]) shows that the assertion is intended to find its
justification in words which immediately follow, '_he walked in all the
commandments_,' etc. I need not however dwell on this point, for the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself adopts this rendering [255:1].
Yet with an inconsistency, of which his book furnishes not a few
examples, though he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently
ignores the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis
which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected.

An early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, who is
mentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between the temple and the
altar (Matt. xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the father of the Baptist.
And in the extravagant romance called the Protevangelium, which is
occupied mainly with the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the
Baptist's father is represented as slain by Herod 'at the vestibule of
the temple of the Lord' [256:1]. Our author therefore supposes that
these Christians of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some
apocryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of
Zacharias.

Whether this identification which I have mentioned is true or false it
is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again do I care to discuss
the question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it, and
so believed the Baptist's father to have fallen a martyr. I am disposed
on the whole to think that they did. This supposition, which however
must remain uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with
Vettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment as regards
the point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's Gospel has
(according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives) no
reference whatever to the martyrdom; and therefore affords no ground for
the assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any
account of or any reference to the death of the Baptist's father.

But, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification
(and this assumption, whether true or false, was very natural), our
Third Gospel itself does furnish such a reference; and they would thus
find within the limits of this Gospel everything which they required
relating to Zacharias. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ indeed
represents the matter otherwise; but then he has overlooked an important
passage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels which ought
surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how
the Fathers, 'utterly uncritical' though they were, should ever quote
any writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy, he says,
'There can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in
the Protevangelium, and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not
based upon Luke, _in which there is no mention of his death_' [257:1].
Here and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi.
51, 'the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the
temple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned in St
Matthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also.

But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third Gospel in
this way, 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?

Our author however does not stop here. He maintains that these same
writers quoted not only from a double of St Luke, but from a double of
St John also [258:1]. 'That was fulfilled,' they write, 'which was
spoken by the Lord, saying, _There shall come a time in which whosoever
killeth you will think that he doeth God service_,' where the words of
St John (xvi. 2) are exactly reproduced, with the exception that for
'There cometh an hour when' ([Greek: erchetai hôra hina]) they
substitute 'There shall come a time in which' ([Greek: eleusetai kairos
en hô]. This substitution, which was highly natural in a quotation from
memory, is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from
the Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to some
apocryphal gospel which has perished. No such gospel however is known to
have existed. Moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse
of the Fourth Gospel, and the expression itself is remarkable--far more
remarkable than it appears in the English version ([Greek: latreian
prospherein tô Theô]), not 'to do God service,' but 'to offer a religious
service to God'). I may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the
Paraclete, already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the
writers, and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence
with St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. Here, as
elsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not advance anything
which is demonstrably impossible, he may pile one improbability upon
another without endangering the stability of his edifice.

But even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive
this accumulation of improbabilities, it will appear absolutely
untenable in the light of contemporary fact. Irenæus was the most
prominent and learned member of the Church from which this letter
emanated, at the very time when it was written. According to some modern
critics he was the actual composer of the letter; but for this there is
no evidence of any kind. According to our author himself he was the
bearer of it [259:1]; but this statement again is not borne out by
facts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenæus was intimately mixed
up with all the incidents, and he cannot have been ignorant of the
contents of the letter. Now this letter was written A.D. 177 or, as our
author prefers, A.D. 178, while Irenæus published his third book before
A.D. 190 at all events, and possibly some years earlier. Irenæus in
this book assumes that the Church from the beginning has recognized our
four Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of _Supernatural
Religion_ maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before, at
the outside, the very Church to which Irenæus 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.

Here then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what must be the fate of
a writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts, when he comes to
deal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful
weighing of probabilities?

From this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and Lyons, we are
led to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican father, whose name has
already been mentioned several times, and who is the most important of
all witnesses to the Canonical writings of the New Testament.

The great work of Irenæus is entitled _Refutation and Overthrow of
Knowledge falsely so called_, and consists of five books. The third book
was published during the episcopate of Eleutherus, who was Bishop of
Rome from about A.D. 175 to A.D. 190; for he is mentioned in it as still
living [260:1]. It must therefore have been written before A.D. 190. On
the other hand it contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX
[260:2]; and Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published
till the reign of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). Unfortunately Epiphanius, the
authority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement,
contradicts himself in this same passage, which is full of the grossest
chronological and historical blunders [260:3]. No stress therefore can
be laid on his statement; nor indeed can we regard its truth or
falsehood as of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial
whether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of
Eleutherus. As the several books were composed and published separately,
the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has a right to suppose, though he
cannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written during the
episcopate of Victor (A.D. 190-198 or 199). But in his partiality for
late dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged.
If the fourth and fifth books 'must,' as he confidently asserts, have
been written some years after the third, it follows by parity of
reasoning, that the first and second must have been written some years
before it. Yet, with a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very
same sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the
latest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third must date
from that epoch [261:1].

With the respective dates of the several books however we need not
concern ourselves; for they all exhibit the same phenomena, so far as
regards the attitude of the author towards the Canonical writings of the
New Testament. On this point, it is sufficient to say that the authority
which Irenæus attributes to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Epistles of St Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the
Apocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate of the Church
Catholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats
them as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testament; he
cites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes them to the
respective authors whose names they bear; he regards them as writings
handed down in the several Churches from the beginning; he fills his
pages with quotations from them; he has not only a very thorough
knowledge of their contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with
and a recognition of them in his readers [262:1].

In the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his
Valentinian opponents directly from the Scriptures. This leads him to be
still more explicit. He relates briefly the circumstances under which
our Four Gospels were written. He points out that the writings of the
Evangelists arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He
shows that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved
by a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches can be
traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely
with the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. He maintains on the other
hand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent
growth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels
alone were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that this had
been so from the beginning. His Valentinian antagonists indeed accepted
these same Gospels, paying especial deference to the Fourth Evangelist;
and accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also
superadded other writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a
different type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the
exclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four Gospels
alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature
of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four
regions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church
therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be
supported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is
represented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as
four living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize
the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The
predominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are
four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is
therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number
of the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of
God, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel.

What is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine
that the documents which Irenæus regards in this light had been
produced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly
full-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken
their position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the
Prophets, as the very voice of God?

The author of _Supernatural Religion_ seems to think that no explanation
is needed. 'The reasons,' he writes, 'which he [Irenæus] gives for the
existence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the
Church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers,
and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments'
[263:1]. Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenæus,
but treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the
difference in, the world between the value of the same man's evidence as
to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of
his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy
analogies are _pro tanto_ an evidence of the firm hold which this
quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above
all, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of
Irenæus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is
unconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this
last consideration which led me to speak of Irenæus as the most
important witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and
to which I wish to direct attention.

The birth of Irenæus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell,
and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other
writers again have adopted intermediate positions. I must frankly say
that the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand,
those who have placed it as late as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on
the ground of the relation of Irenæus to Polycarp in his old age
[264:1], and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D.
167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered
A.D. 155 or 156 [264:2], it may be presumed that these critics would now
throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther
back, _i.e._ to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it
should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I
have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention [265:1], he was
probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a
matter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is,
that he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age
by two distinct personal links, if not more.

Of his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken [265:2]. Polycarp
was the disciple of St John; and, as he was at least eighty-six years
old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon
thirty when the Apostle died. Irenæus was young when he received
instruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as 'still
a boy,' in another as 'in early life.' If we reckon his age as from
fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the
expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all
events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's
conversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but
his very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he
remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and
other personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the
Lord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were 'altogether in
accordance with the Scriptures' [265:3].

But Irenæus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship
also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which
POTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the
latter in A.D. 177 or 178. With Pothinus therefore he must have had
almost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety
years old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St
John died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already
seen [265:4], that like Irenæus himself Pothinus came originally from
Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential
position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past
history of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which
we are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed
to the Evangelists and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he
could remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other
day, when he was already advanced in life.

In one passage in his extant work, Irenæus gives an account of
elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself
'listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been
disciples,' _i.e._ personal followers of Christ [266:1]. It seems most
natural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the
'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John
the presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under
the designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp more
especially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he
forms a third direct link of connection between Irenæus and the
Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of
Irenæus with him was frequent and intimate. 'The elder,' writes
Irenæus, 'used to say,' 'The elder used to refresh us with such
accounts of the ancient worthies,' 'The elder used to discuss.' Indeed
the elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated
in a former paper [266:2], that Irenæus is here reproducing notes of
lectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct
or indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not
concerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has
been said in a previous paper [266:3]. I wish now merely to call
attention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse
with this elder Irenæus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of
the earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic
writings.

Nor were these the only exceptional advantages which Irenæus enjoyed.
When he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his
testimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at
least. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle
life he stayed for some time in Rome, having gone there on an important
public mission [267:1]. Before and after this epoch he for many years
held a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover
actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in
all the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we
happen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on 'All the Heresies,'
delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a
diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and
dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such
letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less
elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant
work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced
him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately
concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the
Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to
remark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in
the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and
here again the relation between the narratives of St John and the
Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was
contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against
Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the
Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally
we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.

Thus Irenæus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness,
but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority.
All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by
denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and
Irenæus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box.

The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor
less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than
other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional
blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not
unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome
believes in the story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of
repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine
honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make
statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the
religion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias
may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an Ælian. The
work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On
the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian
fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several
excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen
contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance
with the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement
of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same
day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say
nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his
faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again,
the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of
Irenæus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which
emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may
appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many
monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations
among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as
elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a
gross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such
hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can
be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit
confidence, when their statements serve his purpose.

Now Irenæus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He
possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an
opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach
of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a
considerable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no
parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His
work is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His
traditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes
dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether
in his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who
refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate
Emperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly
superstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other
showing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenæus betrays
no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and
comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned.

And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The
recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact
which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in
previous writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the
Church repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version,
already existing when Irenæus published his work and representing the
Canon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these
only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before
him, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these,
and these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the
Alexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the
feet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in
Italy, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing,
on the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed
down by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence
of view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament
was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of
the fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides
in the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can
only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing
that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other
documents, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past
singled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a
position of exceptional authority.

One other remark on the testimony of Irenæus suggests itself before
closing. Irenæus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of
his work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject
of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are
either epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any
references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and
incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at
this early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the
Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old
Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the
martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous;
or apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of
the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him
to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the
Jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenæus is
the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of
Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And
here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.

If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to
read Irenæus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which
perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived
ideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be
accused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few
paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each
successive page of a long and elaborate work.




IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1].

[MAY, 1877.]


All that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an
Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers
call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common
confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be
accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his
life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this
capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards
Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As
a Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin
Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in
bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by
the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had
among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one
of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have
spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria
and the neighbouring countries.

After the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his
opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly
orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused
views closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his
new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But
he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more
especially the doctrine of Æons, which he derived from the Valentinian
school [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that,
'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's)
Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour,
and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2].
Where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian
thought lightly of St Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is
quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's
Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle
in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The
Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in
all respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been
corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our
author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St
Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some
[273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point
to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those
of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to
Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul.
At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of
marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must
therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them
must be rejected as spurious.

The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as
we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this
father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be
treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much
variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing
Justin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius;
but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended
towards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian
seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after
this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox
Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenæus wrote his first book,
Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of
this father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D.
190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if
we may assume that the 'Assyrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions
among his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we
have another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in
which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195;
and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters,
whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the
tuition of Pantænus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection
with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we
shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of
Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier,
or it may have extended some few years later.

Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the
ancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the
Greeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not
very long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed
before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a
heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain
chronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it
as 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to
acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years
too late, the point is not worth contending for.

As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the
Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles,
who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred
books, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus
the _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from
the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with
quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work
that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the
Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards
our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such
that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and
accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.

The passages are here placed side by side:--

          TATIAN.                    |           ST JOHN.
                                     |
'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma
Theos]), § 4.                        | ho Theos]), iv. 24.
                                     |
'And this then is the saying         | 'And the light shineth in the
([Greek: to eirêmenon]); The         | darkness, and the darkness
darkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not'
([Greek: hê skotia to phôs ou        | ([Greek: kai hê skotia auto ou
katalambanei]), § 13.                | katelaben]), i. 5.
                                     |
'Follow ye the only God. All things  |'All things were made through
have been made by Him, and apart     | Him, and apart from Him was
from Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta
([Greek: panta hup' autou kai chôris | di' autou egeneto kai chôris
autou gegonen oude hen]), § 19.      | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3.


In the last passage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek:
oude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated
in this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following
sentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.'

Besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with
which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be
disputed.

It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these;
and yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them.

The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says
nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have
regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it
is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.

Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it
with the expression ([Greek: to eirêmenon]), which is used in the New
Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40,
Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be
'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'
that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused
perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously
'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the
Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its
most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian
are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying
of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand,
the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this
coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back
on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and
other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not
touch the point of the resemblance.

On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth
Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but
then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo]
for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author
also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any
language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like
the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the
coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are
extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation
which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.

So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere
does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative
evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability
that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances
as in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain.

It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the
Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance
of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a
Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the
name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in
question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary
therefore to examine the witnesses:--

1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian
composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the
Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai
sunagôgên ouk oid' hopôs tôn euangeliôn suntheis to dia tessarôn touto
prosônomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day.'

This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on
the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is
altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the
writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]) regarding
them' [278:1].

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 [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work
which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself
quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but
disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of
Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall
see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat
strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal
literature, should have remained unacquainted with it.

2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural
Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of
Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of
the foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new
converts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with
the Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It
seems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed
this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly
read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a
_Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence
however it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its
neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is
obviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is
assigned to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth
or sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to
have been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore
must have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good
reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to which
Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with
Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore
cannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At
the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements
respecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it
much earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may
be its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_,
adopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the
Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this
work however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from
other sources. Nor is it far to seek.

3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers,
Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a
commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius
Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and
died A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as
follows [280:2]:--

     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.

This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two
older works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by
Tatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a
later date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about
A.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in
his _Letter to Carpianus_, prefixed to his Canons. 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 the parallel passages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The
principle of the one work 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 [281:2]. When therefore he
relates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian,
he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that
the _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it
was therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose
it for commenting upon.

It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two
_Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that
confusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this
particular author, who shows himself in this passage altogether
trustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or
Mr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate?

4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father
Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the
year 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see
till his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote
his treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:--

     He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_,
     cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other passages as show
     the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.
     This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect,
     but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did
     not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in
     all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more
     than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our
     parts ([Greek: tais par' hêmin ekklêsiais]). All these I collected
     and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four
     Evangelists.

The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his
diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1].
The proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its
circulation in these parts.

It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical
character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials
before Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a
judgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any
reasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here
mentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the
same which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of
_Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this
_Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is
unnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the
intelligence of the reader.

Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending
to the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in
common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the
fifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a
compilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise
and convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists
themselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could
commence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which,
as we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in
the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for
otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but passages which
offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies,
were excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice
under cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in
itself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what
might have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially
mentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1].

In this general convergence of testimony however, there are two
seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean.

1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of
the fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D.
374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been
composed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_'
[284:2].

Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This
_Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct
evangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this
Gospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was
exclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this
assertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian.
But this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its
contents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne
some resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he
meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is found
literally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether
characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters
not) he assigns it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his
Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel
according to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different
document. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was
constructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it
resemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions,
and additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the
Hebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not
answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the
genealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all
copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More
especially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of
Christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this
Gospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His
Messianic claims.

How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple
blunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface
his pages. He had not seen the _Diatessaron_: this our author himself
says. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of
Syria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in
these same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the
identification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the
broadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of
the Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in
the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author,
who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony
of all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence
of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an
Epiphanius.

2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of _Supernatural Religion_, 'was
not only called _Diatessaron_, but according to Victor of Capua, it was
also called _Diapente_ ([Greek: dia pente]) "by five," a complication
which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its
composition.'

This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the
actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does
not himself call it _Diapente_, but says that Eusebius called it
_Diapente_. This makes all the difference.

Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], 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.

But we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which
commences as follows:--

     Ex historia quoque ejus (_i.e._ Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir
     eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor
     compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum _Diapente_ imposuit.

Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he
repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's _Diatessaron_, except what
Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius
before us, and find that Eusebius does not call it _Diapente_ but
_Diatessaron_. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without
exception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was
probably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS
belonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was
made by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text
of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself,
who knew Greek, says _ex quatuor_, which requires _Diatessaron_, and the
work which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages
from our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written
_Diapente_ himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the
blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2].

Thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our
author, [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical
theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's
Diatessaron [287:3].

       *       *       *       *       *

[The actual _Diatessaron_ of Tatian has since been discovered, though
not in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the
subject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and
scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (_The Diatessaron of Tatian_
1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found.
Ephraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of
this Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836.
I had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and
the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might
throw light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew
that it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I
did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift
its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered
enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by
Moesinger under the title of _Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a
Sancto Ephraemo doctore Syro_ Venet. 1876, just about the time when I
wrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years
after. Later still an Arabic translation of the _Diatessaron_ itself has
been discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (_Tatiani Evangeliorum
Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc._, 1888). On the relation of Victor's
_Diatessaron_, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent
of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's
_Diatessaron_. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which
was supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be
unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all
be abandoned.]





APPENDIX


_The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural
Religion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same
Review, I have given it a place here._




DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

[MAY, 1878.]


In a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the
Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (_bien réellement_)
Luke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work
he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the
later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the
author, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with
the rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding
from a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the
authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as
it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when
attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be
out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative
which recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords
so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of
contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and
topography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the
year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the
large mass of evidence already existing.

1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly
dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus
assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman
dominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of
provincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a
proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an
imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of proprætor ([Greek:
antistratêgos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutês]). Thus the use of the terms
'proconsul' and 'proprætor' was changed; for, whereas in republican
times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had
previously held the offices of consul and prætor respectively at home,
they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the
provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the
governors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the
provinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant
modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and
military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to
the Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an
imperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be
impossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact
historical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a
proconsul or a proprætor. The province of Achaia is a familiar
illustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to
Corinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a proprætor. Just
at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler
therefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke.

Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same
accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had
charged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their
mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later
forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official
designations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this
writer, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the
Emperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two
provinces of Asia and Africa but prætors to the rest on their
list,--among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the
conclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of Cyprus would be
called a proprætor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus,
though a prætorian province, was often handed over _honoris causa_ to
be administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore
that Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a
solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by
flatterers on an official whose proper designation was proprætor. The
error illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less
dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and
Africa, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two
consuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to
send ex-prætors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces
under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and
unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented
the Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held
previously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2].

The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly
stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces
(B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the
historian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in
the first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus
and Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in
exchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in
question (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer.
'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also'
[294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the
Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample
evidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of
proconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of
Claudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed
the province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a
third, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a
later date, under Hadrian, we come across a proprætor of Cyprus
[294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of
the province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the
close of the same century (A.D. 198)--under Severus--it is again
governed by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition.

Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established;
but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul
mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's
inscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of
parts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given
as [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.'
On this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus
of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the
suppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the
suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently,
thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the
proconsul of this inscription.

Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that
'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned
elsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the
first book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one
Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not
this have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have
observed, only one other person bearing it [295:1]--probably a
descendant of this Cyprian proconsul--is mentioned, of whom I shall have
something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later.
Only one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny
is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that
writer. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it
would be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir
Rutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the
opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his
Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had
resided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books
of Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably
be explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the
second book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to
the situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of
Venus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book
again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives
some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and
the bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book,
in which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the
last-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they
are early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the
list. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which
contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we
should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of
this kind.

From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to the Sergius
Paulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius
(A.D. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three
or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius
Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.D. 150, and was
hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.D. 168 (on this latter
occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held
the Prefecture of the City [296:1]. He is probably also the same person
who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a
Christian martyrdom [296:2]. This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many
features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike
are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive
disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may
suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with
the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to
the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the
Apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of
Galen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as
well as in philosophical studies;' he is especially mentioned as a
student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen
interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust
the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two
accounts. The same expression, 'who is also Paul' ([Greek: ho kai
Paulos]), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts,
and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of
criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author
of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen; and conversely I
have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But if so,
the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find
favour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely
furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms
so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is
suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us
as 'Sergius who is also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in
the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus
simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in
which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name
Paulus only.

2. The transition from General Cesnola's _Cyprus_ to Mr Wood's _Ephesus_
carries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of St
Paul. Here, again, we have illustrative matter of some importance. The
main feature in the narrative of the Acts is the manner in which the
cultus of the Ephesian Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's
sojourn in that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would
hardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing
collection [297:1]. We seem to be reading a running commentary on the
excited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are informed that
'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the
goddess, and statues erected and altars consecrated to her, on account
of the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' ([Greek: tas hup' autês
geinomenas enargeis epiphaneias]); that 'the greatest proof of the
reverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name, being
called Artemision among ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians
and the other nations of Greece and their respective cities;' that
during this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held,
and more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own
Ephesian goddess' ([Greek: tê trophô tês idias theou tês Ephesias]); and
that therefore 'the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet that
the whole of this month which bears the divine name ([Greek: ton
epônumon tou theiou onomatos]) should be kept holy, and dedicated to the
goddess,' has decreed accordingly. 'For so,' concludes this remarkable
document, 'the cultus being set on a better footing, our city will
continue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time.' The sense
of special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame, which
pervades the narrative in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than
by this decree. But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly
enhance the effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as 'the
great goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 'the
supremely great goddess ([Greek: hê megistê theos]) Artemis.' To her
favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. She has
not only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her essenes, her
divines ([Greek: theologoi]), her choristers ([Greek: humnôdoi]), her
vergers ([Greek: skêptouchoi]), her tire-women or dressers ([Greek:
kosmêteirai]), and even her 'acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of
these terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her;
endowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images; decrees
are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her birthday is
again and again mentioned. She is seen and heard everywhere. She is
hardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the Great Theatre. This
last-mentioned place--the scene of the tumult in the Acts--is brought
vividly before our eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears
as the recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed,
and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the
leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against
St Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by
memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the
'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion, 'What man is there
that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the
great goddess Artemis?' he had only to point to the inscriptions which
lined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones would have cried out
from the walls in response to his appeal.

Nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by St Luke
less complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned in the
narrative--the Roman proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), the governor of
the province and supreme administrator of the law, translated 'deputy'
in our version; the recorder ([Greek: grammateus]) or chief magistrate
of the city itself, translated 'town-clerk;' and the Asiarchs ([Greek:
Asiarchai]), or presidents of the games and of other religious
ceremonials, translated 'the chief of Asia.' All these appear again and
again in the newly-discovered inscriptions. Sometimes two of the three
magistracies will be mentioned on the same stone. Sometimes the same
person will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch,
either simultaneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially
frequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix
every date.

But besides these more general illustrations of the account in the Acts,
the newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in
the narrative. Thus where the chief magistrate pronounces St Paul and
his companions to be 'neither sacrilegious ([Greek: hierosulous]) nor
blasphemers of our goddess' [299:1], we discover a special emphasis in
the term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing
to the mutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the special
offences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess.
'Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' ([Greek: estô hierosulia
kai asebeia]), says an inscription found in this very theatre [300:1],
though not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke. So again,
where the same speaker describes the city of Ephesus as the 'neocoros,'
the 'temple sweeper,' or 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we
find in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this
term so applied. Though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of
general application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of Ephesus on
coins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of other Asiatic
cities), it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity, but of
the Roman emperors. In this sense Ephesus is described as 'twice' or
'thrice sacristan,' as the case may be, the term being used absolutely.
There was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed
also to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible but
highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a
mutilated inscription [300:2]. By a highly probable but not certain
interpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin [300:3].
There were analogies too which supported it. Thus the Magnesians are
styled on the coins 'sacristans of Artemis' [300:4]; and at Ephesus
itself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of
Artemis' [300:5]. Nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled
itself 'the nurse of Artemis' should also claim the less audacious title
of 'sacristan' to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty;
and (so far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr Wood's
inscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the city of the
Ephesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the Augusti according to
the decrees of the Senate and sacristan of Artemis' [301:1].

One other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, desirous of
pacifying the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms of law. 'If
Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, 'have a matter against any
one, assizes are held, and there are proconsuls [301:2]. Let them indict
one another. But if you have any further question (_i.e._, one which
does not fall within the province of the courts of justice), it shall be
settled in the lawful (regular) assembly.' By a 'lawful (regular)
assembly' ([Greek: ennomos ekklêsia]) he means one of those which were
held on stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to
those which were called together on special emergencies out of the
ordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be equally
'lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in which the words
were uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful.' It provides
that a certain silver image of Athene shall be brought and 'set at every
lawful (regular) assembly ([Greek: kata pasan nomimon ekklêsian]) above
the bench where the boys sit' [301:3].

With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient
literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial
times--the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and
perseverance of Mr Wood--comparable for its life-like truthfulness to
the narrative of St Paul's sojourn there in the Acts.

I am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient Christian
writer, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, writing to the
Ephesians from Smyrna in the early years of the second century, borrows
an image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity, where the
statues, sacred vessels, and other treasures, of the temple are borne in
solemn procession. He tells his Christian readers that they all are
marching in festive pomp along the Via Sacra--the way of love--which
leads to God; they all are bearers of treasures committed to them,--for
they carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their sacred things,
in their heart [302:1]. The image was not new. It is found in Stoic
writers. It underlies the surname Theophorus, the 'God-bearer,' which
Ignatius himself adopted. But he had in his company several Ephesian
delegates when he wrote; and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us
that the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh
impulse at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most
important inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of
numerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the temple of
Artemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endowment for their
custody. In one of these (dated A.D. 104) it is ordained that the
treasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple
to the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly, and at the
gymnastic contests, and on any other days that may be directed by the
Council and the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming
the procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass through
the length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate and leaving by
the Coressian [302:2].




[FOOTNOTES]


[1:1] _Supernatural Religion; An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine
Revelation._ Two Vols. Second Edition, 1874. [Subsequent editions are as
follows, Third and Fourth Editions (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions
(1875), Third Volume (1877), Complete Edition, in Three Vols. (1879).]

[3:1] Iren. v. 36. 1, 2.

[4:1] _S.R._ II. p. 328 sq.

[4:2] _Canon_ p. 63, note 2.

[4:3] The Greek is [Greek: Einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs
... kai dia touto _eirêkenai ton Kurion_ en tois tou patros mou monas
einai pollas k.t.l.]

[4:4] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs:
'But ... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.]

[5:1] [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]

[5:2] [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's
subsequent explanation is considered.]

[5:3] [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (II. p. 328 n. 3), but
objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too
positive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see
below, p. 53 sq.]

[5:4] Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of
'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting, "say they."'
Tischendorf's words 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
are not Irenæus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any
idea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has
suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this
treatment of Tischendorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The language is
modified in ed. 4 (II. p. 326) 'Tischendorf renders the oblique
construction of the text by inserting "say they" referring to the
Presbyters of Papias,' where the point of grammar is silently conceded.]

The reader may compare _S.R._ II. p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy
with which the "Great African" proceeds is all the better illustrated by
the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually
defines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never
existed etc.... he actually repeats the same charge on two other
occasions.'

[6:1] _S.R._ II. p. 334.

[6:2] [On the wording of this footnote in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is
omitted in ed. 6, where see II. p. 333.]

[6:3] [See further on this subject below, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]

[7:1] _c. Cels._ i. 8.

[7:2] _c. Cels._ viii. 76.

[7:3] _S.R._ II. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) II. p.
229 sq.]

[7:4] There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which
our author has not quoted, [Greek: allo suntagma ... en hô didaxein
epêngeilato.]

[8:1] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 46).]

[8:2] [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (II. p.
63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as [Greek:
pollachôs] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houtô makarizetai ... hoti
opsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.]

[8:3] [[Greek: to rhêma] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but
[Greek: zêtêsantes] still remains 'they who inquire' (ii. p. 265).]

[8:4] II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.]

[8:5] II. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.]

[8:6] I. p. 448, comp. p. 455. [The latter passage is struck out in ed.
6 (see I. p. 455); the former becomes 'committed no error'. See below,
p. 163.]

[8:7] II. p. 384.

[8:8] [But in ed. 6 (II. p. 384) I see that my translation is tacitly
substituted.]

[8:9] [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see below, p. 129), but corrected in
ed. 6, which also omits the first clause.]

[9:1] [Other errors in translation are given below, p. 129.]

[9:2] I. p. 113. The last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in
the first edition (I. p. 103). Thus the passage has undergone revision,
and yet the author has not discovered the contradiction. [The author's
own explanation of this discrepancy is given below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (I.
p. 113) the sentence ends, 'and it is argued that it was probably a
later interpolation,' while in the Complete Edition (I. p. 113) it is
further qualified 'argued by some.']

[10:1] II. p. 421. [The argument in favour of the genuineness is
expanded in the Complete Edition (II. pp. 419-423).]

[10:2] [See below, p. 163 sq.]

[11:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. [And so throughout all the editions.]

[11:2] [See below, p. 111.]

[11:3] i. pp. 444-485.

[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.]

[12:1] I. p. 441.

[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.]

[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.]

[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, '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' ['seem
to us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author
had read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence
would doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by
arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.'

[13:1] II. p. 411.

[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different
purpose later on (II. p. 416).

[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred
to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: "And thou didst try them
which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them
false."' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No
result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis ... than the fact
that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' _i.e._, after St Paul's
death. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one
definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between
the two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands
of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this
extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English
review of high character.

[14:2] 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the season of persecution arrived,
and the constancy of Christians was tested in this very way, St Paul's
own principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from
even apparent complicity in idolatrous rites. There is every reason
therefore to believe that, if St Paul had been living when the
Apocalypse was written, he would have expressed himself not less
strongly on the same side. On the other hand these early Gnostics who
are denounced in the Apocalypse seem, like their successors in the next
generation, to have held that a Christian might conform to Gentile
practices in these matters to escape persecution. St Paul combats this
spirit of license, then in its infancy, in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians.

[14:3] [On the diction of the Fourth Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.]

[14:4] II. p. 445.

[15:1] [_The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_
(1872). Macmillans.]

[15:2] Our author (II. p. 444) speaks of 'the works of imagination of
which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is
recognized by all.' Is this a true description of the world in the early
Christian ages? If not, it is nothing to the purpose.

[15:3] II. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress on the _difference_ of theme.
[See below, p. 131 sq.]

[15:4] [He does however mention the term elsewhere; see below, p. 123.]

[15:5] II. p. 468, and elsewhere.

[16:1] II. p. 451.

[16:2] [These passages are added without comment in the Complete Edition
in a note on II. p. 453.]

[16:3] [On this point see below, p. 131.]

[17:1] II, p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, 271. [The statement stands
unchanged in the Complete Edition (II. p. 474 sq).]

[17:2] [See further, p. 99 sq.]

[17:3] II. p. 421. 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'
['evident' ed. 6] 'that there was no such place [as Sychar, [Greek:
Suchar]], 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 sq.
Our author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch _Zeitschr. f.
Luth. Theol._ 1856 p. 240 sq. He cannot have read the article, for these
Talmudic references are its main purport.

[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133
sq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.]

[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete
Edition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).]

[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).]

[19:1] II. p. 423 sq.

[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht für nöthig
gefunden, den Täufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes
auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistês] zu
unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25,
26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).'

[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124
sq.]

[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459.

[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which
Dr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileidês, kan Glaukian
epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermênea].

[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets
were inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been
worth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After
having been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is
cut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).]

[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123
sq.]

[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.]

[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.]

[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.]

[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57.

[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.).

[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135.

[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq.

[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's
conclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac,
and Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace
with its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer
must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to
which he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the
whole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's
critical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the
suggestion, that the name of the fabulist Æsop is derived from
Solomon's "_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33:
_Die Sprüche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq.

[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which
depends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of
Celsus (II. p. 228), etc.

[25:3] [See further, p. 141.]

[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.]

[27:1] II. p. 484.

[27:2] II. p. 487 sq.

[27:3] II. p. 486.

[27:4] II. p. 487 sq.

[27:5] II. p. 489.

[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490.

[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv.

[30:1] II. p. 492.

[30:2] II. p. 492.

[30:3] II. p. 492.

[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to
the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have
occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations
from the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here
quoted.

[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27.

[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432.

[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the
statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I
find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop
of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the
Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to
this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is
very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar
veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated
to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these
two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Cæsarea, in the
preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias
maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in
other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness
of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the
acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore
have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics,
I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.

[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6
(I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition
(p. xxi).]

[35:1] I. p. 435.

[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]

[35:3] II. p. 320.

[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p.
318).]

[35:5] I. p. 483.

[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of
this expression see below, p. 183 sq.]

[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]

[35:8] II. p. 322.

[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]

[35:10] II. p. 323.

[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the
sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the
work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']

[35:12] II. p. 164.

[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.]

[36:1] II. p. 166.

[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in
the Complete Edition.]

[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ tôn
kata chronous ekklêsiastikôn sungrapheôn _hopoiais kechrêntai_ tôn
antilegomenôn, _tina te peri_ tôn endiathêkôn kai homologoumenôn graphôn
kai _hosa peri_ tôn mê toioutôn autois eirêtai.] The words spaced will
show the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references
or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record
of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike.
The double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is
incapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect
the question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of
Irenæus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle
to the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and
Apocalypse alike.

[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this
Essay see below, p. 178 sq.]

[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24.

[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of
economising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which
the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that
they are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been
confused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a
clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It
must be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the
amount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I
refer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved
by Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies.

[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5.

[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223.

[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the
Apostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel?
Of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikôs]
concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made
parties ([Greek: proskliseis]).

[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37.

[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16.

[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33.

[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12.

[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8.

[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29.

[41:6] _Rom._ 4.

[41:7] _Ephes._ 12.

[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius
generally.

[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36.

[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16.

[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4.

[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc.

[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6.

[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages.

[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14.

[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36.

[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66.

[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I.

[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18.

[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24.

[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq.

[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22.

[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474.

[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24.

[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq.

[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6.

[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8.

[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26.

[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26.

[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18.

[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20.

[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14.

[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1.

[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1.

[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.

[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.

[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483.

[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later
editions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition
(1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however,
which survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending
note.]

[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341.

[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.]

[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62.

[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66.

[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.]

[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.]

[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised
some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier
and later editions.

[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th
[1874].

[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.]

[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.]

[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.]

[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.]

[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views
at the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has
stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven
Vossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness
will be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S.
Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he
refers his readers.]

[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263.

[62:1] I. p. 269.

[62:2] I. p. 270.

[62:3] I. p. 274.

[63:1] I. p. 274.

[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the
preface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.]

[63:3] I. p. 263 sq.

[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn
Bunsen_, Tübingen, 1848.

[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz
einverstanden' with Baur's view.

[64:3] _Apostol. Väter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq.

[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861).

[64:5] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 50.

[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636.

[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers,
supposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170.

[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr.
Recens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq.

[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862).

[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works,
where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
letters.

[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 28 (ed. Churton).

[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in
Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's
_Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted
by Jacobson, are taken.

[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error
in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p.
260 in that edition.]

[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is
given.

[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his
references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I
confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for
themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however
'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]

[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).

[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9.

[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at
Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi.

[72:1] I. p. 264.

[72:2] I. p. 265.

[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions,
and is imbedded 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.

[73:2] I. p. 262.

[73:3] p. 164.

[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: egô ginôskô nun archomai
mathêtês einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but
are wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences.

[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269.

[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267.

[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von
Antiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered
by anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I
venture to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to
have attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important
contribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since
Cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn
defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.

[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.)

[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere
coepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem
refrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut
fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum
eis.'

[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12.

[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no
longer a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon
tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathêkas tinas kai
paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi toutô presbeutas tôn hetairôn
echeirotonêse nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This
description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of
Ignatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonêsai_ tina ...
hos dunêsetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders
reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp
when he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly
Lucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and
believed by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from
the pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by
burning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the
credulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to
have had at least a superficial acquaintance.

[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the
Epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such
circumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles
are more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a
soldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still
greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in
parts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton,
has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian
Letters.

Our author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian
Letters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227.
Even the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as
many hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty,
Ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his
guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than
weeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at
every stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two
stages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written
either at Smyrna or at Troas.

[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the
meaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._
5.

[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268.

[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the
fourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published
separately.

[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq.

[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.).

[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a
different time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53.

[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the
other by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those
of the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have
no independent value, being compacted from these two.

[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's
_Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq.

[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhältniss des Textes der drei Syrischen
Briefe etc._ p. 7.

[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.).

[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the
latter by Zahn, p. 67.

[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found
in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the
credibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traïanou], is
treated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S.
Polycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).]

[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.]

[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered
down (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire
for another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti]
is substituted for [Greek: philoülon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per
materiam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation,
but has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from
the Greek.

[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq.

[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aïdios, ouk] apo
sigês proelthôn.]

[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245.

[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in
the _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq.

[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq.

[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoêkonta kai hex etê echô douleuôn
autô]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek:
echô douleuôn] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuô].

[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere);
Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p.
958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18.

[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D.
170-180).

[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq.

[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii.
31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given
reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the
Apostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.

[91:5] Papias, _l.c._

[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1.

[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4.

[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4.

[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Præscr. Hær._ 32.

[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4.

[93:2] _ib._ § 8.

[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq.

[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain
writings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_
(§ 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or
others like him (§ 3).

[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been
much disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the
fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament,
but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I
find the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr.
2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE.
FECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be
hazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son
of a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of
Domitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of
Christianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the
name _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some
dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian
princes.

[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi.

[94:3] _Phil._ §10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10,
xii. 9.

[95:1] _Phil._ § 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et
nolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,'
evidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26.

[95:2] _ib._ § 1. [Greek: hon êgeiren ho Theos lusas tas ôdinas tou
hadou], from Acts ii. 24.

[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]

[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference
to Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the
coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt.

[96:1] _Phil._ § 8.

[97:1] [Greek: tôn autoptôn tês zôês tou Logou.] I would gladly
translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i.
1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek
order. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text.
The Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living
Word.'

[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20.

[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to
Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe
_Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there
were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2)
considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the
imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a
courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenæus could hardly have
expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The
succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost
entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones
obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._
7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years
of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of
John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his
return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rhéteur Ælius
Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early
part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is
too late for our purpose.

As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a
conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia
(Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or
three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne,
and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite,
and Irenæus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in
a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a
visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the
circumstances.

[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.

[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek:
parechôrêse tên eucharistian.]

[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.

[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.

[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.

[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe_ p. 263.

[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.

[103:3] See his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rhéteur Ælius
Aristide_ in the _Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202
sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's
_Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_.

[104:1] _L'Antéchrist_ p. 566.

[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188
(1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.

[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.

[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional
guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of
Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiæ conventu legitur.'

[108:1] _Phil._ § 5.

[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly
correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a
careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in
the ordinary theological language of the two writers.

[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]

[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence
with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to
another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid
on the occurrence of these few obvious words.

[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).

[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]

[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]

[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the
thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as
worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must
have been [Greek: tôn met' autou].

[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.

[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq.
[See also below, p. 189.]

[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 3.

[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]

[115:2] The words of Irenæus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos
Markiôni pote eis opsin autô elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496)
remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of
time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding
sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident
from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.

[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.

[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 7.

[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.

[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.

[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian
letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.

[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come
([Greek: elêluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that
confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing
the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be
[Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: mê
homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of
Irenæus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32)
says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of
Irenæus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts
clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to
conceive that the very simple [Greek: mê homologei] would be altered
into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all
events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably
from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it
well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in
Irenæus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per
multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere
eos praecepit dicens' etc.

[119:1] Die ältesten Zeugnisse p. 41.

[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.

[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.

[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.

[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.

[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.

[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Præscr. Hær._
33.

[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references
there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum
quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens
Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with
the context.

[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of
his martyrdom (§ 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai
pro tês polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in
Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tês
marturias].

[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Väter_ p. 273) evidently feels this
difficulty, and apologises for it.

[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's
note.

[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.

[124:1] See above, p. 20.

[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.

[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.

[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.

[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the
language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his
footnote is too clear to be misunderstood.

[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning,
but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not
pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a
quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first
last" ([Greek: outôs esontai oi eschatoi prôtoi kai oi prôtoi
eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of
the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite
false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange
to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the
famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears
twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30,
it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last,
and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.

[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.

[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that
St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course,
to which a passing reference is sufficient.

[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]

[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.

[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.

[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]

[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.

[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]

[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he
'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên
diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the
construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my
mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not
for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was
nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's
'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of
'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more
especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural
Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong
justification I had for taking this view.

[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.

[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been
made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a
correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the
earlier editions.

[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of
the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf
and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc....
His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the
critical point in question Irenæus passes from the direct to the
indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the
infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no
means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such
phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply
denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to
throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to
fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is
combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship
upon himself.'

This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.

[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.

[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.

[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These
two examples ... Commentaries of Cæsar.']

[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]

[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]

[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire
whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same
idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author
assumes in his reply.

[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]

[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.

[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.

[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]

[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been
later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been
superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware,
which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight
years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is
only a probability.

[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]

[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in
regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in
Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on
the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic
Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four
editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly
Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read
'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By
'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by
the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect
like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._,
Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.

[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.

[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]

[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.

[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference
should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before
this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains
unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the
Complete Edition.]

[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition
substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']

[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.

[136:2] John iv. 35.

[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]

[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.

[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]

[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]

[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.

[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on
a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may
be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand
himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that
he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as
applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions
may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly.
No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity
in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble
passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In
another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his
anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and
beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from
the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to
conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this
wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged
himself from it.

In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the
writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a
believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand
Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes
will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of
personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a
belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God
who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of
the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with
these beliefs.

[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Iôannou men akoustês, Polukarpou de
hetairos gegonôs].

[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk oknêsô de soi kai hosa pote
para tôn presbuterôn kalôs emathon kai kalôs emnêmoneusa sunkatataxai]
[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermêneiais, diabebaioumenos huper
autôn alêtheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the
notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise
stated.

[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.

[145:1] _Hær._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3;
v. 36. 1, 2.

[145:2] _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenæus.' Clement
of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantænus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.

[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.

[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.

[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated
at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office
throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent
writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von
Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das
Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are
distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings
Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent
wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that
it is not likely to find much favour.

[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the
Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied
to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.

[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.

[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.

[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.

[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the
last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_
gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still
living.

[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.

[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used
any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the
extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.

[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the
Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The
source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.

[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.

[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I
wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but
I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony
points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in
_Colossians_ p. 45 sq.

[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.

[150:1] See above, p. 90.

[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third
book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the
fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin
Martyr and events connected with him.

[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te
Aristiôn kai ho presbuteros Iôannês ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143],
and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living
when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a
chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a
historic present introduced for the sake of variety.

[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.'
Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second
half of the second century.'

[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307);
Irenæus _Hær._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr.
Carn._ 24.

[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ § 15.

[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.

[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.

[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel;
_H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.

[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hên to kat' Hebraious euangelion
periechei].

[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of
Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite
the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot
have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses
authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it
in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553).
'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute
line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even
illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by
that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation.
_Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts
would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of
the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not
know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well
acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to
render this very doubtful.

[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii sôtêri].

[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.

[153:3] Boeckh 3817.

[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kühn).

[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7;
_Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p.
16.

[153:6] See above, p. 142.

[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.

[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in
the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr.
Græc._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given);
the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where
again only the Latin 'celebris' is given).

[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural,
'Exposition' ([Greek: exêgêsis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exêgêseis]),
I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias
uses [Greek: logiôn], not [Greek: logôn], 'oracles,' not 'words' or
'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakôn logiôn], not [Greek: logiôn
tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall
have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are
significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than
if he had used the alternative expressions.

[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq.

[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it
is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little
importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of
information regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq.

[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8.

[156:3] See below, p. 160.

[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154.

[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes,
was not [Greek: exêgêsis] but [Greek: diêgêsis], which Eusebius uses
several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39.

[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das
Papias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to
the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such
violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of
violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon,
and that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words
[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parêkolouthêkôs], which occur several lines
below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermêneiais] 'the interpretations
belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in
the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced
impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact
will still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_.
Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the
two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared,
Hilgenfeld and Leimbach.

[158:2] Hær. v. 33. 1 sq.

[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the
looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenæus,
does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines
features from all the three.

[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his
interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld
in his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p.
238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq.
But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical
conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical
narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in
little esteem.

[160:1] _Hær._ Præf. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to
make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings]
by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek:
exêgêseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to
wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek:
dia tês exêgêseôs].

[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.

[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of
the Naassenes; _Hær._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous
discourses ([Greek: pollôn panu logôn]), which they say that James,'
etc.

[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied
several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the
writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.

[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his
_History of the Canon_ p. 288.

[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.

[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly
instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's
view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found
it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the
disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as
ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete
Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they
had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere
collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the
Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author
practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which
elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and
as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other
words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical
records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he
cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author
himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at
all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did
not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from
these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of
books is intended, as I have explained in the text.

[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would
appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I
pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated
[Greek: ouden hêmarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,'
thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the
result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in
the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus
writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.

[165:1] I. p. 456.

[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete
Edition.]

[166:1] I. p. 459.

[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the
Complete Edition.]

[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.

[167:3] I. p. 447.

[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from
its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenæus, ii. 22.
5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem
seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes
seniores testantur, qui in Asiâ apud Joannem discipulum Domini
convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis
usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et
alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur
de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have
enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.

[169:1] I. p. 474.

[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]

[171:1] I. p. 465.

[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng.
Transl.), where there is more to the same effect.

[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse
Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine
blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollständiges Evangelium lässt schon
Papias den Matthäus hebräisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq,
454 sq.

[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenæus did not derive his information
solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by
Pantænus in certainly independent of Papias.'

[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.

[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.

[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]

[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555).
Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books
(of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chrêsmoi]) pronounced ([Greek:
chrêsthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different
kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).

[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].]
Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis
tas graphas].

[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.

[174:4] Iren. _Hær._ i. 8. 1.

[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p.
392.

[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. § 6
(III. p. 447).

[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).

[175:3] See p. 163.

[176:1] I. p. 466.

[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logôn]
for [Greek: logiôn] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading
of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument;
but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek:
logiôn].

[177:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.

[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of
Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural
Religion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.

[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the
Preface to this Reprint.]

[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.

[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]

[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]

[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore
proposes--however precise.']

[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.

[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]

[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.

[182:1] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 11. 1.

[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is
scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the
facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about
the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,'
etc.

[182:3] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 1. 1.

[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.

[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.

[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.

[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]

[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]

[184:3] II. p. 166.

[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]

[184:5] I. p. 483.

[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]

[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]

[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.

[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for
the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me)
unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June
[1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of
_Supernatural Religion_.

[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.

[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of
Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514
sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an
unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_,
that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an
extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts
however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on
all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.

[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which
is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit
ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert
'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped
out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem,
prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek:
kai autos, kathôs hêdunato parakolouthein, outôs ethêke, k.t.l.]), 'And
he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of
following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage
is quite independent of any textual conjectures.

[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek tôn mathêtôn],
where [Greek: mathêtês], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and
Irenæus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who
had been taught directly by Christ.

[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a
single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when
some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum
si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet
ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot
help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta
propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legôn eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts
forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle
also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly
attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former
part of the sentence.

[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great
importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary
Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of
its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a
substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this
Gospel was composed.

[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II.
p. 323.

[191:2] See above, p. 49.

[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]

[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.

[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note
is omitted in the Complete Edition.]

[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]

[194:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 36. 1, 2.

[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]

[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in
his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly,
though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they
teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But
he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other,
in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek:
en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making
[Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from
[Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be
aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see
Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the
elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are
mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in
paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage
runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia
enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum
verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things
are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word
says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to
all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a
paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.

A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher
stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether
this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after
(p. 332), I find the work of Irenæus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of
the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenæus and
Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed.
II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked
into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_
was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the
treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such
errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special
revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page
to be 'carefully revised.'

[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).

[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).

[196:1] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1.
Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of
lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on
Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures
of Irenæus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils
taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed.
Kühn). The discourses which Irenæus reports from the lips of this
anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate,
that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to
account for them.

[197:1] See above, p. 143.

[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.

[198:1] See above, p. 158.

[198:2] Iren. _Hær._ v. 6. 1.

[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.

[199:2] See above, p. 143.

[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]

[200:2] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).

[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views
as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a
philosophical allegory, and Irenæus, who regards it as a supramundane
abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are
both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main
point which he has in view.

[201:1] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.

[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.

[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from
Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence
seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be
very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse,
emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this
shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p.
186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign
this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who
mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).

[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.

[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55.

[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.

[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.

[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.

[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.

[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]

[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.

[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.

[208:1] Euseb. _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome,
who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist.
120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui
evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam
_sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non
_sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'

[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.

[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.

[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis
anapempsantes _anankaiôs_ nun prosthêsomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek:
tauta d' hêmin _anankaiôs_ pros tois ektetheisin epitetêrêsthô].

[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by
Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until
attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7
sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._

[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be
found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.

[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).

[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the
result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About
the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and
announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.

[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog.
Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of
fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._
(1875), p. 258.

[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was
suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have
inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which
Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6
(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepôkasi de potêrion kai to baptisma
ebaptisthêsan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Hêrôdês men apekteinen
Iakôbon ton Iôannou machaira, ho de Rhômaiôn basileus, hôs hê paradosis
didaskei, katedikase ton Iôannên marturounta dia ton tês alêtheias logon
eis Patmon tên nêson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this
passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus
mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error
which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John
Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).

[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237
(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes
Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in
the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a
later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of
the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in
_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.

[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly
substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's
suggestion of the spurious Papias.

[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by
the Palæographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.

[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Græc. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder),
[Greek: haireseôn anaphueisôn deinôn hupêgoreuse to euangelion tô
heautou mathêtê Papia eubiôtô] (_sic_) [Greek: tô hierapolitê, k.t.l.].

[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsâ
(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].

[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]

[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]

[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Cæsarea will be found in Routh _Rel.
Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the
Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name.
Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It
seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though
he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony
of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use
by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that
Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant
his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the
Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had
mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was
said by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en
hupodeigmasi].

[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]

[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius
(_Hær._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with
special reference to the Gospel, by Irenæus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus
wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which
was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that
Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.

[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.

[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote
about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons
some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was
really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868);
and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether
this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii.
28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The
important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq,
1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from
Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the
identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.]

[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.

[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.

[218:1] See above, p. 189.

[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tês
Hellados, ho Iônikos].

[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.

[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.

[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.

[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.

[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.

[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.

[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.

[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.

[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.

[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 1.

[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 6 [Greek: ho keklêrômenos to auto onoma,
Hêrôdês epilegomenos], where [Greek: keklêrômenos] (not [Greek: kai
klêronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,'
_i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.

[221:2] _ib._ § 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the
expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.

[221:3] _ib._ § 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi hupêrchon].

[221:4] _ib._ § 8.

[221:5] _ib._ § 7 [Greek: hos epi lêstên]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark
xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.

[221:6] _ib._ § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.

[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are
not serious. See above, p. 103.

[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.

[222:1] John xii. 28.

[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. § 5.

[222:3] _ib._ § 12 [Greek: edei gar to tês ... optasias plêrôthênai hote
... eipen, k.t.l.]

[222:4] John xii. 33.

[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iêsou plêrôthê, hon
eipen sêmainôn k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when
the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch
says (§ 12), [Greek: _mê einai exon_ autô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case,
the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hêmin ouk exestin_
apokteinai oudena.]

[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16 [Greek: exêlthe [peristera kai] plêthos
haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words
[Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka]
according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted
altogether as in the text of Eusebius.

[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.

[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 15.

[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.

[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16.

[223:2] _ib._ § 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.

[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.

[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and
Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p.
507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.

[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.

[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antôninon biblidion].
The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally
accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.

[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[224:2] See above, p. 218.

[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_
speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error
survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete
Edition].

[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts
relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise
stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the
works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences
are not important enough to be considered here.

[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the
Syriac fragments.

[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.

[227:1] See above, p. 177.

[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against
the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.

[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn
apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared
with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' autôn
apomnêmoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].

[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.

[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in
Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.

[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.

[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.

[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.

[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.

[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Græc._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.

[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.

[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in
Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.

[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered
this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this
makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I
have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have
disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction
between [Greek: phonê] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the
second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as
Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this
distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek:
phonê boôntos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].

[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is
well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.]
'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or
Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to
state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the
early Church bearing the name of Melito.

[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 61 (p. 284).

[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 34 (p. 251).

[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).

[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).

[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences
in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.

[237:1] See above, p. 202.

[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.

[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.

[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.

[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts
relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.

[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.

[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.

[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollôn para pollois sôzomenôn, ta
eis hêmas elthonta esti tade.]

[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera
sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.]

[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).

[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.

[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.
p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius,
_l.c._

[240:1] [See above, p. 17].

[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many
been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the
third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives
references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh,
apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to
reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel.
Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont,
where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of
Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p.
91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers
in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria
is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the
question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is
reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._
p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not
mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be
added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the
Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see
Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of
Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment
from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition
of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are
tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the
text.]

Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a
witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same
authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage
bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an
Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the
Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without
hesitation.

[242:1] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.

[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete
Edition.]

[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.

[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'

[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.

[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.

[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.

[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]

[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent
discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the
Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it
should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what
Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris
([Greek: to alêthinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne
testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself
taking the opposite view.

[245:2] Iren. _Hær._ ii. 22.

[247:1] See above, p. 131.

[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]

[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of
Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not
[Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some
adversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental
confirmation of the statement of Irenæus respecting the Asiatic elders.

[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this
elder with Papias.

[248:3] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.

[248:4] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27 sq.

[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.

[249:2] Acts v. 29.

[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in
Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards.

[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1.

[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may
be read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.

[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Mémoires_ II. p. 343.

[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3.

[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4.

[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated
'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find
substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption
of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition
(II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is
substituted for the above, and defended at some length.]

[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44.

[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom,
_which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out
instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New
Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues
throughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers
was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]

The _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded
partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are
borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken
(_e.g._ §§ 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is
most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51,
the writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's
father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned
to the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about
the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the
more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of
§ 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx.
25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which
Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we
have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other
portion of the work.

[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381.

[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons]
some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and
Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events
which had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by
Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenæus] was
deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of
Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their
sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete
Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenæus is made the
bearer of the Epistle.

This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the
Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution,
which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenæus was
certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which
Irenæus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist
controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence
recommending Irenæus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained
references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb.
_H.E._ v. 3, 4.

[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3.

[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1.

[260:3] _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus
Pius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M.
Aurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus
likewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next,
and was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus
translated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign
of the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the
before-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his
translation; with more of the same kind. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also
assigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year
A.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that
he repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed.

I should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that
even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but
it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him
just where it would be most in place.

[261:1] _S.R._ II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of
the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the _first
three books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written,
and the rest _must_ be assigned to a later period under the episcopate
of Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics
are my own.

[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case,
then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection
with Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons]
and our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way
indicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary,
in association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to
events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled
elsewhere. It follows clearly, and _few venture to doubt the fact_, that
the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not
to our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I
have disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is
still more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any
interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the
facts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those
extraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former
occasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth
Gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics
the least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by
Hilgenfeld (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die ältesten
Zeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is
considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in
the Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third
Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a
Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.']

[263:1] _S.R._ II. p. 474.

[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en tê
prôtê hêmôn hêlikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar
paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu
gêraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage
suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life,
Irenæus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to
mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenæus saw
him, since the words [Greek: panu gêraleos] refer, not to the period of
their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a
parallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine
gar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus
limited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily
imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage
are taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenæus der Bischof von Lyon_ p.
15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenäus geboren_ p. 622 sq
(in _Stud. u. Krit._ 1873), in answer to Ziegler.

[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq.

[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1.

[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq.

[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.

[265:4] See above, p. 253.

[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq.

[266:2] See above, p. 196, note.

[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq.

[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself
(II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenæus remained in
Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat
protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the
various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc.

There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The
notice at the end of the Moscow MS of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_,
recently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875, p.
362 sq), states that Irenæus, 'being in Rome at the time of the
martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his
writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice
announcing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some
foundation in fact.

[267:2] Photius _Bibl._ 121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where
these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only
as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood,
the metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct
evidence.

[267:3] [See above, p. 219.]

[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an
intelligent author like Tacitus (_Hist._ v. 1. sq). It is related, he
says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time
when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence
called _Iudæi, i.e. Idæi_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being
over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their
chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He
states it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores
consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their
temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious
springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days
continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where
they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this
he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of
thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively
venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity _Semo Sancus_ for
_Simo Sanctus_, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.

[270:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553.

[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.]

[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the
following:--Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1;
Rhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12,
p. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29;
Epiphanius _Hær._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20. The statements
in the text are justified by one or other of these references.

[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in this article
will be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq.

[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's
comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p.
686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli
epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli
pronuntiandam credidit.'

[274:1] Hort (_Journal of Philology_, iii. p. 155 sq, _On the date of
Justin Martyr_) places it as early as A.D. 148.

[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1.

[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq.

[274:4] Clem. Alex. _Strom_. i. 1 (p. 322).

[275:1] See Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 116 sq, where this point is
brought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve
of the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it.

[277:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 29.

[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I.
p. 150.]

[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15,
44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8,
56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59.

[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's
posthumous volume, _Ancient Syriac Documents_ p. 6 sq (London, 1864),
from MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire
by Dr Phillips, _The Doctrine of Addai_ (London, 1876), from a St
Petersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the
word is corrupted into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton
conjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (see pp. 15; 158), and
his conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly
so reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (_Lettre
d'Abgare_, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of the _Trinity_ is
substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if
so, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of
Capua, mentioned below.

[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083.

[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13.

[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Götting. Gelehrte
Anzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to
accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work
itself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages
containing these anachronisms are interpolations.

[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the
British Museum (Wright's _Catalogue_ p. 947) as 'Ann. Græc. 684.'

[280:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should
be warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading.
More correct renderings are given here.

[281:1] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammônios men ho
Alexandreus ... to dia tessarôn hêmin kataleloipen euangelion, tô kata
Matthaion tas homophônous tôn loipôn euangelistôn perikopas paratheis,
hos ex anankês sumbênai ton tês akolouthias heirmon tôn triôn
diaphtharânai, hoson epi tô huphei anagnôseôs]--_i.e._ '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.'

[281:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 158. See Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_
p. 77.

[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without
difficulty:--

(i) Bar-Hebræus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem.
_Bibl. Orient._ i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Cæsarea, seeing the
corruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of
the _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, which commenced, _In the
beginning was the Word_, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four
Gospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from
the language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of
Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood
him, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the
coincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear
that the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this
interpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus
obliterated the resemblance.

(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the
beginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but
the men. He writes (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which
was compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and
he called it _Diatessaron_.' He too supposed the two independent
sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to
his collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's
work which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum
evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum
scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis
admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo
cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta
fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script.
Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).

(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes.
Syr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made)
from the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in
Alexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of
Alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with
Ammonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul
flourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice
were really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this
confusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown
by accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can
never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original
compiler.

Since writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr
Hoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611,
_i.e._, A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as
it is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through
Professor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul.
Thus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than
Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language.

[282:1] _H.E._ i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who
flourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian
omitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869
sq.

[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze).

[283:2] Zahn (_Gött. Gel. Anz._ p. 184) points out that Aphraates also,
a somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used this
_Diatessaron_. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And
Christ is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in
the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour--_In the beginning was the
Word._' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337.

[284:1] Epiphan. _Hær._ xlvi. 1.

[284:2] See the reference in the last note.

[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome
relating to it, will be found in Westcott's _Introduction to the
Gospels_ p. 462 sq.

[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is
given.

[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq.

[286:1] _Patrol. Lat._ lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish
translation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more
than once; _e.g._ by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841).

[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained
this by inquiry.

[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (_Einleitung_ p. 79);
and curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is
consistent with the facts.

[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has
been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]

[291:1] _Les Apôtres_ p. xviii.

[291:2] _Les Évangiles_ p. 436.

[292:1] xvii. p. 840.

[293:1] Sub ann. 46.

[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. i. p. 294 sq. Even
De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to
Strabo Cyprus was governed by proprætors,' and he therefore supposes
that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands
uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.

[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12.

[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4.

[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr.
Græc._ 2631, 2632.

[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's
_Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 39.

[294:4] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription
discovered by Mr Wood.

[294:5] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 218.

[294:6] Cesnola's _Cyprus_ p. 425.

[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous
writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two
others--the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen--whom he
describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is
a mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as
consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year
94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of
Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first
time, as suffectus, _i.e._ about A.D. 150. See Marini _Atti e Monumenti
de' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces
Asiatiques_ p. 731.

[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1
(_Op._ ii. p. 218, ed. Kühn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tês
Rhômaiôn poleôs, andros ta panta prôteuontos ergois te kai logois tois
en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Prænot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p.
612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun
chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tês poleôs, kai
Phlabios, hupatikos men ôn êdê kai autos, espeukôs de peri tên
Aristotelous philosophian, hôsper kai ho Paulos, hois diêgêsamenos,
k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho
Paulos] in Kühn and other earlier printed editions which I have
consulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by
Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading
rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense;
for (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct
from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that
plainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage
Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as
of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho]
altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii.
p. 504.

[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des
Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.]

[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Græc._ 2954. The first sentence which I
have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document
bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our
own day.

[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated
'robbers of churches.'

[300:1] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 14.

[300:2] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neôkorôn tôn Sebastôn,
monô]n hapa[sôn] de tês Artemidos.]

[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESIÔN
TRIS NEÔKORÔN KAI TÊS ARTEMIDOS.]

[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153, _Suppl._ vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.

[300:5] Xen. _Anab._ v. 3, 6.

[301:1] _Inscr._ vi. 6, p. 50.

[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hêmerai]] [Greek:
agontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there
are deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court
days are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second
clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as _e.g._ in Euripides
(_Iph. Taur._ 1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from
the land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek gês xoana
kai thuêpolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess.

[301:3] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 38.

[302:1] Ign. _Ephes._ 9.

[302:2] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 42.





INDICES.


I.  INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
II. INDEX OF PASSAGES.




INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Aberle, 210, 213 n

Abgarus, 279

Achaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292

_Acts of Peter_, 37

Acts of the Apostles;
  Eusebius' method with regard to, 46;
  used by Polycarp, 95;
  by Polycrates, 249;
  ascribed by Irenæus to St Luke, 44;
  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 257;
  Renan on its authorship, 291;
  recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq

Addai; see _Doctrine of Addai_

Ælian, credulity of, 269

Æsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n

African martyrs, 76, 83

Agathonice, 148

Alcibiades, 254

Alexander, 253

Alford, 9, 294, 295 n

Alogi, 215 n

Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7

Ammonius of Alexandria;
  his date, 280;
  his Harmony of the Gospels, 280;
  Eusebius' account of it, 280;
  its scope distinct from Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;
  but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq

Anastasius of Sinai;
  his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq;
  quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq

Andreas of Cæsarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214

Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193

Anger, 165

Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102

Anthropomorphism, 139 n

Antinomianism, 119 sq

Antioch;
  Trajan at, 79;
  Antoninus Pius at, 98 n;
  earthquake at, 79 sq

Antoninus Pius;
  proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n;
  his movements as emperor, 98 n

Aphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 283 n, [288]

Aphthonius, 280

Apion, as a critic, 269

Apocalypse;
  its date, 14 n, 132;
  its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq;
  the term Logos in, 15, 123;
  supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq;
  the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n;
  its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47;
  Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq;
  Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214;
  Justin Martyr, 43, 216;
  Irenæus, 45, 47, 216;
  Eusebius, 144;
  the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq;
  notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216;
  in Melito, 47;
  his commentary on it, 216;
  in the Muratorian Canon, 216;
  in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216;
  in Apollonius, 47

_Apocalypse of Peter_, 37, 47

Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis;
  a contemporary of Melito, 237;
  his date, 237 sq;
  his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238;
  his orthodoxy, 238 sq;
  his writings, 238, 242 sq;
  Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq;
  his _Apology_, 237;
  his work against the Montanists, 238, 243;
  against the Severians, 243;
  on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq;
  the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq;
  not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245;
  but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq;
  genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq;
  references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240;
  to the Fourth Gospel, 240;
  follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248;
  mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237;
  his prominence in the School of St John, 218

Apollonius;
  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47;
  extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n

Apologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275

Arethas, 201

Arianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69

Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270

Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266

Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n

Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq

Asia Minor;
  imperial visits to, 98;
  the proconsulate of, 293;
  the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n;
  its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252

Asia Minor, the Churches of;
  importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq;
  Apostles resident in, 91, 217;
  episcopacy in, 84, 218;
  solidarity of, 102;
  the arena of controversy, 84, 219;
  literary activity of, 219, 249;
  testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249;
  the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249;
  intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq;
  Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n

Asiarchs, 222 n, 299

Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq

Assemani, 280 n, 281 n

Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80

Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254

Aubertin, 66, 67

Augustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq


Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13

Bar-Ali, the lexicographer;
  his date, 282 n;
  mentions Tatian, 282 n

Bar-Bahlul;
  his date, 282 n;
  Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n

Bar-Hebræus;
  his date, 281 n;
  confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n

Bar-Salibi;
  his date, 280;
  his testimony to Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq

Barnabas, Epistle of;
  its date, 177;
  quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227;
  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;
  Chiliasm in, 151

Baronio, 293

Basil (St), 175

Basilides;
  his date, 85, 161;
  his work _On the Gospel_, 161;
  fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161;
  his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219;
  the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85;
  his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123

Basnoge, 66, 67

Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n

Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69

Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70

Beausobre, 68, 69

Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126

Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171

Blondel, 66, 67

Bochart, 66, 67, 83

Böhringer, 65

Borghesi, 296 n

Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66


Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66

Carpus, 148

Capitolinus, 98 n

Casaubon, 66, 67

Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n

Cerinthus;
  encountered by St John, 101, 212;
  his separationism, 118;
  attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118;
  according to Irenæus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182;
  the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215;
  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219;
  confused with Marcion, 210, 212

Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297

Chemnitz, 65, 66

Chiliasm;
  of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n;
  of the early Church generally, 151

Christian literature;
  compared with the classics as regards external evidence for
    documents, 82;
  plagiarisms in, 202

Christian martyrs;
  coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220;
  zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq

Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq

Christology;
  of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;
  of Cerinthus, 118;
  of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;
  of Polycarp, 106, 108;
  of Justin Martyr, 235;
  of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq

Christ's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq

_Chronicon Paschale_; see _Paschal Chronicle_

Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80

[Ciasca, 288]

Claudius Apollinaris; see _Apollinaris_

Clemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n

Clement of Alexandria;
  coincidence in the name, 94 n;
  a pupil of Pantænus, 274;
  perhaps of Melito, 218, 224;
  perhaps also of Tatian, 274;
  quotes from Tatian, 273 n;
  his wide learning, 269;
  compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269;
  his travels, 270;
  his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270;
  to St Mark, 167;
  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
  to the labours of St John, 218;
  accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel
    and Apocalypse, 216;
  employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47;
  the Epistle of Barnabas, 47;
  the _Apocalypse of Peter_, 47;
  the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152;
  quotes Basilides, 161;
  his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq;
  date of his _Stromateis_, 274;
  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174

Clement of Rome;
  his name, 94 n;
  probably a Hellenist Jew, 94;
  and a freedman, 94;
  his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89;
  scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110;
  Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179;
  its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49;
  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;
  its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n;
  his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105;
  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;
  the story of the phoenix in, 268;
  his place in modern German theories, 24

Clementines;
  as a romance, 15;
  Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n;
  quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52

Cook, 66, 67

Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n

Cramer's _Catena_, 201

Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186

Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272

Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n

Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq;
  see also _Ignatian Epistles_

Cyprian; his correspondence, 76;
  accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216

Cyprus;
  its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq;
  the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294;
  source of Pliny's information regarding, 295;
  proconsuls and proprætors of, 294;
  recent excavations at, 291 sq

Cyrrhestice, 282, 283


Dallæus, 65, 114

De Wette, 9, 293 n

Decian persecution, 76

Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136

Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301

Denzinger, 63, 71

_Diapente_, 279 n, 285 sq

_Diatessaron_; see _Tatian_

Dion Cassius, 293

Dionysius of Alexandria;
  his critical insight, 167;
  assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216;
  but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216

Dionysius of Corinth;
  his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227;
  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184

Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n

_Doctrine of Addai_;
  discovery of the document, 278 n;
  its subject, 278;
  its date, 279;
  its country, 279;
  noticed in Eusebius, 279;
  mentions Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 278;
  the Armenian version, 279

Dodwell, 98 n, 264

Dogma and morality, 27 sq

Donaldson, 241 n

Dressel, 80 n

Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36


Ebionism;
  no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42;
  nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq;
  nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq

Edessa, 278 sq

Elders;
  quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq;
  by Irenæus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq;
  who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq;
  identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266

Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261;
  Irenæus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n

Elias of Salamia;
  his _Diatessaron_, 280;
  his name Aphthonius, 280

Encratites;
  Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243;
  Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284

Ephesus;
  St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq;
  other Apostles at, 91;
  Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq;
  cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq;
  the great theatre at, 298 sq;
  the designation of magistrates, 299;
  the title neocoros, 300;
  the lawful assemblies, 301;
  image-processions at, 301 sq;
  gates of, 302

Ephraem of Antioch, 172

Ephraem Syrus;
  date of his death, 280;
  his commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;
  [an Armenian version discovered, 287]

Epiphanius;
  date of his work on _Heresies_, 284;
  his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n;
  his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n;
  his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285;
  confuses Tatian's _Diatessaron_ with the _Gospel according
    to the Hebrews_, 284

Episcopacy;
  in the time of St John, 218;
  in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84;
  stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107;
  especially in the Vossian Letters, 87;
  the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61;
  not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122;
  prominent in the writings of Irenæus, 122

Ernesti, 68

Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq

Eusebius;
  sources of his history, 32 sq;
  his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq,
     190 sq, 215 sq;
  tested on extant literature, 40 sq;
  what his silence means, 32 sq;
  its value as a direct testimony, 51;
  his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209;
  his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209;
  on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82;
  on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq;
  his estimate of Papias, 209;
  on John the Presbyter, 143 sq;
  his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228;
  nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242;
  dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225;
  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245;
  attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209;
  for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208

Evagrius, 80

Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204

[Greek: epi Traïanou], 81

[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189

[Greek: exêgêsis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq;
  and [Greek: diêgêsis], 157 n


Fathers, early;
  compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq;
  considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268;
  the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works
    accounted for, 33, 271;
  explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237

Felicitas, 83

Florinus;
  a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq;
  Irenæus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n;
  date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq;
  his subsequent history, 98

Four Gospels;
  that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270;
  in Irenæus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;
  in Eusebius, 39

Fourth Gospel;
  its spirit, 13;
  its Hebraic character, 14;
  the minuteness of its details, 14 sq;
  the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq;
  compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq;
  in Christology, 15 sq;
  the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267;
  compared with the Synoptists in chronology and
    narrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq;
  the relation of the Paschal controversy to this
    question, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267;
  historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq;
  the personality of its author, 18 sq;
  association of others with him in the work, 187;
  anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;
  probably dictated, 187, 214;
  its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq;
  testimony given by the growth of various readings
    and interpolations, 9 sq, 52;
  by the commentary of Heracleon, 52;
  the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41;
  of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq;
  of the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_, 221 sq;
  of the elders in Irenæus, 48;
  of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq;
  of Claudius Apollinaris, 240;
  of the School of St John generally, 249 sq;
  of the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 258;
  of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq;
  of Origen, 216;
  of Gaius, 216 n;
  Irenæus on its purpose, 48, 182;
  quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;
  significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq;
  ascribed to Cerinthus, 215;
  its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220


Gaius;
  on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47;
  of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n;
  his date, 216 n;
  his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n

Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq

Gallican Churches;
  a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq;
  intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq;
  persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq;
  their letter to the brethren in Asia and
    Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271;
  its date, 259;
  scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq;
  their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253;
  their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq

Gaul, called Galatia, 251

Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq

Gfrörer, 69

Glaucias, 21

Gnosticism;
  the development of antinomian, 119;
  the literature of, 160 sq;
  the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202;
  the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268;
  the scene of the conflict with, 219;
  attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119;
  in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119;
  in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq;
  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
  an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219

Gobarus, 12

_Gospel of Peter_, 37

_Gospel according to the Hebrews_;
  see _Hebrews, Gospel according to the_

Gospels;
  see _Matthew's (St) Gospel_, _Mark's (St) Gospel_, _Luke's (St) Gospel_,
    _Fourth Gospel_, _Four Gospels_

Grabe, 98 n

Griesbach, 68, 69

[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n]


Hadrian, 98

Hagenbach, 68

Harless, 69

Hase, 70

_Hebrews, Gospel according to the_;
  employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183;
  by other fathers, 152;
  perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153;
  Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq;
  translated by Jerome, 203, 285;
  statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152;
  confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285;
  with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 284;
  distinct scope of the last-named work, 285

Hebrews, Epistle to the;
  in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52;
  the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49;
  of Irenæus, 46, 47;
  of Gaius, 47

Hefele, 63

Hegesippus;
  his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39;
  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185;
  his attitude towards St Paul, 12;
  towards tradition, 155;
  employs the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 47, 183

'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n

[Hemphill, 287, 288]

Henke, 68

Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52

Hermas, the _Shepherd_ of;
  its devotional character, 271;
  hence does not quote Scripture, 271;
  the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq;
  quoted by Irenæus, 45, 47, 184

Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221

Heumann, 68

Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224

Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172,
            176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n

Hippolytus;
  pupil of Irenæus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;
  probably at Rome, 267 n;
  opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219;
  defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n;
  plagiarisms of, 202;
  plagiarisms from, 216 n;
  Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161;
  his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n

Hitzig, 24 sq

Hoffmann, 282 n

Hort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n


Ignatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93;
  three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60;
    documents, 60;
    date of the forgery, 60;
  (2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq;
    MSS and Versions, 61;
    history of their discovery, 61;
  (3) Curetonian Epistles, 61;
    their discovery, 61;
    questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistles
       are prior, 61;
    the view of _S.R._, 63, 74;
    the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq;
    arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from
  (i) the Armenian Version, 60;
    a translation from the Syriac Version of the
         Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86;
  (ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86;
    the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters
           answered, 60, 71, 72 sq;
    the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq;
  (B) whether any form is genuine, 61;
    denied by _S.R._, 62, 74;
   (i) internal evidence considered,
    (_a_) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;
    (_b_) the journey to Rome, 79 sq;
    (_c_) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82;
    (_d_) supposed anachronisms, 83;
    (_e_) evidence of style, 84;
   (ii) external evidence, 82;
     result, 84, 88;
    relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq;
    argument from silence, 84 sq;
    limit of their date, 85;
    arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq;
    result, 88, [59 n];
    scriptural quotations in the, 41;
   Eusebius' method tested on the, 41;
   theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq;
   Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;
   a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302

Ignatius; the name Theophorus, 302;
  his letters (see _Ignatian Epistles_);
  his journey to Rome, 59;
  its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111;
  his route, 93, 113;
  his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;
  his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113;
  the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq;
  his zeal for martyrdom, 82;
  not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;
  date of his martyrdom, 59;
  days of commemoration of, 79;
  extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80

Irenæus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264;
  a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq;
  his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n;
  represents three Churches, 267;
  his connexion with the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 259;
  sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267;
  at Rome more than once, 267 n;
  his lectures there, 267;
  his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;
  date of his episcopate, 97;
  his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100;
  his literary activity, 267;
  date of his _Refutation_, 259, 260;
  the first great controversial treatise, 271;
  its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271;
  his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261;
  Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184;
  importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq;
  appeals to the elders (see _Elders_);
  his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq;
  to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182;
  to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;
  to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;
  to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq;
  his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262;
  his controversial treatises, 267;
  his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219;
  on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267;
  on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246;
  on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq;
  on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216;
  on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101;
  on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116;
  on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n;
  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172;
  his Chiliasm, 151, 197;
  his evidence for episcopacy, 122;
  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;
  his literary obligations to Papias, 202;
  to Melito, 236 sq;
  considered as a critic, 268 sq

Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n

Jerome;
  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285;
  on the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 42, 152, 208, 285;
  on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n;
  on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n;
  on Apollinaris, 242, 243

Jerusalem, results to the Christian Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217

John (St);
  at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq;
  his church organisation, 218;
  the founder of a school, 217 sq;
  the repositary of Apostolic doctrine and practice, 218;
  his encounter with Cerinthus, 101, 212;
  his connexion with Polycarp, 89, 92;
  with Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 210 sq;
  with his namesake John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 187;
  his longevity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246;
  a story of his martyrdom explained, 211 sq;
  traditions respecting him, 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;
  see also _Fourth Gospel_

John (St), the Epistles of;
  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 46 sq;
  two mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, 190;
  the First Epistle employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 191 sq, 220;
  by Papias, 49, 154, 186, 190 sq, 206, 220;
  by Irenæus, 45;
  a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 186 sq, 190, 220;
  the evidence of Papias, and of the Muratorian Canon, to this
    fact, 189, 206

John Malalas;
  represents Ignatius as martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;
  his historical blunders, 80 sq, 214, 269, 285;
  on a visit of Antoninus Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n

John the Baptist;
  his designation in the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq;
  his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq;
  the [Greek: phônê], 232 n

John the Presbyter;
  in Asia Minor, 91;
  his connexion with Papias, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266;
  with Pothinus, 266;
  with the Apostle St John, 143 sq, 187

Judith, date of the book of, 25 n

Julian, the Emperor, 270

Justa, the Syrophoenician, 129

Justin Martyr;
  his pupil Tatian, 272, 274;
  his accuser Crescens, 148, 272;
  his martyrdom, 148, 274;
  the account in Eusebius, 150;
  his evangelical quotations, 43;
  looseness of his quotations from the O.T., 12, 43;
  his lost writings, 33;
  Eusebius' method tested upon his extant works, 43;
  his Chiliasm, 151;
  his error as to Simon Magus, 268;
  his Logos doctrine compared with Melito, 235;
  his references to the Virgin Mary, 236;
  his evidence to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 43;
  to the public use of the Gospels, 227


Kestner, 68, 69


Lampe, 68

Lardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 109 n, 241 n

Lechler, 70

Leimbach, 158 n, 264 n

Linus, 45

Lipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n

Logos;
  the expression common to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 15;
  as distinct from [Greek: phônê], 232 n;
  the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 86 sq;
  in Justin Martyr, 235;
  in Valentinus, 86;
  in Melito, 232, 234 sq;
  in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87;
  its importance a characteristic of the second century, 235

Lucian;
  illustrates the Ignatian Epistles, 76 sq;
  the Epistle of Polycarp, 77 n

Luke's (St) Gospel;
  the source of Marcion's Gospel, 8, 186;
  Papias acquainted with, 178 sq, 186;
  the evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 189;
  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255 sq;
  Renan on its authorship, 291

Luthardt, 14, 132

[Greek: Leopardos], 67, 83

[Greek: Logia], 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq


Magdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66

Malalas; see _John Malalas_

Manes, 81

Mansel, 28

Marcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doctrine of, 87

Marcion;
  his date, 81, 116, 213 n;
  confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212;
  his Gospel, 6 n, 8, 186;
  his Canon, 117, 227, 263, 273;
  Papias' acquaintance with it, 186;
  his attitude towards St Paul, 273;
  his high moral character, 119;
  his distinctive views, 117 sq;
  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
  nor in Polycarp's Epistle, 101, 115, 212;
  a supposed allusion considered, 106, 115 sq;
  opposed by Justin Martyr, 33;
  by Melito, 231;
  scene of his heresy, 219, 227, 231;
  the question of the Canon raised by it, 219, 225;
  his views on the resurrection and judgment, 120

Maries, the four, in Papias the lexicographer, 210 sq

Mark's (St) Gospel;
  the account and criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq,
    181, 205 sq;
  the motive of Papias' allusion, 207;
  compared by Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 205 sq;
  identification of Papias' St Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq;
  evidence of the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq

Marseilles, 252

_Martyrdom of Polycarp_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_

Massuet, 98 n

Matthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193

Matthew's (St) Gospel;
  the account in Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181;
  his testimony to the Hebrew original, 168, 172;
  its character, 170 sq;
  a Greek St Matthew in existence in his day, 168 sq;
  identical with the extant Gospel, 169 sq;
  relation of the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170;
  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, by Jerome, 285;
  perhaps by Papias, 170;
  motive of Papias' allusion, 208;
  quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 227

Meletius, confused with Melito, 231

Melito;
  his date, 223, 224;
  a contemporary of Polycarp and Papias, 224;
  perhaps one of the elders quoted in Irenæus, 196 n, 224;
  perhaps a teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 218, 224;
  his travels, 224, 226;
  his learning, 228;
  his orthodoxy, 230;
  range of his literary works, 32, 102, 224;
  their popularity, 102, 224, 230;
  his lost works, 223, 225, 229;
  his _Apology_, 223, 241 n;
  the preface to his _Selections_, 226;
    (1) the extant Greek fragments, their genuineness, 228 sq;
      supported by the evidence of Tertullian and Hippolytus to his
         style, 229 sq, 234;
      not the work of Meletius, 231;
      their direct evidence to the Gospels, 231;
    (2) the Syriac fragments, 232 sq;
      their theology, 234 sq;
  his doctrine of the Logos, 234;
  his references to the Virgin Mary, 235 sq;
  passages from his works incorporated into Irenæus, 236 sq;
  Armenian version of a fragment and its Syriac abridgment, 236 sq;
  a quotation in _Chronicon Paschale_, 241 n;
  his work on the Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;
  evidence to the Fourth Gospel therefrom, 248;
  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47, 216;
  coincidences with St Paul's Epistles, 237;
  his treatise against Marcion, 231;
  date and manner of his death, 224

Merx, 64, 71

Mill (J.S.), 28 sq, 204

Milman, 65

Ministry, the duration of our Lord's, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq

Miracles, 26 sq

[Moesinger, 288]

Montanism;
  its centre in Asia Minor, 219;
  correspondence between the Churches of Asia and Gaul relating to, 253;
  Irenæus' mission to Rome respecting, 253, 259 n;
  not referred to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
  nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;
  opposed by Apollinaris, 238;
  by Irenæus, 267;
  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219, 238, 267

Morality and dogma, 27 sq

Mosheim, 68

Mozley, 28

Muratori, 295 n

Muratorian Canon;
  date, 188;
  original language, 188 n;
  English translation, 189 sq;
  emendations in the text, 189 n;
  represents the Church of Rome, 53, 270;
  its evidence to St Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq;
  to St Luke's Gospel, 189, 206;
  to the Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 206, 216;
  to four Gospels, 164, 188 sq, 205 sq, 270;
  its testimony compared with that of Papias, 205 sq;
  perhaps borrowed from him, 207;
  Matthew Arnold's estimate of, 190 n


Naassenes, 161 n

Nature;
  two meanings of the term, 29 sq;
  its relation to a Personal God, 28 sq

Neander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242

Neocoros, 300

Neubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136

Nicolaitans, 48, 182

Niebuhr, 25

Nolte, 211 n


Oecumenius, 201

Onesimus, the friend of Melito, 226

Ophites, 52, 161, 202, 219

Origen;
  on Celsus, 7;
  on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 216;
  of the Apocalypse, 216;
  uses the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152 n;
  quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;
  his accuracy in textual criticism, 269;
  his use of the word 'oracles', 174

Otto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n

Oudin, 67

Overbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n

Owen, 67

[Greek: ouk oid' hopôs], 277 sq


Pamphilus, 225

Pantænus, 145 n, 172, 274

Papias;
  his date, 142, 147 sq;
  his name and namesakes, 153, 211;
  of heathen origin, 153;
  a companion of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153, 218;
  perhaps not a hearer of St John, 142, 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq;
  his _Expositions_, 32, 39, 142;
  its title, 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq;
  its date, 150;
  its nature, 11, 155;
  directed against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 175, 202;
  as affecting his attitude towards the written Gospels, 156, 159 n, 160;
  the extant Gospels the text for his exegesis, 163 sq;
  his method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 197;
  his informants the 'elders', 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 197 sq;
  especially Aristion and John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n,
     164 sq, 266;
  his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n;
  not an Ebionite, 151 sq;
  his attitude towards St Paul, 151 sq;
  his use of the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ considered, 152, 203 sq;
  his orthodoxy, 154;
  story of his martyrdom explained, 147 sq, 211 sq;
  his mention of St Matthew's Gospel, 163, 167 sq, 181, 208;
  character of the original Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq;
  the Greek extant in his time, 168, 208;
  his mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq;
  his acquaintance with St Luke's Gospel, 178 sq, 186;
  with the Fourth Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq;
  evidenced by his acquaintance with 1 John, 186 sq, 190 sq;
  by other indications, 192 sq, 203 sq;
  Eusebius' method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 178 sq;
  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 34 n, 214;
  his testimony to the Canon supported by that of the
     Muratorian fragment, 205 sq;
  which perhaps borrowed from him, 207;
  obligations of Irenæus to, 202;
  of Eusebius, 208;
  not the amanuensis of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq;
  nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq;
  confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211;
  quotations in Irenæus, 4 sq, 127, 194, 248 n;
  the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the Gospels perhaps
     from his work, 203 sq;
  his position as an authority, 10, 218;
  his credulity considered, 269

Papias, the lexicographer, 211

Papylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq

Paraclete;
  the Montanist doctrine of the, 219, 267;
  in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255, 258

Parker, 66, 67

_Paschal Chronicle_;
  confuses Papias and Papylus, 148 sq;
  preserves quotations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 sq;
  from Melito, 241 n;
  sources of its information, 148 n, 260 n;
  on the date of Theodotion's version of the LXX, 260 n

Paschal controversy;
  silence of the Ignatian Epistles upon, 85;
  of the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;
  Asia Minor the scene of, 219;
  Polycarp's visit to Rome respecting, 99 sq, 121;
  the account in Eusebius, 17, 245;
  the treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;
  of Apollinaris, 238 sq;
  of Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq;
  of Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n;
  of Irenæus, 242, 244 sq, 267;
  action of the Gallican Churches with respect to, 253 sq;
  the attitude of Victor upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq;
  remonstrance of Irenæus, 100;
  of Polycrates, 248;
  the error of _S.R._ regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 245;
  its relation to the Canon, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267

Paul (St);
  in Cyprus, 294 sq;
  at Ephesus, 299 sq;
  his attack on Gnosticism, 119 sq;
  his treatment as a prisoner, 75, 78;
  his claim to work miracles, 125;
  his directions as to idol-sacrifices, 14;
  his connexion with Gaul, 251;
  not aimed at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq;
  attitude of Clement of Rome towards, 40;
  of the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42;
  of Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq;
  of Hegesippus, 12;
  of Papias, 151 sq;
  of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273;
  of the elders in Irenæus, 248;
  of Melito, 237;
  of Tatian, 273;
  of the School of St John generally, 251;
  of the Churches in Gaul, 255;
  position of his writings in the Canon of Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq;
  see also _Tübingen School_

_Paul, Acts of_, 37

Pearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 83, 86

Pella, 90, 91

Peregrinus Proteus, 76 sq

Pergamum, 147, 148

Pericope Adulterae, an insertion from Papias, 203 sq

Perpetua, 76, 83

Petau, 66, 67

_Peter, Acts of_, 37

_Peter, Apocalypse of_, 37, 47

_Peter, Gospel of_, 37

_Peter, Preaching of_, 37

Peter (St), the Epistles of;
  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 sq, 46;
  Eusebius' method tested on, 43, 45, 47, 49;
  the First Epistle largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;
  employed by Papias, 186, 206 sq;
  by Irenæus, 45

Peter of Alexandria, 241 n

Petermann, 63, 71, 86 sq

Philip (St), the Apostle;
  at Hierapolis, 91, 143, 149;
  his daughters, 91, 149, 153;
  his intercourse with Papias, 143, 146, 149, 193;
  his identity, 91 n

Philip, the Asiarch, 222 n

Philippi, the Church at;
  Ignatius' visit to, 93, 106;
  Polycarp's correspondence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 (see
     _Polycarp, Epistle of_);
  episcopacy at, 106, 108

Philippians, German theories as to the Pauline Epistle to the, 24 sq

Phillips, 279 n

Philo, 173 sq, 200 n

Photius, 196 n, 238, 239, 241 n, 242, 243, 267 n

Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n

Pliny;
  his credulity and that of the early fathers, 269;
  his informant Sergius Paulus, 294 sq

Polycarp of Smyrna;
  date of his birth, 90;
  born at a crisis, 90 sq;
  of Christian parents, 94;
  reared in the centre of Christianity, 91 sq;
  under the influence of St John, 89, 92;
  bishop of Smyrna, 92;
  entertains Ignatius, 92, 113;
  his age at this time, 121;
  his letter to the Philippians (see _Polycarp, Epistle of_);
  a companion of Papias, 142, 150, 153, 218;
  his old age, 96;
  his pupils Florinus and Irenæus, 96 sq, 264, 265;
  his journey to Rome, 99 sq, 121;
  preaches at Rome, 101;
  his encounter with Marcion, 101, 115, 212;
  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 99 sq;
  date of his martyrdom, 90, 97, 103 sq, 147, 264;
  details of it, 77 n, 103, 220 sq;
  document preserving it (see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_);
  his position and that of Clement of Rome, 89, 94;
  the depositary of Apostolic tradition, 89 sq, 96;
  the link with Irenæus, 89, 100 sq;
  the reverence inspired by, 121 n;
  characteristic expressions of, 97, 115 sq;
  his use of the word 'oracles', 174

Polycarp, Epistle of;
  date and circumstances of writing, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121;
  incomplete in the Greek, 11;
  its genuineness, 104 sq;
  (1) external evidence for, 104;
  (2) internal evidence, 105 sq;
    from (i) its formula of evangelical quotations, 105, 109;
    (ii) its picture of Church order, 106, 107 sq, 122;
    (iii) its Christology, 106, 108;
    (iv) the argument from silence, 106;
    (v) its style and subject-matter compared with the
          Ignatian Epistles, 106 sq;
  Ritschl's theory of interpretations considered, 110 sq;
  further objections dealt with, (_a_) the martyr journey of Ignatius, 111;
    (_b_) alleged anachronisms, 11, 111 sq, 122;
    (_c_) the Ignatian Epistles appended, 113 sq;
    (_d_) the thirteenth chapter, 114;
    (_e_) a supposed reference to Marcion, 115 sq;
    (_f_) the age of the writer, 121;
  scriptural quotations in, 42 sq, 49 sq, 93 sq, 109, 118, 227;
  Eusebius' method tested on, 42 sq, 49;
  the quotations from 1 Peter, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;
  coincidence with 1 John, 49;
  relation to the Pauline Epistles, 95 sq, 101 sq;
  its testimony to the Ignatian Epistles, 11, 82, 113 sq

_Polycarp, Martyrdom of_;
  the document, 103, 220;
  its date, 220;
  emphasizes the coincidences with the Passion, 220 sq;
  its evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 221 sq;
  employed by the _Paschal Chronicle_, 148 n

Polycrates of Ephesus;
  his place in the School of St John, 218;
  his work on the Paschal controversy, 244, 248 sq;
  scriptural quotations in his letter to Victor, 248, 249;
  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 249;
  his reference to Melito, 224

Pontius Pilate, date of the termination of the procuratorship of, 131 n

Pothinus;
  probably a native of Asia Minor, 253, 265;
  date of his martyrdom, 253, 265;
  perhaps one of the elders of Irenæus, 196 n, 266

Presbyter John; see _John the Presbyter_

Presbyters in Irenæus; see _Elders_

Proclus, Cominius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n

Proconsuls;
  the title in imperial times, 292 sq;
  the Greek equivalent, 292;
  of Cyprus, 294

Proprætors; the title in imperial times, 292;
  the Greek equivalent, 292

_Protevangelium_, 15, 256 sq


Quadratus, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n

Quadratus, Statius, the Asiatic proconsulship of, 103 sq

Quartodeciman; see _Paschal controversy_


Renan, 104, 232 n, 291

Rhodon, 272, 273 n, 274

Ritschl, 63, 65, 110 sq

Rivetus, 66, 67

Roman Church, its influence in the time of Ignatius, 59

Roman prisoners, treatment of, 75 sq

Roman provinces;
  Augustus' division of, 291 sq;
  the titles of their governors, 292;
  interchange of imperial and senatorial provinces, 292;
  Asia and Africa the most sought after, 293

Rosenmüller, 68

Routh, 154 n, 201 n, 214 n, 241 n, 252 n

Rufinus, 203

Rufus, 111

Ruinart, 76 n, 80


Sachau, 232 n

Salutaris, C. Vibius, 302

Sanday;
  on the Fourth Gospel, 15;
  on Marcion's Gospel, 186 n

Saturus, 76

Saumaise, 66

Schleiermacher, 171

Schliemann, 70

Schmidt, 68

Scholten, 64, 119, 242, 262 n

Schroeckh, 68, 69

Schwegler, 24

Second century;
  its voluminous ecclesiastical literature, 32, 102;
  meagre literary remains of the first three quarters, 33, 53, 89, 102;
  small bearing on the Canon of the extant works, 33, 271;
  importance of Irenæus at the close of the century, 53, 89

Semler, 68

Serapion, 238

Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus;
  perhaps an informant of Pliny, 294 sq;
  Cyprian inscription mentioning him, 294, 297

Sergius Paulus, L.;
  the friend of Galen, 296;
  proconsul of Asia, 223, 296;
  his date, 223;
  his cursus honorum, 296;
  his resemblance in character to his namesake in the Acts, 296;
  his scientific studies, 297;
  identification of an unknown, 295 n

Severians, Apollinaris' treatise against the, 238, 243

Severus of Antioch, 87

Shechem and Sychar, 17, 133 sq

Silence, its place in the Gnostic Systems, 86 sq

Siloam, 18, 203

Simon Magus, 268

Simonians, 86, 161

_Smyrnæans, Letter of the_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_

Socinus, 66, 67

Socrates, the historian, 239

Stephanus Gobarus, 12

Strabo, 292, 293 n

_Supernatural Religion_;
  criticisms on his grammar and scholarship, 3 sq, 53 sq, 126 sq;
  on his impartiality, 9 sq, 20 sq, 130 sq, 140 sq, 191 sq;
  on the plan of his book, 26, 138 sq;
  his charges against opponents, 20 sq, 137 sq;
  his lists of references, 23, 65 sq;
  his theological position, 139 n;
  on the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq;
  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 240 sq, 245;
  clerical and other errors, and ambiguities in, 124 sq, 182 sq, 257

Supernatural, meaning of the term, 29 sq

Sychar, identification of, 17 sq, 133 sq

Synoptists;
  their points of contrast with the Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;
  recognized by the early fathers, 207 sq, 239;
  their chronology compared, 16, 48, 131, 239 sq, 245 sq;
  see also _Fourth Gospel_


Tacitus, 25, 268 n

Tatian;
  an Assyrian, 272;
  a heathen sophist, 272;
  his travels, 272;
  his conversion, 272;
  a pupil of Justin Martyr, 272, 274;
  his disciples at Rome, 272, 274;
  removes to the East, 272;
  his subsequent heretical opinions, 272;
  his attitude towards St Paul and the Pauline Epistles, 273, 284;
  his views anti-Judaic, 273;
  date of his literary activity, 274;
  his extant _Apology_, 274;
  its date, 275;
  quotes from the Fourth Gospel, 50, 275;
  his formula of quotation, 276;
  his _Diatessaron_, 277 sq;
  its description in Eusebius, 277;
  who knew but disparaged it, 278;
  the evidence of the _Doctrine of Addai_, 278 sq;
  the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, 280, 283;
  [discovery of an Armenian Version, 288;]
  Bar-Salibi's statements, 280 sq;
  Theodoret's testimony to its circulation, 282 sq;
  summary of evidence, 283 sq;
  counter-statement of Epiphanius, 284 sq;
  of Victor of Capua, 285 sq;
  read in the Churches of Edessa, 278 sq;
  of Cyrrhestice, 282 sq;
  its opening words, 280, 281 n, 283;
  its plan, 280 sq;
  other than that of Ammonius' _Diatessaron_, 280 sq, 283;
  confusion of the two works, 281 n;
  Aphraates' knowledge of it, 283 n, [288];
  the range of its circulation, 284;
  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 284 sq;
  [recent discovery of an Arabic Version, 288]

Tertullian;
  gives evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
  his _Apologeticum_, 275;
  on the episcopate of Polycarp, 92 n;
  on the style of Melito, 229;
  Chiliasm of, 151

Theodoret;
  date of his episcopate, 282;
  his treatise on Heresies, 282;
  his evidence for the Ignatian Epistles, 72;
  for Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 282 sq;
  for Apollinaris, 238, 239, 242 sq

Theodotion's Version of the LXX, 260

Theophilus of Antioch;
  his works, extant and lost, 44;
  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;
  Eusebius' method tested on his _Autolycus_, 44, 52, 215;
  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 44, 47, 216;
  his investigations in comparative chronology, 269

Thiersch, 68

Thomas (St), 143, 193

Thomasius, 210 n

Tillemont, 241 n, 253 n

Tischendorf;
  defended against _S.R.'s_ charges, 5 sq, 54 sq, 125 n, 127 n, 128 n, 138;
  other references to, 4, 129, 165, 167, 210

Tübingen School, criticised, 12, 24, 42, 64, 82, 89 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq,
                 110 sq, 151 sq, 251


Uhlhorn, 63, 71

Ussher, 60, 61


Valens, the Presbyter, 108

Valentinianism;
  its expressions anticipated in the Ignatian Epistles, 85, 86 sq;
  opposed by Irenæus, 98, 101, 219, 245 sq, 262;
  by Hippolytus, 161;
  its appeal to the Canon, 219, 262, 268;
  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
  to uncanonical books, 263;
  its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's Life, 245 sq;
  its exegesis, 161

Vettius Epagathus, 255, 256

Victor of Capua;
  his date, 286;
  discovers an anonymous Harmony of the Gospel, 286;
  Frankish translation of this Harmony, 286 n;
  assigns it to Tatian, 286;
  [perhaps rightly, 288;]
  the word _Diapente_ in his notice of Tatian, 279 n, 285 sq

Victor of Rome;
  his date, 261;
  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq

Vienne and Lyons, Churches of; see _Gallican Churches_

Virgin Mary, character of the allusions in Justin Martyr and Melito
             to the, 235 sq

Volkmar, 24 sq, 64, 71, 79 sq

Voss, 61

Vossian Epistles; see _Ignatian Epistles_


Waddington, 98 n, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n, 296 n

Weiffenbach, 146 n, 158 n

Weismann, 68, 69

Weiss, 63, 65, 71

Westcott;
  defended against the attacks of _S.R._, 4 sq, 12 sq, 21 sq, 53 sq,
                                          123 sq, 128 n, 137 sq;
  other references to, 93, 130, 155, 161 n, 211 n, 226 sq, 275 n;
  his reply to _S.R._, 79 n

Whiston, 69

_Wisdom of Solomon_, 46

Wood's discoveries at Ephesus, 294 n, 297 sq

Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, 222 n

Wright, 282 n


Zacharias, 146 n, 255 sq, 262 n

Zahn, 63, 71, 75 n, 77 n, 79 n, 81 n, 115 n, 213 n, 279 n, 283 n, [287]

Zeller, 64

Ziegler, 68, 264 n

Zosimus, 111

Zunz, 153 n





INDEX OF PASSAGES.


                                       PAGE

Genesis      iv. 15                     174

Exodus       xxxii. 7 sq                174

Deuteronomy  ix. 12 sq                  174
             x. 9                       173
             xxxi. 7, 23                221

1 Kings      iv. 33                      25

Psalms       iv. 4                       94

Isaiah       xi. 6 sq                   198
             lxv. 25 sq                 198
             lxvi. 22               55, 198

Ezekiel      xxviii. 13                 200
             xxviii. 15, 16             201

Hosea        ii. 6-17                   241

Tobit        iv. 10                      94
             xii. 9                      94

St Matthew   v. 44                      123
             x. 16                       41
             xi. 27 sq                   16
             xii. 33                     41
             xiii. 8                      4
             xix. 12                     41
             xix. 29                    158
             xix. 30                    125
             xx. 16                     125
             xxiii. 35                  256
             xxiii. 37              16, 131
             xxvi. 29              158, 205
             xxvi. 42                   221
             xxvi. 55                   221
             xxviii. 1                  208

St Mark      x. 29, 30                  158
             x.31                       125
             xiv. 48                    221

St Luke      i. 1                       286
             i. 3                       189
             i. 5 sq                    146
             i. 6                       255
             i. 67                      255
             ii. 24                     276
             iii. 23                    231
             x. 18            186, 200, 201
             xi. 51                     257
             xiii. 30                   125
             xiii. 32, 33                16
             xiii. 34               16, 131
             xiv. 13, 14                158
             xviii. 30                  158
             xxi. 38                    204
             xxii. 52                   221
             xxiii. 43                  201

St John      i. 1             44, 232, 280,
                              281, 283, 286
             i. 3                       276
             i. 5                       275
             i. 18                       52
             i. 44                       91
             iii. 8                      41
             iv. 5                  17, 133
             iv. 18                      52
             iv. 24                     275
             iv. 35                     136
             v. 3, 4             9, 52, 126
             v. 29                      223
             vii. 36                    204
             vii. 37 sq                 203
             vii. 52                    204
             vii. 58-viii. 11           203
             viii. 12 sq                204
             viii. 15              204, 205
             viii. 29                    41
             viii. 44                    13
             viii. 56                   248
             viii. 57              246, 247
             ix. 7                       18
             xii. 21 sq                  91
             xii. 28                    222
             xii. 33                    222
             xiii. 25                   249
             xiv. 2         4, 54, 194, 247
             xvi. 2                     258
             xvii. 3                    223
             xviii. 31, 32              222
             xix. 28, 30                222
             xix. 34 sq                 222
             xix. 35                    187
             xx. 1                      208
             xx. 25                     257
             xx. 31                     187
             xxi. 20                    249

Acts         ii. 16                     276
             ii. 24                      95
             v. 29                      249
             vii. 60                    257
             xiii. 7          292, 294, 295
             xiii. 40                   276
             xix. 24 sq                 297
             xix. 31                    299
             xix. 35               299, 300
             xix. 37, 38           299, 301
             xxi. 9                     149
             xxi. 14                    221

Romans       i. 5                       237
             iii. 2                     173
             iv. 1 sq                   173
             iv. 18                     276
             viii. 18                   254
             xv. 19                     125
             xvi. 26                    237

1 Corinthians vi. 12-18                 119
              vii. 5                    273
              viii. 1 sq                119
              x. 1 sq                   173
              x. 7, 8, 14, 21            14
              xi. 8 sq                  173
              xv. 12                    120

2 Corinthians xii. 12                   125

Galatians     ii. 9                      14
              iv. 21 sq                 173

Ephesians     iv. 26                     95
              v. 21                     109
              vi. 14                     50
              vi. 18                    123

Philippians   ii. 6                     254
              ii. 7                     237
              iii. 18                   123
              iv. 2                      24

1 Timothy     ii. 2                     123
              iii. 15                   254
              iv. 3                     273
              iv. 3, 4                  255
              v. 1, 2, 17, 19           146
              vi. 7                     123
              vi. 10                    122

2 Timothy     ii. 18                    120
              iv. 10                    251

Hebrews       v. 12                     173
              xi. 2                     145

1 Peter       i. 1                       92
              i. 8                       50
              i. 13                      50
              i. 21                      50
              ii. 11, 12                 50
              ii. 17                50, 122
              ii. 22, 24                 50
              iii. 9                     50
              iv. 7                 49, 191
              iv. 14                     50
              v. 5                  50, 109
              v. 13                     207

1 John        i. 1                  97, 190
              iv. 2, 3                  118

Revelation    i. 4                      133
              ii. 2                      14
              ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24     119
              ii. 14                     13
              xii. 9                    201
              xix. 13                    15

Anastasius of Sinai          154, 200, 201,
                              202, 225, 230

Andreas of Cæsarea                      214

Aphraates
     _Hom._ i. p. 13 (ed. Wright)       283

_Apost. Constit._ ii. 24                203

Aristides Op. I. p. 453 (ed. Dind.)      98

_Barnabæ Ep._ 4, 5                      177
                 15                     151

Basil (St) _Hom._ xi. 5                 175
      _Hom._ xii. 1                     175

Capitol. _Vit. Anton._ 7                 98

_Chronicon Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.)    238
                   p. 481               148

Claudius Apollinaris                    207

Clemens Alexandrinus
    _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter)  174
    _Exc. Theod._ 38                    273
    _Strom._ i. 1                  218, 274
    _Strom._ i. p. 392                  174
    _Strom._ ii. 9                      152
    _Strom._ iii. 12                    270
    _Strom._ iii. 13               152, 270
    _Strom._ iv. 12                     161
    _Strom._ vii. p. 889                257
    _Strom._ vii. 17           21, 161, 213
    _Quis Div. Salv._ 42            91, 218

Clem. Rom. 5                             40
          25                            268
          45                            174
          47                             40
          53                            174

Dion Cassius liii. 12                   293
             liv. 4                     294

Euripides _Iph. Taur._ l. 1359          301

Epiphanius
    _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17          260
    _Hær._ xlvi. 1                 273, 284
    _Hær._ li. 1 sq                     215

Eusebius
     _Chron._ (Syr. epit.) p. 216
       (ed. Schöne)                     149
     _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9                87
     _Hist. Eccl._ i. 13                279
                   iii. 3           37, 145
                   iii. 23     48, 168, 209
                   iii. 24               39
                   iii. 25, 27          152
                   iii. 30, 31           91
                   iii. 36      41, 43, 152
                   iii. 37               40
                   iii. 39    91, 143, 150,
                             152, 157, 193,
                                        209
                   iv. 14           43, 49,
                                   150, 191
                   iv. 15      77, 90, 121,
                           148, 150, 220 sq
                   iv. 16               273
                   iv. 18                43
                   iv. 21               239
                   iv. 22          152, 183
                   iv. 23     156, 177, 228
                   iv. 24                44
                   iv. 26      32, 47, 223,
                              225, 243, 296
                   iv. 27           82, 238
                   iv. 28               273
                   iv. 29          273, 277
                   v. 1            146, 252
                   v. 3,4          253, 259
                   v. 6                  45
                   v. 8        45, 145, 156
                   v. 13                273
                   v. 15                 98
                   v. 18             47, 91
                   v. 19                238
                   v. 20       97, 98, 116,
                                   218, 265
                   v. 24      91, 100, 224,
                              244, 248, 254
                   v. 26                 46
                   v. 28           102, 230
                   vi. 13      47, 145, 244
                   vi. 14           47, 145
                   vi. 20                47
                   vii. 25              216
    _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv.           208
    _Quæst. ad Steph._ 1                 73
    Op. IV. p. 1276 (ed. Migne)         281

Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1            296
      _de Prænot._ 2                    296
       Op. XIX. p. 11 (ed. Kühn)        196

Hippolytus
      _Ref. Hær._ v. 7                  161
      _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55       145, 202

Ignatius _Ephes_. 1                      42
         _Ephes_. 7                      42
         _Ephes_. 9                     302
         _Ephes._ 12                 41, 42
         _Ephes._ 14                     41
         _Ephes._ 19                     73
         _Magn._ 8               41, 42, 86
         _Magn._ 11                     118
         _Magn._ 13                     109
         _Trall._ 6                     161
         _Trall._ 9                     118
         _Rom._ inscr.                  161
         _Rom._ 2                       232
         _Rom._ 4               41, 42, 114
         _Rom._ 5                73, 74, 78
         _Rom._ 6                    42, 85
         _Rom._ 7                        85
         _Philad._ 3                    161
         _Philad._ 6                     42
         _Philad._ 7                     41
         _Smyrn._ 1                     118
         _Smyrn._ 6                      41
         _Polyc._ 1-4                    93
         _Polyc._ 2                      41
         _Polyc._ 3                  42, 93
         _Polyc._ 7                  77, 93

Irenæus
    _Hær. pref._ i.                     160
           i. 3. 6                      160
           i. 8. 1                      174
           i. 26. 1                     118
           i. 27. 2                     117
           i. 27. 3                117, 120
           i. 28. 1                273, 274
           ii. 22. 5       48, 91, 92, 131,
                             168, 209, 217,
                              218, 245, 264
           ii. 31. 2                    120
           iii. 1. 1                48, 182
           iii. 3. 3                    260
           iii. 3. 4     92, 101, 115, 217,
                                   218, 264
           iii. 11. 1                48,182
           iii. 11. 9                   215
           iii. 12. 12                  117
           iii. 16. 8                   118
           iii. 21. 1                   260
           iii. 25. 2                   120
           iii. 25. 3                   120
           iv. 26. 2                    218
           iv. 27. 1 sq           145, 196,
                                   248, 266
           iv. 30. 1               145, 196
           iv. 31. 1          145, 196, 248
           iv. 32. 1                    196
           v. 5. 1            145, 198, 218
           v. 20. 2                     177
           v. 30. 1                     218
           v. 31. 1 sq                  151
           v. 33. 1                     158
           v. 33. 3                145, 218
           v. 33. 4                     142
           v. 86. 1, 2          3, 54, 126,
                              145, 194, 199

Jerome
    _de Vir. Illust._ 16                 42
    _de Vir. Illust._ 17                105
    _de Vir. Illust._ 24                229
    _de Vir. Illust._ 26                243
    _Ep. ad Magnum_ (p. 83)             243
    _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428)                239
    _Ep._ 120 _ad Hedib._ (I. p. 826)   208
    _præf. ad Tit._ vii.                273

John Malalas p. 276 (ed. Bonn.)          79
             p. 280                      98

Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 26             268
              _Apol._ i. 66, 67     43, 227
              _Dial._ 34                235
              _Dial._ 51 sq             151
              _Dial._ 61                235
              _Dial._ 80 sq             151
              _Dial._ 100          235, 236

Lucian _de Morte Peregr._ 12             76
       _de Morte Peregr._ 41             77

_Martyr. Polyc._ 1                      220
                 5                      222
                 6, 7, 8                221
                 9                  90, 221
                12                      222
                13                      121
                14                      223
                15                      222
                16             77, 222, 223

Origen _c. Cels._ pref. etc.            278
       _c. Cels._ i. 8                    7
       _c. Cels._ viii. 76                7
       _de Princ._ iv. 11               175
       _in Matth._ x. 6                 175
       _in Matth._ xvi. 6               212
       _in Luc. Hom._ i.                152

Philo _de Conj. Erud. Grat._ 24         174
      _de Profug._ 11                   174
      _Vit. Moys._ iii. 23              174

Photius _Bibl._ 14                 238, 239
        _Bibl._ 119                     241
        _Bibl._ 121                196, 267

Pliny _Nat. Hist._ ii. 90, 97, 112      295
      _Nat. Hist._ xviii. 12, 57        295

Polycarp _Phil._ 1                   50, 95
         _Phil._ 2                       50
         _Phil._ 3         93, 96, 112, 114
         _Phil._ 4                      122
         _Phil._ 5                  50, 108
         _Phil._ 7        49, 93, 115, 116,
                                   174, 191
         _Phil._ 8                       50
         _Phil._ 9                 111, 112
         _Phil._ 10                  50, 94
         _Phil._ 12            95, 112, 122
         _Phil._ 13        11, 93, 111, 114

_Protevangelium_ 11, 12                 257
                 23                     256

Socrates _Hist. Eccl._ III. 7           239
                       VII. 32          118

Tacitus _Hist._ v. 1 sq                 268

Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 4, 13           275
       _Orat. ad Græc._ 19         273, 276
       _Orat. ad Græc._ 29, 35, 42      273

Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24         151
           _adv. Marc._ iv. 2             8
           _adv. Marc._ v. 10           120
           _de Præscr. Hær._ 32          92
           _de Præscr. Hær._ 33         120
           _de Resurr. Carn._ 19        120
           _de Resurr. Carn._ 24        151

Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20        273, 282
          _Hær. Fab._ i. 21        238, 243
          _Hær. Fab._ iii. 2       239, 243
          _Ep._ 113                     283

Theophilus _ad Autol._ ii. 22            44

Victor Cap. _Præf. ad Anon. Harm.
             Evang._                    286

Xenophon _Anab._ v. 3, 6                300