initial commit of ebook 13433HEADmain

8 files changed, 20228 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/13433-0.txt b/13433-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0b8c9cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/13433-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6478 @@
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 13433 ***
+
+PRODUCTION NOTES:
+A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)
+Originally published anonymously in 1889.
+Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS
+
+BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+
+
+
+LONDON
+1889
+
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent
+illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his
+republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided
+evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may
+be possible, however little we may agree on other points.
+
+It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving
+the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost
+him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion
+of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and
+attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to
+many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and
+of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence
+and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,
+which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt
+to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious
+argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
+I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
+Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,
+and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part
+which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play
+in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first
+moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even
+below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated
+theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should
+not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,
+is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
+Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:
+any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
+Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the
+effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
+In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed
+likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor
+questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst
+Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes
+his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of
+his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so
+little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the
+complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more
+palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of
+his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these
+Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental
+proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised
+notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:
+but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and
+the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute
+blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have
+frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
+They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,
+crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose
+the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's
+Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of
+_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the
+reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and
+others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the
+more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
+Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to
+be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.
+
+The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me
+the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of
+their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,
+and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural
+Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the
+portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that
+readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is
+published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference
+for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those
+Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such
+further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
+statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
+must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I
+trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
+allegations and their bearing on my argument.
+
+I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
+alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the
+first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to
+wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show
+the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
+moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
+reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
+contain them.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that
+I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but
+I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very
+serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the
+possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave
+the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon
+the basis of reason and not of reputation.
+
+
+
+
+
+       CONTENTS
+
+
+   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES
+
+ III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA
+
+  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
+
+   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES
+
+  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL
+
+ VII.  TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"
+
+VIII.  CONCLUSIONS
+
+       [ENDNOTES]
+
+       INDEX.
+
+
+
+
+
+I.
+
+_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_
+[Endnote 1:1]
+
+
+The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,
+that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work
+should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
+remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
+that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge
+fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and
+in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws
+and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
+perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
+application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
+otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
+which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
+more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which
+may be fallacious.
+
+Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
+silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
+face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the
+case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of
+the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the
+December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe
+lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance
+and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,
+falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to
+me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his
+impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
+fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold
+so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and
+I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
+Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
+I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his
+attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience
+and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general
+detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be
+pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the
+threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains
+in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still
+is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in
+translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with
+which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well
+founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of
+such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of
+the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not
+weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has
+been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of
+Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,
+however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there
+is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which
+have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
+which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change
+the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once
+to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to
+sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the
+weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has
+the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most
+critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most
+critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune
+to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many
+points, from most critics.
+
+The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
+regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
+reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
+that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
+and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
+would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
+in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words
+"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of
+a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
+in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
+supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
+Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
+Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what
+"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and
+he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
+reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
+question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
+passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
+Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
+Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:
+"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears
+to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a
+note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the
+Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of
+interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the
+indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of
+"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the
+slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing
+this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital
+bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
+The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the
+justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not
+acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical
+opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,
+understand the real position of the case.
+
+Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
+passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
+was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion
+to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom
+I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,
+now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated
+treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against
+Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there
+is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate
+the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is
+no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing
+the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers
+to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in
+italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as
+Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points
+out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
+should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo
+cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab
+Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,
+utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,
+[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether
+these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the
+saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it
+merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and
+only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the
+first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the
+translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,
+brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the
+circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly
+separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that
+they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,
+[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does
+not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but
+merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it
+formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does
+not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is
+impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
+150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with
+Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters
+from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back
+to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not
+evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without
+an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
+Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a
+passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of
+the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the
+Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In
+my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain
+whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and
+whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something
+borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
+[6:4]
+
+With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
+while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the
+external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in
+discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do
+apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,
+Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,
+Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,
+although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of
+Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so
+indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of
+Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on
+neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and
+whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with
+the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of
+apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
+Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as
+testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly
+have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken
+from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any
+of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the
+passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject
+generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in
+which the quotation is discussed.
+
+This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
+dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
+maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All
+that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there
+is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
+discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of
+Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what
+I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But
+although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who
+says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what
+was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,
+a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly
+trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,
+the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,
+but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai
+de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of
+showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point
+is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make
+any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,
+beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and
+that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage
+is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the
+work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended
+to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation
+made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had
+been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately
+withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different
+from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my
+argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which
+Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it
+as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this
+was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,
+and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]
+
+With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
+practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
+"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
+Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
+because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
+that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
+of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
+altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
+contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he
+has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted
+to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
+assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
+those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
+giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
+most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
+"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high
+authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
+[9:2]
+
+My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
+passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived
+from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a
+quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these
+words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the
+Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing
+more than the exegesis of his own day.
+
+The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with
+a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage
+from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:
+"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes
+that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile
+been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him
+as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
+everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen
+does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:
+epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge
+was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say
+'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not
+write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
+nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and
+finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
+itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with
+the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the
+triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here
+"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey
+a totally wrong impression of the case.
+
+The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
+between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
+[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the
+passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
+observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
+fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
+rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
+manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
+passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself
+by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick
+of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words
+in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments
+as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a
+completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's
+poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen
+rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words
+of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition
+of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
+"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
+seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten
+Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'
+'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht
+geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen
+acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch
+jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],
+'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"
+&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,
+but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words
+of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon
+these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,
+but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
+Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there
+may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered
+as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.
+
+Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
+however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of
+this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point
+is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than
+my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
+adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
+conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
+impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
+considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
+In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that
+his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
+little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
+is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
+actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
+whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
+which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as
+a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,
+on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
+considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
+proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
+Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;
+but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus
+attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
+circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
+Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
+about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
+scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
+it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
+Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,
+which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
+translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
+passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
+expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
+issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
+context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
+Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot
+interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept
+correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite
+content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair
+spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in
+which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely
+rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
+[13:1]
+
+I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
+errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
+magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
+apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as
+"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,
+_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the
+"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally
+omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,
+"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
+In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,
+I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have
+Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of
+such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,
+in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
+Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot
+points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon
+the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
+I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
+the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
+distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
+[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1]
+
+I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
+me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
+dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--
+
+    "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--
+
+    "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
+    as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
+    p. 264)
+
+    "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
+    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
+    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
+    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
+    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
+    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
+    remarks--
+
+    "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
+    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
+    in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
+    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
+    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
+    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact
+    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
+    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
+    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
+    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
+    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
+    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
+    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
+    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
+    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)
+
+    "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
+    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
+    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
+    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
+    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
+    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
+    would have thought of." [16:1]
+
+In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
+quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
+says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
+it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
+doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
+was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
+prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
+into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
+views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
+and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
+claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'
+[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a
+'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or
+'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth
+of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them
+as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony
+of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.
+In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain
+references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
+And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be
+sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]
+
+Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary
+statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to
+be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.
+Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"
+of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a
+"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow
+of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,
+that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of
+all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon
+a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,
+after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according
+to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they
+are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed
+by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the
+"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels
+in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'
+books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of
+his writings which remain there are certain references" to those
+gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon
+any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages
+in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,
+not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a
+mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the
+vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of
+the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from
+Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that
+of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that
+period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,
+as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments
+into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed
+by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values
+the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch
+apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of
+a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the
+fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"
+to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed
+the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original
+system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the
+'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,
+in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect
+responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,
+so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel
+in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the
+part of the founder himself." [18:1]
+
+It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides
+regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did
+not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,
+supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the
+heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,
+the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before
+us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single
+sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês
+kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou
+hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement
+exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order
+to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much
+stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott
+says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]
+Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the
+passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words
+of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"
+seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides
+which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see
+any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,
+let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the
+strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and
+then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after
+the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted
+commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,
+and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well
+indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,
+that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He
+has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed
+to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful
+illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which
+pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
+exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
+safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better
+to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
+advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
+be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
+the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
+other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
+motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,
+and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost
+that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
+possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
+particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
+unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
+should be more impartially made.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
+arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single
+out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and
+on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines
+of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in
+the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]
+I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion
+upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me
+"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists
+which I have ignored.
+
+The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with
+an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being
+spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested
+regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier
+passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--
+"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found
+in any common source of information, that when the Latin version
+(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated
+into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism'
+altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently
+attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for
+not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,
+may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on
+"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter
+Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians
+of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information
+with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur
+only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the
+difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words
+'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:
+peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,
+'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish
+particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could
+not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is
+no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty
+presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
+however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn
+translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling
+the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.
+Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock
+of grammar."
+
+The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of
+apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--
+
+    "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
+    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
+    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
+    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
+    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
+    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
+    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
+    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
+    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
+    question at issue." [22:1]
+
+I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
+without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
+himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
+more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
+any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
+believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
+are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
+cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
+the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
+as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
+and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
+clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
+documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
+discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
+it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
+reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:
+
+    "Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the
+    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
+    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
+    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
+    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
+    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
+    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
+    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
+    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen
+    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
+    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
+    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]
+
+I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
+merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
+sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
+in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
+we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
+opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
+fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
+he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
+Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
+instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
+anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
+upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
+It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
+against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I
+have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts
+of the Apostles.
+
+"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored
+weightier lines of reasoning,
+
+    "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical
+    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book
+    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are
+    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention
+    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's
+    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the
+    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
+    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_
+    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when
+    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,
+    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot
+    be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]
+
+Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of
+Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;
+and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what
+seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.
+[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are
+derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the
+very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give
+the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do
+not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott
+here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note
+quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right
+to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is
+put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader
+may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.
+Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations
+are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his
+variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that
+so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no
+proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that
+although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those
+who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his
+work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the
+writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to
+what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether
+they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which
+can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous
+contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for
+instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous
+quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which
+has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our
+Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old
+Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of
+Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I
+probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"
+than was at all necessary.
+
+Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,
+regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have
+selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations
+vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had
+devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"
+really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might
+have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If
+such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question
+may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to
+suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,
+because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic
+reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have
+rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the
+fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"
+writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and
+impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages
+from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main
+arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it
+somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said
+to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their
+main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he
+gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the
+Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
+to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and
+Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus
+between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three
+years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:
+
+"Why then," he asks,
+
+    "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
+    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...
+    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
+    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
+    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
+    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
+    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.
+    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall
+    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day
+    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as
+    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more
+    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
+    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
+    import." [27:1]
+
+Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
+into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
+charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
+of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
+this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
+and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
+itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
+very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
+other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
+is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
+exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
+only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
+work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
+of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
+explanations offered.
+
+Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
+when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
+of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
+Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that
+the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]
+Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and
+fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in
+which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New
+Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and
+abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of
+Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek
+and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and
+ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the
+purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of
+the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and
+beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]
+In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as
+we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
+Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according
+to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost
+invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is
+distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this
+respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I
+believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language
+of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost
+wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth
+Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,
+and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be
+supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of
+"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,
+I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the
+_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,
+of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the
+Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He
+argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,
+and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse
+wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written
+otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional
+emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient
+prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the
+Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author
+was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the
+Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and
+Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays
+the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he
+intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the
+conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf
+between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This
+result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic
+character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different
+from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an
+apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole
+character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents
+grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst
+the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond
+comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,
+to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding
+the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different
+arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma
+which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely
+dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the
+aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the
+one hand and the Gospel on the other.
+
+Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.
+Lightfoot says--
+
+    "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes
+    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._
+    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
+    altogether to notice others."
+
+In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--
+
+    "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
+    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
+    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
+    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchár]), and apologetic
+    ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
+    altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in
+    the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or
+    Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our
+    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
+    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
+    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
+    [30:3]
+
+I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
+I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
+for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
+of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
+to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
+There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
+he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
+I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
+article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
+rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
+because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
+asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]
+
+My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
+as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
+anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
+severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
+apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
+advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
+identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
+supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
+secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
+and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
+Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of
+some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not
+identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place
+bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The
+ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common
+source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for
+instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a
+name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place."
+This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,
+for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost
+universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere
+alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.
+He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great
+hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"
+to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and
+explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment
+as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation
+with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler,
+who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,
+argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:
+Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding
+this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects
+the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,
+which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in
+[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits
+this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,"
+[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot
+and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,
+[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]
+and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and
+Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town
+of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]
+Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct
+from, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the
+extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably
+receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of
+Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned
+in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he
+seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into
+Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such
+an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch
+as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and
+his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that
+Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the
+site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.
+[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another
+place:--
+
+    "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at
+    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally
+    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is
+    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east
+    of Naplûs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand
+    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other
+    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any
+    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.
+    or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3]
+
+Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,
+says:--
+
+    "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title
+    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.
+    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the
+    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is
+    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the
+    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,
+    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not
+    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to
+    Jacob's Well."
+
+To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says:
+"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:
+legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'
+'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village
+nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El
+Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion
+may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne
+un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-être le Sychar
+de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus
+logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with
+regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect
+Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from
+a "common source of information:"--
+
+    "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of
+    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which
+    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and
+    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These
+    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading
+    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,
+    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not
+    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3]
+
+Mr. Grove is very right.
+
+I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either
+"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not
+perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably
+identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel
+mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have
+been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for
+it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there
+was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have
+not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.
+
+With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes
+constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating,"
+Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those
+who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support
+me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,
+that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall
+very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may
+be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,
+my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further
+to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them
+discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions
+with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by
+anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made
+acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and
+honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief
+rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any
+strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,
+if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would
+not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as
+they appear to find it." [36:1]
+
+I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks
+regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to
+discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his
+misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the
+Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the
+pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before
+coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I
+have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal
+Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear
+to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has
+been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own
+imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,
+the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the
+contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such
+a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter
+are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish
+Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable
+laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and
+security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of
+inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which
+view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to
+secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the
+last page of my work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion,"
+but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess
+that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I
+hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they
+are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how
+singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of
+_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement
+almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more
+closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:
+"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
+part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat
+strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work
+should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the
+first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is
+quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that
+miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,
+and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the
+amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the
+evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,
+although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took
+place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main
+principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be
+proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of
+supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to
+prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to
+prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the
+occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after
+showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:
+"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive
+evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,
+the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that
+this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception
+equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the
+evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with
+my results:
+
+    "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is
+    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence
+    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,
+    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in
+    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts
+    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent
+    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the
+    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be
+    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,
+    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely
+    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are
+    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by
+    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2]
+
+It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to
+confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I
+enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses
+for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous
+nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to
+examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an
+ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should
+represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the
+forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he
+altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend
+the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical
+enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of
+witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been
+represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the
+remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some
+degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being
+already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of
+the enquiry.
+
+I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much
+which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion
+of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able
+and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or
+faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and
+instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,
+it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to
+refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid
+fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,
+differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability
+attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due
+even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to
+courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever
+he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully
+to follow every serious line of argument than the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_.
+
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]
+
+
+This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
+both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
+to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
+opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
+review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
+my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
+generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
+completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
+conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
+courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
+necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
+course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
+diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.
+
+There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
+argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
+objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
+advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
+been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
+only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
+I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
+philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
+completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
+is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
+incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
+antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
+therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
+incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
+certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
+into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
+parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
+other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...
+
+The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
+frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
+prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
+the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
+which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
+anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
+the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
+fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
+Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
+so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
+the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
+incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
+Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
+have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
+truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
+some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
+has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
+the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
+evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
+and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
+the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
+requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
+serious consideration.
+
+It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
+gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
+existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
+as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
+shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
+totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
+belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
+sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
+urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
+occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
+of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
+place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
+age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
+investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
+equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
+to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
+can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
+relation of miracles to the order of nature.
+
+The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
+statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
+precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,
+if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four
+Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the
+second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as
+Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
+for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature
+in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready
+acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment
+regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century
+either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which
+concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but
+the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of
+Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and
+Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as
+personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are
+shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct
+trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses
+for miracles.
+
+After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
+against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
+truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
+divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
+argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
+inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
+professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
+attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
+defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
+shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
+breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
+to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
+sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.
+
+I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
+with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
+elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
+official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
+and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
+book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
+course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
+reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
+assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
+although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
+in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
+hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
+error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
+argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
+Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
+all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
+details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
+against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
+against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
+words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
+have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
+it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.
+
+
+The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
+Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
+attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
+under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
+limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
+singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
+especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
+occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
+"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
+not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
+unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
+the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
+the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
+that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
+say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
+they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
+authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
+at least, limited to Eusebius.
+
+The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
+of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
+blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
+works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
+supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
+lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
+contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
+that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
+argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
+expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
+and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
+that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
+says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
+Eusebius:--
+
+    "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
+    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
+    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
+    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
+    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
+    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
+    neglected to do." [46:1]
+
+Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
+belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--
+
+    "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
+    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
+    [46:2]
+
+I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
+allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
+importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
+representations made in the above passages are a very strange
+exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
+criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
+strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
+and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
+amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
+vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
+proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
+inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
+was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
+which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
+some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
+withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
+to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
+regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
+three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
+find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
+mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
+Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
+this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
+that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
+contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
+we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
+Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
+warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
+writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
+books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
+to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
+the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
+which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
+that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
+kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
+Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
+Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
+reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
+Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
+Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
+asserted.
+
+We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
+carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
+intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
+or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
+the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
+merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
+statement into three paragraphs. He says:
+
+    "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
+    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.
+
+    "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
+    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
+    tines hopoiais kechrêntai]);
+
+    "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
+    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
+    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any
+    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
+    others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded.
+
+    "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
+    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
+    [48:1]
+
+In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
+can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
+point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
+undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
+the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
+which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
+undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
+omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
+the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
+the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
+as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
+mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
+himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
+might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
+importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
+it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
+include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
+of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
+subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
+altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
+occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
+could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
+quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
+nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
+evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
+have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
+any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
+establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
+point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
+We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
+Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
+hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.
+
+The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
+is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
+promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
+writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
+of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
+only information of the slightest value to this work which could
+be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
+the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
+Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
+Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
+Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.
+
+    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
+    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
+    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
+    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
+    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
+    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
+    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
+    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
+    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
+    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
+    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
+    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
+    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
+    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
+    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
+    says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
+    justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
+    case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
+    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
+    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
+    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
+    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
+    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
+    11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
+    statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
+    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
+    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
+    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
+    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
+    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
+    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
+    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
+    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
+    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
+    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
+    apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
+    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
+    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
+    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
+    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
+    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
+    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
+    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
+    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
+    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
+    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
+    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
+    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
+    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
+    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
+    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.
+
+It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
+record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
+undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
+writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
+conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
+writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
+of Eusebius."
+
+I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
+estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
+he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
+Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
+martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
+the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
+Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
+Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
+reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
+regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
+were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
+martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
+Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
+Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
+statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
+Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
+his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
+the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
+state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
+mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
+in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
+escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
+were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
+was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
+single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
+inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
+did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
+Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
+whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
+confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
+composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
+well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
+Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
+Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
+speaks with so much respect.
+
+    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
+    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
+    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
+    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
+    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
+    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
+    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
+    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
+    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
+    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
+    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
+    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
+    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
+    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
+    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
+    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
+    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
+    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
+    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
+    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
+    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
+    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
+    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
+    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
+    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
+    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
+    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
+    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
+    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
+    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
+    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
+    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
+    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
+    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
+    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
+    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
+    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
+    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
+    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
+    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
+    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
+    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
+    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
+    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
+    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
+    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
+    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
+    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
+    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
+    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
+    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
+    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
+    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
+    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.
+
+In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
+quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
+[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
+regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
+confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
+that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
+have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
+information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
+Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
+the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
+Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
+only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
+which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
+to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
+reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
+of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
+more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
+Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
+had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
+first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
+of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
+words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
+disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
+disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
+points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
+former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
+evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
+distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
+proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
+John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
+name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
+of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
+What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
+subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
+with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
+moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
+am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
+peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
+Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
+fourth Gospels.
+
+I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
+equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
+to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
+to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
+constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
+statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
+respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
+its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
+Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
+not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
+witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
+that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
+by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
+classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
+not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
+very small.
+
+
+Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
+with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
+limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
+the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
+readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
+is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
+misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
+criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
+that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
+right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
+is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
+this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
+possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
+entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
+alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
+spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
+accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
+that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
+himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
+all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
+some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
+Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
+they commit themselves.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
+which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
+difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
+"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
+student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
+considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
+A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
+familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
+expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
+some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
+with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
+here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
+Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
+make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
+recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
+to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
+The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
+and war is declared in the following terms:
+
+    "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
+    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
+    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
+    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
+    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
+    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
+    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
+    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
+    arguments." [59:1]
+
+This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
+a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
+them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
+be in the least degree affected.
+
+The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
+one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
+as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
+(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
+genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
+by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
+epistles." [59:2]
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--
+
+    "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results
+    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac
+    epistles than this." [59:1]
+
+It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
+who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
+Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the
+Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to
+be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to
+consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
+six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
+of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
+five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
+may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles,
+which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
+limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
+certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
+three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
+of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
+consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
+Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
+regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
+that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
+edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
+prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous
+on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
+for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
+priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
+Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:
+
+    "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this
+    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of
+    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,
+    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
+only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
+whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
+spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
+first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
+"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der
+kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
+the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
+quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in
+zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
+meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
+to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
+matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
+the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
+analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
+given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
+to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
+tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
+attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
+accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
+and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
+as follows:--
+
+    "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
+    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
+    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
+    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
+    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
+    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
+    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
+    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
+    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
+    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
+    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
+    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
+    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
+    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
+    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
+    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
+    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
+    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
+    and that they can only be considered later and spurious
+    compositions.(4)" [62:1]
+
+In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer,
+Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
+proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
+explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
+to call more immediate attention to the point:
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Many of the ablest critics have     | "These references, it will be
+pronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate
+authentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps
+whilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that
+that even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that
+emanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian
+prefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters
+seven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still
+them the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of
+letters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
+                                     | them the most ancient form of the
+                                     | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]
+
+
+It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
+sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
+sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
+of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
+priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
+statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
+light" upon the point by the following remarks:--
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald,  | "The reader, therefore, will
+Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that
+maintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers
+genuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters
+_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
+distinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some
+in any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to
+Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight
+Echtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the
+keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
+priority of the Curetonian "in the   | letters." [63:1]
+highest degree probable."            |
+                                     |
+_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |
+as I have already said, but          |
+maintains the priority of the        |
+Syriac.                              |
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
+the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
+Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
+would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
+was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.
+
+Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
+ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
+early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
+regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
+and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
+them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
+Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
+Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
+that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
+were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
+This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
+Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:
+
+    "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
+    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
+    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
+    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
+    the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]
+
+Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
+Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
+as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
+of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
+Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
+them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
+before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
+"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
+leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
+referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
+epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
+ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
+are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
+igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
+transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
+regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
+"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
+the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
+critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
+more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
+from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
+here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
+follows:
+
+    "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
+    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
+    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
+    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--
+
+    "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
+    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
+    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
+    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]
+
+As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is
+"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the
+whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he
+persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for
+which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute
+classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of
+a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course
+of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large
+class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,
+illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case
+on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,
+decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the
+Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did
+not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise
+the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts,
+more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and
+would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,
+Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook
+pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So
+far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in
+succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have
+been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the
+main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the
+text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of
+the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and
+all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I
+should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed
+"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot
+says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far
+as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very
+denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more
+or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
+Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the
+Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he
+"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the
+promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he
+might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not
+necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to
+Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a
+subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop
+Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to
+"that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by
+Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the
+writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius
+varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:
+tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio
+Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He
+then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles
+and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more
+decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio
+sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus
+illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]
+
+The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for
+convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it
+as follows:--
+
+    "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef.
+    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,
+    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin,
+    _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex
+    Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_,
+    ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichée_, &c. 1734, i.
+    p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489;
+    [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in
+    Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._
+    1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341;
+    Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist.
+    Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.
+    in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.
+    condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
+    p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11;
+    Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.
+    _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._
+    p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.
+    p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
+    eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16;
+    J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._,
+    in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.
+    Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.
+    p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.'
+
+    "The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
+
+    "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have
+    made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it
+    stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the
+    by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the
+    gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,
+    however, that every one of these references, except those which I
+    have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's
+    'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus
+    two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten
+    minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the
+    quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in
+    Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his
+    notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought
+    fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the
+    rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
+    references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]
+
+I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might
+suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is
+here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to
+the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask
+every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to
+insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references
+in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and
+thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted
+references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed
+the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of
+criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and
+reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's
+appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from
+it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly
+indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The
+fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but
+in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note
+"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly
+does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself
+acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing
+the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they
+illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_,"
+continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much
+obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name
+is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list
+on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and
+was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose
+doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's
+further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as
+genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the
+Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the
+seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These
+three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an
+older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes
+found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the
+doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in
+which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed.
+For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles
+attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1]
+Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite."
+Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as,
+for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander,
+and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or
+uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."
+[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my
+words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a
+leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of
+these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or
+less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name
+in order.
+
+_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
+    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
+    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
+    of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
+    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
+    question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:
+    "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_
+    the genuine epistles of Ignatius."
+
+_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité
+    des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles
+    ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit
+    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées."
+
+_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for
+    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them
+    suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
+    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
+    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
+    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
+    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
+    interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent
+    observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
+    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it
+    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
+    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.
+
+_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
+    but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy
+    too much space.
+
+_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from
+    the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History
+    given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief
+    German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the
+    original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing
+    "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been
+    classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian
+    Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who
+    merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom
+    of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose
+    the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the
+    impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who
+    is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical
+    purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he
+    still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian
+    Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and
+    then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of
+    Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me
+    for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which
+    presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me
+    with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state
+    additional grounds for disbelief.
+
+_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
+    Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
+    extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
+    he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
+    agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
+    the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
+    more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
+    later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
+    concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
+    Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
+    shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
+    (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
+    statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
+    the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
+    of the letters cannot be ascertained.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly
+unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.
+
+He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour,
+and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been
+possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
+of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain
+this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will
+put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses
+the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement
+which he altogether disregards:--
+
+                                    |        DR. LIGHTFOOT.
+                                    |
+"Further examination and more       | "References to twenty authorities
+comprehensive knowledge of the      | are then given, as belonging to
+subject have confirmed earlier      | the 'large mass of critics' who
+doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian
+recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered
+none_ of these Epistles _can be     | later and spurious compositions.'"
+established_, and that they can     | [73:1]
+only be considered later and        |
+spurious compositions."             |
+
+
+There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two
+approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the
+Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming
+to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively
+pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred
+to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming
+what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that
+a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot
+be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does
+not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the
+extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may
+have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may
+have been based. I will analyse the six references.
+
+_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
+    previous note) expresses no definite opinion."
+
+    Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
+    directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
+    I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
+    difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
+    of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
+    refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
+    Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
+    does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
+    authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
+    next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
+    Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
+    is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
+    probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences
+    in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how
+    the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these
+    Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which
+    we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their
+    authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him
+    here at all.
+
+_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
+    this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
+    reference to his remarks.
+
+_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
+    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
+    recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
+    the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
+    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
+    as in the Long Recension."
+
+    This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
+    Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
+    case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
+    _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
+    the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
+    ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
+    somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
+    Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
+    Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.
+
+_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
+    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
+    satisfied with either existing recension."
+
+    Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
+    still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
+    can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
+    without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
+    "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine
+    substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
+    Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
+    Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."
+
+_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."
+
+    If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
+    that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
+    says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
+    of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
+    fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
+    least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
+    if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
+    would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
+    second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
+    opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.
+
+_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
+    favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
+    but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
+    to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
+    able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
+    improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
+    journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
+    can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
+    does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
+    and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
+    possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
+    inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
+    justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be
+    established.
+
+Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon
+my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with
+what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian
+literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name
+totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been
+removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and
+consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose
+doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in
+dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more
+or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly
+expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only
+too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks
+such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of
+"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I
+have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,
+but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be
+able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen
+into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but
+the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1]
+
+There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must
+briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with
+unhesitating boldness:
+
+    "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,
+    from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that
+    this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been
+    felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has
+    raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)
+    maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially
+    bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most
+    formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the
+    world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later
+    work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown
+    to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,
+    or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian
+    question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of
+    Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not
+    less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_."
+    [78:2]
+
+Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the
+Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal
+opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general
+declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my
+diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as
+evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning
+of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely
+represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot
+very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian
+version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above
+quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture
+to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key
+of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played
+a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and
+as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will
+state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn,
+Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them.
+Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which
+appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press,
+in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian
+question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the
+Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's
+work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So
+much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.
+
+As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question
+during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think
+it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of
+Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments
+in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against
+Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's
+representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument"
+against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even
+allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,
+[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian
+manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his
+text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele
+[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar,
+Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them
+worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other
+writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into
+the controversy at all.
+
+The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag
+into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the
+reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the
+following lines:
+
+    "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven
+    Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text
+    is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac
+    idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply
+    proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must
+    have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the
+    Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
+    and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the
+ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the
+Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital
+problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer
+misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek
+Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.
+
+Passing on to another point, I say:
+
+    "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
+    equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
+    number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1]
+
+Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a
+little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon
+this he writes as follows:--
+
+    "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
+    with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented
+    themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
+    important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
+    after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
+    there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
+    Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
+    confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
+    Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
+    Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
+    Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
+    which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
+    composition." [81:2]
+
+Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are
+advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to
+its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,
+if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first
+reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical
+admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles
+are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,
+does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius,"
+the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely
+receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.
+Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how
+changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would
+have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has
+conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the
+controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the
+"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the
+controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The
+testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument
+(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and
+interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same
+accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian
+Epistles.
+
+The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second
+paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which
+I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is
+this:--
+
+    "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
+    by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
+    Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
+    Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
+    be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
+    honour." [82:2]
+
+I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with
+the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and
+orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--
+
+          DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.
+                                  |
+(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_
+the seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having
+with the confessedly spurious     | been _transmitted_ to us, for no
+Epistles. In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through
+MSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by
+version, the spurious Epistles    | _editors_ from the Medicean MS.
+come after the others; and the    | which contains so much that
+circumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;--a fact
+facts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a
+shows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of
+addition, borrowed from the Long  | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2]
+Recension to complete the body    |
+of Ignatian letters." [83:1]      |
+
+
+I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot
+advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the
+testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own
+statement. Cureton says:
+
+    "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us
+    to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of
+    St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient
+    Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles
+    presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed
+    up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.
+    Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same
+    footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only
+    ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been
+    the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of
+    any mention of the others." [83:3]
+
+    "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour
+    of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the
+    Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which
+    have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both
+    Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two
+    distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to
+    Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two
+    recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the
+    circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its
+    reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies
+    of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,
+    Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...
+    In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the
+    former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and
+    there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of
+    the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed
+    one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice
+    result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to
+    Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others
+    in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological
+    order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,
+    at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had
+    despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence
+    of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the
+    recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the
+    rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained."
+    [84:1]
+
+Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly
+show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the
+principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin
+version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which
+was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined
+table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod.
+Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a
+Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at
+the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third
+(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published
+by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean
+MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646.
+[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14.
+[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:
+
+        A.        |      B.       |       C.        |       D.        |
+     FABER STAP.  | VAL. PACAEUS. |     USHER       |    VOSSIUS.     |
+                  |               |                 |                 |
+  1. Trallians    | _Mar. Cass._  | Smyrn.          | Smyrn.          |
+  2. Magn.        | Trallians     | Polycarp        | Polycarp        |
+  3. _Tarsians_   | Magnes.       | Ephes.          | Ephes.          |
+  4. _Philip._    | _Tarsians_    | Magnes.         | Magnes.         |
+  5. Philad.      | _Philip.      | Philad.         | Philad.         |
+  6. Smyrn.       | Philad.       | Trallians       | Trallians       |
+  7. Polycarp     | Smyrn.        | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |
+  8. _Antioch._   | Polycarp      | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |
+  9. _Hero_       | _Antioch.     | _Tarsians_      | _Tarsians_      |
+ 10. Ephes.       | _Hero_        | _Antioch._      |                 |
+ 11. Romans       | Ephes.        | _Hero_          |                 |
+ 12.              | Romans        | _Mart. Ign._    |                 |
+ 13.              |               | Romans          |                 |
+
+I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well
+as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,
+the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have
+an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is
+obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and
+the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not
+contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle
+to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression,
+"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the
+epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which
+Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.
+
+I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn
+for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I
+have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out
+serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my
+references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before
+proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations.
+Dr. Westcott says:--
+
+    "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite
+    capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his
+    while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,
+    arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many
+    cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress
+    the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics
+    are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by
+    evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1]
+
+Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have
+almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in
+this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the
+Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted
+reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a
+very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned
+and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of
+little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,
+therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these
+questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical
+authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to
+works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add,
+that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to
+critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is
+right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and
+recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as
+they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as
+English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott,
+however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who
+oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.
+
+Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to
+investigate. He says:
+
+    "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion
+    which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than
+    this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One
+    example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I
+shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.
+The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by
+a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed
+contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he
+does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely
+worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be
+unfair. The example selected is as follows:
+
+    "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at
+    all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,
+    A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
+    amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by
+    the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)"
+    [87:2]
+
+    "'The references in support of these statements are the following:--
+
+    "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,
+    p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.
+    N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,
+    _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,
+    _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,
+    50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.
+    pp. 121 f., 136.
+
+    "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;
+    _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f.
+    Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.
+    p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die
+    ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._
+    1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'"
+
+Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:
+
+    Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot
+    but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are
+    quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their
+    testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact
+that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes
+differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being
+absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do
+not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the
+place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed
+being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to
+Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar
+transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are
+made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the
+date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4,
+placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is
+made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but
+which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,
+although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that
+there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only
+as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have
+in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my
+omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.
+The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add
+to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or
+115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a
+majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later
+date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the
+text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at
+the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but
+unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of
+this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the
+writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite
+regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,
+therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in
+Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred
+to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references
+[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two
+notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.
+
+                   NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.
+
+   DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.       |     THE TRUTH.
+                                    |
+                                    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
+                                    | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149,
+                                    | Anm.) Baur states as the date of
+                                    | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's
+                                    | visit to Rome, "during which the
+                                    | above order" (the sentence against
+                                    | Ignatius) is said to have been
+                                    | given, A.D. 115 and not 107.
+                                    |
+"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.   | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm.
+Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155,     |
+Anm. In this note, which is too     | After showing the extreme
+long  to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances
+so far as I see, _in any way        | under which the letters to the
+bearing_ upon the history [90:1]    | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said
+except a passing supposition 'wenn  | to have been written, Baur points
+... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn       | out the additional difficulty in
+[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...'         | regard to the latter that, if
+                                    | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his
+                                    | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him
+                                    | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D.
+                                    | 116, he must have become bishop at
+                                    | least in his 35th year, and
+                                    | continued so for upwards of half
+                                    | a century. The inference is clear
+                                    | that if Ignatius died so much
+                                    | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves
+                                    | the still greater improbability
+                                    | that Polycarp must have become
+                                    | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his
+                                    | 26th year, which is scarcely to be
+                                    | maintained, and the later date is
+                                    | thus obviously supported.
+                                    |
+                                    | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_,
+                                    | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.)
+                                    |
+                                    | Baur supports the assertion that
+                                    | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in
+                                    | Antioch, A.D. 115.
+                                    |
+"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same.
+p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui |
+circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' |
+                                    |
+"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144      | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144.
+[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den       |
+Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von  | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome
+Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen  | under Trajan, A.D. 115.
+115 _zu Rom_ als Märtyrer starb.'   |
+                                    |
+"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i.      | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148.
+p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the     |
+edition which I have used].         | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under
+'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien  | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed
+(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_  | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116.
+wegen seines standhaften            |
+Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan |
+115 _nach Rom geführt, und hier 116 |
+im Colosseum von Löwen zerrissen    |
+wurde_ (vgl. § 23, i.)' [where the  |
+same statement is repeated].        |
+                                    |
+"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I    | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f.
+have not been able to see the book  |
+referred to, but in his Lectures    | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his
+'Die christliche Kirche der drei    | office about 40 years when the
+ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853   | Emperor, in the year 115 (according
+(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions   | to others still earlier), came to
+the difficulty which has been felt  | Antioch. It was during his war
+as to the execution at Rome, while  | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach
+an execution at Antioch might have  | states some of the arguments for and
+been simpler and more impressive,   | against the martyrdom in Antioch,
+and then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former
+and passes on with 'Wie dem such    | of which he seems to consider more
+sei.']                              | probable.]
+                                    |
+"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i.     | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19.
+p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of        |
+Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite.
+himself, who was not thrown to the  |
+wild beasts in the amphitheatre at  | These "peremptory statements" are
+Rome by command of Trajan, but at   | of course based upon what is
+Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115.   | considered satisfactory evidence,
+The Epistles were written after     | though it may not be adduced here.
+150 A.D.' [For these peremptory     |
+statements no authority whatever is |
+adduced].                           |
+                                    |
+"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._  | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._
+p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der          | p. 79.
+spätestens 117 zu Rom den           |
+Märtyrertod litt ..._'              | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome
+                                    | at latest A.D. 117.
+                                    |
+"8. Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
+p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of  | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date
+Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The       | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he
+Ignatian letters are rejected       | repeats this statement, and gives
+partly 'weil sie eine Märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his
+des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on
+schon früher erkanntes              | the 20th December, A.D. 115.
+ungeschichtliches Wesen durch       |
+Volkmar's nicht ungegründete        |
+Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher   |
+wird. Darnach scheint nämlich       |
+Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl    |
+des sanftmüthigen Trajans, sondern  |
+zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines |
+am dreizehnten December 115         |
+eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer  |
+eines abergläubischen Volkswahns am |
+zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres  |
+im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren  |
+zur Beute überliefert worden zu     |
+sein.'                              |
+                                    |
+"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52  | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52,
+[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I     | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch,
+have not been able to consult, but  | 20th December, 115.
+from secondary references I gather  |
+that it repeats the arguments given |
+under the next reference.]          |
+                                    |
+"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der     | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom
+Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius,    | at Antioch, 20th December, 115.
+wurde, während Trajan dortselbst    |
+überwinterte, am 20. December den   |
+Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der   |
+durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December |
+115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi]       |
+erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer      |
+zugleich der Siegesfeste des        |
+Parthicus, welche die Judith-       |
+Erzählung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio     |
+(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt  |
+...'                                |
+                                    |
+"P. 136. The same statement is      | Ibid. p. 136. The same
+repeated briefly." [93:1]           | statement, with fuller
+                                    | chronological evidence.
+
+It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the
+later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in
+which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history
+except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it
+and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,
+that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not
+perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as
+statements of evidence.
+
+To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine
+writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,
+three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to
+Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is
+doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the
+martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the
+purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,
+and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,
+regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of
+the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which
+I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's
+statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention.
+
+                               NOTE 4.
+
+  DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.      |           THE TRUTH.
+                                  |
+1. Volkmar: see above.            | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+                                  | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.
+                                  |
+                                  | It will be observed on turning to
+                                  | the passage "above" (10), to which
+                                  | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes
+                                  | a single sentence containing merely
+                                  | a concise statement of facts, and
+                                  | that no indication is given to the
+                                  | reader that there is anything beyond
+                                  | it. At p. 136 "the same statement
+                                  | is repeated briefly." Now either
+                                  | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most
+                                  | serious charge against my work, based
+                                  | upon this "one example," has actually
+                                  | not taken the trouble to examine my
+                                  | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,"
+                                  | and p. 50 ff., to which he would
+                                  | have found himself there directed,
+                                  | or he has acted towards me with a
+                                  | want of fairness which I venture to
+                                  | say he will be the first to regret,
+                                  | when he considers the facts.
+                                  |
+                                  | Would it be divined from the words
+                                  | opposite, and the sentence "above,"
+                                  | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate
+                                  | argument, extending over a dozen
+                                  | closely printed pages, to prove that
+                                  | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,
+                                  | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch
+                                  | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,
+                                  | probably as a sacrifice to the
+                                  | superstitious fury of the people
+                                  | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited
+                                  | by the earthquake which occurred on
+                                  | the thirteenth of that month? I shall
+                                  | not here attempt to give even an
+                                  | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall
+                                  | presently reproduce some of the
+                                  | arguments of Volkmar and others in a
+                                  | more condensed and consecutive form.
+                                  |
+                                  | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.
+                                  |
+                                  | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which
+                                  | he had fully argued in the above
+                                  | work and elsewhere.
+                                  |
+2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc.,    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
+Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3,   | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.
+p. 149 f.                         |
+                                  |
+"In this passage Baur discusses   | Baur enters into a long and minute
+generally the historical          | examination of the historical
+character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of
+he considers, as a whole, to be   | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian
+'doubtful and incredible.' To     | Epistles, and pronounces the whole
+establish this result he notices  | to be fabulous, and more especially
+the relation of Christianity to   | the representation of his sentence
+the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He
+which he regards as inconsistent  | shows that, while isolated cases of
+with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under
+and the improbable circumstances  | occurred during Trajan's reign may
+of the journey. The personal      | justify the mere tradition that he
+characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no
+history of Ignatius, are, in his  | instance recorded in which a
+opinion, all a mere creation of   | Christian was condemned to be sent
+the imagination. The utmost he    | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;
+allows is that he may have        | that such a sentence is opposed to
+suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.)    | all historical data of the reign of
+                                  | Trajan, and to all that is known of
+                                  | his character and principles; and
+                                  | that the whole of the statements
+                                  | regarding the supposed journey
+                                  | directly discredit the story. The
+                                  | argument is much too long and
+                                  | elaborate to reproduce here, but I
+                                  | shall presently make use of some
+                                  | parts of it.
+                                  |
+"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_,   | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,
+1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1.          |  i. p. 440, Anm. 1.
+                                  |
+"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_  | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in
+und die Abführung dazu nach Rom   | the year 115, when Trajan wintered
+... mag auch unter Trajan nichts  | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered
+zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein,   | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a
+aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte     | sacrifice to popular fury
+seines Märtyrerthums auch nach    | consequent on the earthquake of
+der Vertheidigung derselben von   | that year. The rest was developed
+Lipsius ... höchst                | out of the reference to Trajan for
+unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische   | the glorification of martyrdom."
+ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J.  |
+115, als Trajan in Antiochien     |
+überwinterte, in Folge des        |
+Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in      |
+Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer   |
+der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer        |
+wurde.'                           |
+                                  |
+4. Davidson: see above.           | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.
+                                  |
+                                  | "All (the Epistles) are posterior
+                                  | to Ignatius himself, who was not
+                                  | thrown to the wild beasts in the
+                                  | amphitheatre at Rome by command of
+                                  | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December
+                                  | 20th, A.D. 115."
+                                  |
+5. Scholten: see above.           | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
+                                  | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are
+                                  | declared to be spurious for various
+                                  | reasons, but partly "because they
+                                  | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius
+                                  | to Rome, the unhistorical character
+                                  | of which, already earlier recognised
+                                  | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,
+                                  | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;
+                                  | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.
+                                  | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.
+                                  | Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville,
+                                  | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is
+                                  | made all the more probable by
+                                  | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.
+                                  | According to it Ignatius is reported
+                                  | to have become the prey of wild beasts
+                                  | on the 20th December, 115, not in the
+                                  | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of
+                                  | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch
+                                  | itself, as the victim of superstitious
+                                  | popular fury consequent on an
+                                  | earthquake which occurred on the
+                                  | 13th December of that year."
+                                  |
+6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch.          | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,
+Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative
+[A discussion of the date of the  | reference to establish the important
+beginning of Trajan's Parthian    | point of the date of the Parthian
+war, which he fixes in A.D. 115,  | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.
+but he decides nothing directly   | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf."
+as to the time of Ignatius'       |
+martyrdom.]                       |
+                                  |
+7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_,  | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff.
+p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld   | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's
+points out the objections to the  | argument which is referred to
+narrative in the Acts of the      | above, and while declaring the
+Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more
+refers to the period between      | especially the journey to Rome,
+Eusebius and Jerome: setting      | incredible, he considers the mere
+aside this detailed narrative he  | fact that Ignatius suffered
+considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding
+of the general statements in the  | which the possibility has been made
+letters. The mode of punishment   | out. He shows [97:1] that the
+by a provincial governor causes   | martyrology states the 20th
+some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,'  | December as the day of Ignatius'
+he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were
+andre Punct, die Versendung nach  | buried at Antioch, where they still
+Rom.' Why was the punishment not  | were in the days of Chrysostom and
+carried out at Antioch? Would it  | Jerome. He argues from all that is
+be likely that under an Emperor   | known of the reign and character of
+like Trajan a prisoner like       | Trajan, that such a sentence from
+Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite
+fight in the amphitheatre? The    | unsupported and inconceivable. A
+circumstances of the journey as   | provincial Governor might have
+described are most improbable.    | condemned him ad bestias, but in
+The account of the persecution    | any case the transmission to Rome
+itself is beset by difficulties.  | is more doubtful. He shows,
+Having set out these objections   | however, that the whole story is
+he leaves the question, casting   | inconsistent with historical facts,
+doubt (like Baur) upon the whole  | and the circumstances of the
+history, and gives no support to  | journey incredible. It is
+the bold affirmation of a         | impossible to give even a sketch of
+martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over
+December, A.D. 115.'"             | five long pages, but although
+                                  | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer
+                                  | to the theory of the martyrdom in
+                                  | Antioch itself, his reasoning
+                                  | forcibly points to that conclusion,
+                                  | and forms part of the converging
+                                  | trains of reasoning which result in
+                                  | that "demonstration" which I
+                                  | assert. I will presently make use
+                                  | of some of his arguments.
+
+At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:
+
+    "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments
+    in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the
+    references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,
+    what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1]
+
+It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of
+the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in
+support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon
+any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate
+idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but
+I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to
+Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be
+evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he
+expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity
+of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer
+to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to
+be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.
+A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,
+but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all
+when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld
+is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:
+
+    "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.
+    Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,
+    agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which
+    runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous
+    and misleading"--[99:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his
+own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and
+misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has
+been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy
+of my references.
+
+As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in
+regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,
+and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme
+brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and
+must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to
+suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the
+Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing
+Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his
+journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as
+well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various
+Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding
+the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases,
+however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is
+assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should
+receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything
+but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
+cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
+Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai
+euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,
+the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
+leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described
+by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing
+approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be
+pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,
+even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very
+different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the
+extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the
+contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a
+Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes
+letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with
+Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible
+to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and
+Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the
+story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the
+latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a
+Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a
+Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly
+declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
+(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he
+had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one
+which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with
+beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten
+leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different
+treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come
+and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is
+said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,
+gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome
+he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him
+(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house
+(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under
+which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.
+
+"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is
+derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case
+of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate
+than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know
+little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as
+serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,
+a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,
+found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his
+travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,
+according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his
+hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and
+ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him
+as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he
+was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real
+service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in
+prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which
+Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the
+Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,
+living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last
+they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some
+forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself
+into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An
+earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out
+from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,
+Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by
+the fire.
+
+Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct
+satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the
+history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any
+of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is
+obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to
+prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to
+Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of
+the satire.
+
+There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account
+of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as
+evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this
+narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking
+coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was
+acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters."
+These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in
+referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not
+express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is
+conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners
+were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On
+the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true
+that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles
+and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as
+independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
+treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be
+shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical
+value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man
+confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and
+not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius
+condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,
+cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of
+pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of
+Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free
+intercourse as they represent.
+
+I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of
+the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,
+in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,
+demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered
+martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into
+the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and
+I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the
+source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when
+necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies
+set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at
+least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch
+during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in
+the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,
+he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more
+difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by
+himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to
+secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but
+all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he
+"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely
+receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being
+molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to
+accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,
+but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,
+which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words
+which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled
+with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the
+episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions
+of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.
+
+When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by
+historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known
+of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as
+of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
+Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a
+provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.
+It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of
+Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent
+members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular
+fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom
+of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not
+condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
+purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In
+fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although
+Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is
+no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to
+Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of
+Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
+Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere
+fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined
+with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open
+demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by
+persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and
+the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the
+policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this
+severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation
+excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a
+long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some
+of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
+Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the
+fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have
+been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and
+enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results
+of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to
+accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole
+tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the
+Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore
+cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well
+as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
+beasts." [106:2]
+
+If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan
+himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,
+the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that
+such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition
+to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor
+did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in
+Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the
+more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the
+clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_
+would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is
+besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,
+of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome
+is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that
+Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death
+during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with
+some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,
+to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not
+without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.
+
+It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is
+A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake
+occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to
+excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here
+the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he
+mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still
+associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:
+"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with
+singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
+... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
+destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most
+appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for
+the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings
+from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;
+houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:
+the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped
+through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some
+days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of
+the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards
+the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,
+was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of
+public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the
+panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe
+that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by
+the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,
+the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome."
+[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution
+in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the
+earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took
+place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His
+remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,
+interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the
+only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome
+but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against
+the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.
+
+I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just
+made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first
+place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.
+I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important
+statement. He says:--
+
+    "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing
+    in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the
+    earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop
+    of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:
+    emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was
+    exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.
+He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,
+and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece
+of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere
+may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish
+stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything
+else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are
+disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot
+also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced
+by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who
+gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to
+the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts
+it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before
+him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by
+the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the
+Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas
+is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the
+main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually
+makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--
+
+    "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
+    capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some
+    earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.
+    The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used
+    especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,
+    including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression
+    [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either
+    'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A
+    blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either
+    expression." [110:1]
+
+This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not
+sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his
+language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:
+marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,
+were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
+which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express
+martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in
+the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so
+implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.
+"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify
+'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]
+only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's
+own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such
+quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems
+excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.
+
+That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the
+Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that
+none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian
+Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,
+Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and
+Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is
+the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and
+different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to
+Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas
+lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
+objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet
+he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against
+Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of
+Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,
+and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,
+some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly
+have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have
+been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have
+shaped the prevailing tradition.
+
+The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,
+long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the
+time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and
+ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had
+previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that
+the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum
+and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some
+centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome
+to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch
+to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
+of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in
+Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they
+had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which
+reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend
+of the Ignatian Epistles.
+
+The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in
+the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is
+undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated
+on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin
+Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that
+this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was
+evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively
+contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci
+vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta
+testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus
+reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn
+[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was
+celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance
+which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]
+
+On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess
+regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that
+Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and
+all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles
+themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in
+Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the
+statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based
+upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in
+discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And
+what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles
+and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,
+are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles
+all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down
+together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin
+only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of
+which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven
+there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,
+known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected
+as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics
+assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.
+Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,
+the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine
+letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal
+and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.
+The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I
+venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous
+than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the
+simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample
+justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,
+that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification
+and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as
+genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this
+mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents
+which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove
+anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the
+value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in
+favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.
+
+I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their
+attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,
+and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of
+"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally
+advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is
+impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,
+to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but
+I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to
+think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the
+actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has
+been made.
+
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._
+
+
+In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by
+critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and
+I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide
+that it is either spurious or interpolated.
+
+That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts,
+but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual
+Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of
+course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part
+of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that
+supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom
+of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly
+believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167,
+and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius
+Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia
+Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided
+that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp
+was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death
+must have taken place in one of those years.
+
+Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of
+Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been
+expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing
+the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and
+their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels
+record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find
+small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having
+arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and
+does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of
+Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which
+other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural
+Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest
+form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses
+expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in
+our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are
+referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their
+authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could
+be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could
+this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the
+reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels
+would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in
+the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty
+quite untouched.
+
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,
+although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.
+I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject
+fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to
+refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is
+merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few
+words on the fundamental question at issue.
+
+Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of
+whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the
+first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have
+written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little
+weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,
+his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.
+
+Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's
+Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows:
+
+    "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter
+    of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
+    without, however, recording in order what was either said or done
+    by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
+    but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his
+    instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of
+    giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]
+    ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]
+    or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus
+    wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
+    one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
+    false statement therein." [118:1]
+
+The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here
+given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now
+possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without
+recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative
+answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar
+enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has
+consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that
+there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to
+a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.
+However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of
+argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the
+value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our
+second Gospel.
+
+In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who
+is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the
+circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that
+he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.
+It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy
+of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false
+statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one
+supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented
+what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can
+be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.
+The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,
+confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to
+attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his
+information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal
+evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.
+Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says
+so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of
+the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the
+Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so
+Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with
+Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason
+whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the
+contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render
+more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as
+it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not
+here go.
+
+Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability
+of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have
+been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly
+appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required
+as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself
+seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer
+examination of the supposed evidence.
+
+    "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:
+    'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles
+    in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'"
+    [119:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing
+that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the
+Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with
+him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the
+statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,
+Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so
+far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but
+for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow
+that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have
+been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he
+said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always
+exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with
+the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what
+inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general
+correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this
+doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as
+evidence?
+
+I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground
+of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt
+as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in
+the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them
+as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our
+first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the
+original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at
+the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,
+because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our
+synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if
+it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a
+translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and
+no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may
+be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.
+
+The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw
+from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his
+severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.
+Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of
+Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the
+verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the
+present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias
+contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one
+interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the
+necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives
+at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a
+recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek
+St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all
+considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any
+other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the
+time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the
+"Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the
+words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St.
+Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth
+while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to
+interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot
+well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the
+substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and
+Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that
+our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have
+been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not
+a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would
+have been nearer the truth." [122:1]
+
+That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid
+of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that
+he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have
+been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not
+know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in
+language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field
+for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias
+said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may
+have said something more, which may have been consistent with any
+theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot
+continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which
+some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the
+Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think
+that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me
+for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of
+vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot
+continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to
+conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion
+unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of
+the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself
+any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,
+and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly
+demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the
+Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions
+upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.
+
+In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel
+of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,
+in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,
+has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general
+flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,
+the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,
+Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation
+which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which
+he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least
+that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our
+present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three,
+it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could
+quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel
+of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we
+are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents
+of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel
+according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius
+that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the
+Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's
+Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
+contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could
+not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes
+of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?
+
+Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,
+accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and
+called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic
+as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of
+Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,
+[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some
+points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion
+with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not
+without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some
+difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would
+justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is
+encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not
+think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be
+called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant
+the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the
+signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])
+became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as
+well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for
+straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond
+a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine."
+[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any
+force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that
+books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be
+called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine
+sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,
+could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike
+are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers
+proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the
+discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.
+[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's
+Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,
+that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.
+
+Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:
+
+    "The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
+    instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
+    they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
+    suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
+    by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
+    of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
+    fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
+    Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
+    the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
+    wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21
+    _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
+    chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
+    than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
+    refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
+    meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
+    teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
+    of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
+    writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
+    their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
+    Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
+    logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
+    _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
+    anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
+    passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
+    Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
+    sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
+    immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
+    _sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
+    precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
+    Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
+    the Lord." [126:1]
+
+He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
+Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine
+myself to that which I have quoted.
+
+"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were
+entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but
+the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues
+Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not
+refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or
+revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately
+to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,
+according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the
+Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to
+mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,
+where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on
+Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to give
+unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted
+to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles
+of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as
+Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own
+teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly
+explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when
+he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,
+at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also
+urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the
+_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo
+considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and
+held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When
+he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative,
+but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained
+in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant
+manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the
+expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"
+([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the
+New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement
+of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell
+against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the
+oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from
+the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are
+contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the
+whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much
+"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the
+Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus
+regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.
+
+In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I
+have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in
+connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have
+concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but
+he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not
+scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in
+suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It
+comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account
+of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we
+have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,
+we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or
+incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards
+establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine
+Revelation.
+
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._
+
+
+Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most
+complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the
+evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in
+_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands
+and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes
+increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully
+denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that
+he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the
+writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius
+Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected
+documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter
+of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of
+Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He
+really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is
+clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these
+particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do
+not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that
+our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during
+this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to
+examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin,
+authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of
+miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.
+
+I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by
+any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other
+apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my
+argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few
+sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to
+restore the discussion to its proper lines.
+
+In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally
+concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--
+
+    "Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
+    embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
+    the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
+    supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
+    complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
+    any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
+    Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
+    clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
+    from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
+    to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
+    have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
+    miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
+    conclusive." [130:1]
+
+Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was
+careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to
+proceed. I said:
+
+    "Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
+    authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
+    few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
+    criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
+    the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
+    simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
+    ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
+    certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely
+    conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively
+    as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for
+    information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged
+    indications of their use ... It is still more important that we
+    should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels
+    existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most
+    of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than
+    refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement
+    of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:
+    polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the
+    things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,
+    evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar
+    works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity
+    of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that
+    many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each
+    other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,
+    for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to
+    the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with
+    quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with
+    passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
+    however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the
+    similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof
+    that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from
+    some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially
+    not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from
+    sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our
+    Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources
+    cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
+    suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious
+    that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot
+    in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
+    unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
+    times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
+    our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
+    Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
+    of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
+    Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
+    to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
+    circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
+    a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
+    [132:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has
+made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his
+essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling
+attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have
+been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these
+canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which
+he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has
+adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after
+all, with many it is quite as effective.
+
+It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for
+such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be
+done very simply from our own Gospels:
+
+    "Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
+    due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
+    discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
+    to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it
+    stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment
+    suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the
+    'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works
+    of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an
+    unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de
+    pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
+    few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send
+    forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):
+    behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of
+    wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and
+    others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a
+    compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first
+    Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his
+    disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathêtais autou]), The harvest,'
+    &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: egô]) send you forth as
+    sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'
+    &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It
+    would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a
+    continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the
+    probability of a different source, and still more so to point out
+    that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,
+    might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the
+    first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation
+    was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,
+    is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,
+    had been lost.
+
+    "Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might
+    find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to
+    yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
+    is hypocrisy ([Greek: hêtis estin hupocrisis]). For there is
+    nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be
+    revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,
+    be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of
+    our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very
+    immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory
+    words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a
+    part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,
+    'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the
+    Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaiôn]), and Matt. x. 26,
+    '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:
+    kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not
+    be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of
+    Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in
+    separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it
+    is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly
+    established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a
+    combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according
+    to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]
+
+    "If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which
+    differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.
+    Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source
+    assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the
+    work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketês])
+    can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the
+    other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
+    cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed
+    as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly
+    corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,
+    [Greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
+    and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
+    first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
+    from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
+    Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
+    Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
+    source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
+    Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
+    philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
+    synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
+    and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
+    damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
+    from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
+    couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
+    46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
+    critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
+    derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
+    instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
+    extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
+    passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
+    trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
+    kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
+    memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
+    the substitution of [Greek: trupêmatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
+    would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
+    [134:1]
+
+Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
+anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
+variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it
+must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels
+existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from
+circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the
+laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to
+others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived
+from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is
+not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,
+but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring
+evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.
+
+Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"
+it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the
+account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the
+more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a
+note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative
+are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like
+Keim, Schürer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need
+to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the
+life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and
+it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their
+counterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by
+the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he
+relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that
+not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document,
+is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single
+Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship
+and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot
+in connection with this document further on.
+
+The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed
+[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is
+unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially
+as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing
+which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments
+attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot
+chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full
+knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the
+four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of
+the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted
+acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply
+enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis,
+in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly
+versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our
+four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the
+fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not
+add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their
+composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.
+If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a
+corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books
+of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even
+in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the
+names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything
+to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached
+by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for
+which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of
+vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings
+merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if,
+when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence
+of Melito to greater account. [136:2]
+
+Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris,
+[137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract
+preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of
+which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the
+writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm
+that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels
+seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the
+passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic,
+and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the
+composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show
+that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we
+consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really
+contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a
+jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius
+preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years
+of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force
+the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In
+this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,"
+which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the
+meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a
+phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the
+slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when
+the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.
+
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._
+
+
+A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus
+Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an
+account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter
+from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in
+Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by
+Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents
+that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for
+the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the
+Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in
+_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and
+a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how
+exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those
+documents. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is
+directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any
+supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity
+to passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness
+which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the
+object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course,
+indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect
+coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere
+fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions
+of his essay here.
+
+    "Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,
+    though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder
+    Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zacharious
+    marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the
+    commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have
+    the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias
+    and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was
+    filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression
+"the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: tê Zachariou marturia]), which he
+points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was
+accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in
+a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was
+almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.
+Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent
+to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the
+interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon
+the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could
+not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the
+passage in my complete edition:
+
+    "The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian
+    community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first
+    of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that
+    time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--
+    martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the
+    martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,
+    we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the
+    word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere
+    description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."
+
+This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld,
+and many eminent critics.
+
+It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the
+commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to
+be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
+the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say
+anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in
+Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to
+another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.
+
+    "Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,
+    the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are
+    supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable
+    to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which
+    likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in
+    the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,
+    although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any
+    narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the
+    Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered
+    an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of
+    his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written
+    narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first
+    chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth
+    recognisable book.'" [141:1]
+
+No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can
+have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where,
+then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited
+to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the
+prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work,
+would lead us to infer a written source.
+
+    "The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the
+    history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
+    which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
+    the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
+    history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
+    'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
+    not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
+    of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
+    it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
+    use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
+    far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
+    he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
+    observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
+    that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
+    acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
+    [142:1]
+
+Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader
+whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced
+without the slightest indication of the source from which they were
+derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have
+been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in
+circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone
+accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove
+the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.
+
+    "But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
+    Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
+    those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
+    are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
+    Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
+    charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
+    another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
+    supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
+    with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
+    taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
+    case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
+    Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
+    [143:1]
+
+My reply to this is:
+
+    "There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and
+    the source from which the writers obtained their information about
+    Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of
+    the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,
+    the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may
+    well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings
+    then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,
+    Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts
+    derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does
+    not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never
+    was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story
+    must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,
+    then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the
+    use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus
+    indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the
+    Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of
+    Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
+    upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor
+    its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be
+    in the slightest degree established." [143:2]
+
+Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under
+examination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that
+the "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The only
+interest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the
+paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has
+been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the
+apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took
+in hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the
+books of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian
+literature in circulation in the early days of the Church.
+
+I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the
+fourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you
+will think that he doeth God service." The Gospel has: "There cometh an
+hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain
+that the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any
+other, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add
+one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the
+Gospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_
+maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the
+outside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public
+document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our
+canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels
+instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are
+actually found in our canonical Gospels." [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot
+betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns
+upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular
+documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did
+contain similar passages to those in debate.
+
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_
+
+
+I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what
+I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may
+here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has
+appeared since the publication of my work.
+
+An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of
+Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as
+1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a
+Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and
+this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument
+regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more
+important addition to critical materials was made by the publication
+in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,
+with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before
+Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only
+refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt
+as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that
+they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.
+
+In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will
+be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius
+is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I
+give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--
+
+    "Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
+    how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the Gospels, and called it
+    _Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
+    persons) even to the present day." [146:1]
+
+I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
+acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
+hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--
+
+    "His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
+    altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
+    personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
+    speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
+    contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
+    the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
+    he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
+    that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
+    contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
+    the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
+    commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
+    often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]
+
+If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
+certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance,
+although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
+the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
+from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
+speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
+I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
+should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
+Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
+[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
+and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
+_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
+by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
+not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
+to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
+of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
+of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
+be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
+it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with
+the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to
+be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue
+the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding
+of its character and contents?
+
+The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites
+them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the
+twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--
+
+    "Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
+    selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed
+    a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.
+    On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
+    was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
+    called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the
+    _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
+    the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
+    _Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
+    this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several
+    things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and
+    rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met
+    with." [148:1]
+
+This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it
+remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for
+this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that
+Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It
+is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by
+Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius
+in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a
+third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of
+the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:
+
+    "It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of
+    Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four
+    Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of
+    Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving
+    its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages
+    from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;
+    of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could
+    confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.
+    Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in
+    his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same
+    place." [148:2]
+
+Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse
+them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen
+more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.
+The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of
+Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its
+continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite
+different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the
+supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the
+work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,
+in preference to making any statement of my own:--
+
+    "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this
+    Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon
+    on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his
+    brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his
+    work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.
+    Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out
+    of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other
+    hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,
+    in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1]
+
+This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_
+of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--
+
+    "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the
+    corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a
+    necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was
+    destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2]
+
+The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.
+453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes
+the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,
+which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but
+also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not
+perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and
+other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David
+after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn
+points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these
+passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]
+as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite
+information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond
+the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered
+works.
+
+I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some
+called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
+Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same
+ignorance as to its character.
+
+It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding
+the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should
+not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it
+told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]
+
+We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the
+Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.
+1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of
+which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the
+judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the
+fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be
+received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the
+author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the
+authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In
+any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.
+
+The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one
+belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from
+Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.
+states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic
+translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the
+presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have
+flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of
+these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,
+which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end
+of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the
+original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only
+ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."
+
+So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the
+language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name
+would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek
+composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere
+fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and
+that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of
+Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it
+was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can
+be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the
+original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,
+even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the
+_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the
+original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to
+a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.
+Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,
+the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.
+
+It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of
+the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the
+composition and its object. We have met with three works of this
+description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have
+existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain
+that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the
+first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it
+was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of
+correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if
+such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style
+and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already
+current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in
+details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its
+authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of
+an arranger's name?
+
+An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of
+Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.
+
+    "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
+    anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence
+    to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of
+    such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the
+    canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
+    _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that
+    the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in
+    favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew
+    continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as
+    Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in
+    the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin
+    dress.
+
+    "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the
+    authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general
+    plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke
+    i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore,
+    at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius."
+    [153:1]
+
+How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as
+he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the
+words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
+still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
+"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
+&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
+the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
+_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
+Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
+Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
+discovered:--
+
+    "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
+    543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
+    without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
+    once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
+    already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
+    was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
+    generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
+    have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
+    better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
+    point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
+    fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
+    to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
+    passu_." [153:3]
+
+But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
+could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
+such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
+about the reading _Diapente_?
+
+I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing
+how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the
+Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not
+at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the
+recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,
+I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the
+assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or
+less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony"
+itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of
+any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information
+given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these
+works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the
+Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more
+credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some
+arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of
+the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]
+
+    "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an
+    objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all
+    the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
+    at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
+    supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early
+    Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with
+    notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more
+    recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of
+    Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which
+    ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.
+
+    "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is
+    the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this
+    might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances
+    it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.
+    But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent
+    reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which
+    had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice
+    from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9).
+    But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.
+    The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.
+    This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human
+    utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr
+    like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as
+    a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been
+    witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the
+    martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet
+    scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this
+    phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the
+    fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In
+    another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions
+    at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are
+    told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
+    stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet
+    odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had
+    been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai
+    kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no
+    burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must
+    have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican
+    martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more
+    startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.
+
+    "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the
+    _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
+    amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was
+    accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense,
+    'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
+    the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification
+    as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his
+    forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
+    of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
+    burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo
+    martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,
+    when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common
+    instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a
+    prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'
+    is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is
+    sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to
+    a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any
+    Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at
+    least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,
+    is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,
+    relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his
+    master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac
+    dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
+    postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1]
+
+I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written
+long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents
+Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity
+of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards
+freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of
+supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the
+authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with
+which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into
+naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without
+doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of
+miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and
+insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to
+explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which
+he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but
+very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the
+imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,
+I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.
+
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+CONCLUSIONS.
+
+
+We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
+conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we
+could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which
+are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested
+in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.
+It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the
+specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of
+which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its
+doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be
+pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just
+and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
+announcements."
+
+On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine
+Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the
+supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would
+be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to
+one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are
+performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and
+are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive
+and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are
+beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
+human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a
+nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the
+Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of
+performing.
+
+The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is
+not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common
+also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or
+details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first
+promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for
+centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has
+flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed
+through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has
+entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and
+commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
+miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to
+convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The
+selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more
+characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.
+
+The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that
+their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance
+and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or
+place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and
+ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There
+is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate
+the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so
+freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the
+witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of
+knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No
+miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent
+reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
+imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
+connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
+miraculous pretension.
+
+There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
+interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have
+sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a
+single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,
+wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure
+occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely
+acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and
+'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as
+knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural
+interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles
+have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the
+present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and
+phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of
+natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken
+order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for
+ever annihilated them.
+
+To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite
+Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution
+of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is
+argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate
+causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this
+Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the
+Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably
+maintained.
+
+The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and
+unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can
+possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working
+miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order
+of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is
+further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is
+avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other
+spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to
+prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not
+with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of
+Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived
+from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise
+the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as
+arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine
+design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and
+opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any
+theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the
+human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of
+creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as
+inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed
+punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them
+are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
+inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.
+
+Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena
+must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute
+knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and
+it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of
+nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously
+greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On
+the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of
+the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only
+possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of
+phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
+especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and
+superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only
+reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the
+probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of
+miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the
+order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation
+and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the
+circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are
+examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which
+wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.
+
+When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian
+miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising
+the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case
+turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere
+narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years
+ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force
+and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should
+be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
+of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,
+however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
+distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
+themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the
+writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are
+even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and
+third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor
+eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we
+are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding
+the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.
+
+In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite
+principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the
+date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for
+information regarding the composition and character of these works and
+even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these
+could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the
+date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were
+guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based
+upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
+complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and
+character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition
+preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details
+of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second
+Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been
+composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever
+directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to
+whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no
+value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence
+from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With
+one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a
+half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
+use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,
+does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually
+in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere
+suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence
+shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to
+which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our
+third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the
+existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest
+information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against
+it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
+its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end
+anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not
+themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from
+the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the
+inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor
+contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to
+reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
+Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be
+pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by
+unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous
+occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They
+cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar
+results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the
+third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.
+There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,
+but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with
+miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the
+narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for
+it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are
+compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with
+authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it
+becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been
+supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be
+regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends
+to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so
+suspiciously abound.
+
+The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate
+examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional
+testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief
+in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is
+unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles
+believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so
+supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic
+Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of
+four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders
+it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters
+attributed to him.
+
+The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church
+is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After
+elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating
+conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the
+unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with
+which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into
+supernatural occurrences.
+
+As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the
+cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of
+Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of
+these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict
+and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such
+stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the
+statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,
+which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
+Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries
+of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.
+His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the
+belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and
+undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the
+statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare
+fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he
+had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the
+risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal
+testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which
+we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
+Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of
+which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation
+in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in
+all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The
+testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to
+ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an
+earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active
+persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the
+case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the
+fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is
+not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the
+evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly
+inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must
+consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or
+even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
+the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
+accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in
+the case of any common question of property or title before a legal
+tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be
+established, the more complete must be the proof required.
+
+If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,
+we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing
+original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,
+and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,
+or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.
+There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst
+men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written
+books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There
+is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not
+substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single
+phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous
+conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and
+ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.
+Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held
+an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The
+same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated
+precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had
+already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated
+by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality
+of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity
+has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,
+and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could
+practically interest us now.
+
+There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which
+can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the
+salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a
+single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for
+whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost
+unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to
+be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the
+present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of
+salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a
+third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
+could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as
+Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical
+position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to
+Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even
+now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries
+never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme
+Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human
+race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
+incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the
+cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be
+regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate
+for a system of elevated morality.
+
+We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher
+may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances
+have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to
+him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;
+but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by
+the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It
+is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we
+owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
+people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the
+doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.
+The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had
+never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after
+it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the
+East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the
+development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most
+instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas
+were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents
+several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had
+passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
+who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,
+piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and
+humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate
+structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of
+human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,
+displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which
+commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of
+the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
+churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have
+naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate
+Conception and Papal Infallibility.
+
+It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such
+conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but
+remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before
+existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a
+substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or
+silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth
+cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by
+considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and
+suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be
+premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a
+humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality
+is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,
+although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,
+have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
+even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and
+civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far
+Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here
+venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that
+whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not
+to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic
+Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
+Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has
+been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of
+Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards
+enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema
+of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been
+tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.
+"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
+enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of
+Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of
+assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological
+resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
+enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to
+the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the
+world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher
+principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals
+sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating
+rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine
+institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than
+it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
+social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological
+question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have
+finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and
+modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will
+necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent
+on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed
+to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right
+principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,
+for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation
+which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
+been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any
+degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the
+true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,
+we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and
+punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as
+essential to Christianity.
+
+As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by
+such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any
+means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The
+Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an
+illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and
+its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the
+traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and
+green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool
+fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his
+wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.
+Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the
+desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not
+vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other
+horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to
+ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search
+elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of
+the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make
+four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose
+fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is
+it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five
+than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who
+represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special
+illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a
+former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of
+existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we
+believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to
+repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at
+least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.
+
+The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is
+necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation
+are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived
+from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing
+absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must
+our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the
+expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through
+natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
+as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we
+desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to
+complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To
+attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should
+be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be
+certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is
+as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires
+to know.
+
+We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human
+invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the
+incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine
+government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the
+place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic
+visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of
+unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered
+from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our
+eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured
+in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of
+life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light
+of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable
+horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless
+victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
+representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation,"
+it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways
+of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the
+perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call
+wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now
+the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns
+to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.
+
+As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be
+baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass
+away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although
+it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for
+so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can
+rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish
+between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from
+characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.
+That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply
+an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which
+excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.
+
+
+
+
+
+[ENDNOTES]
+
+
+[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.
+
+[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.
+
+[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.
+
+[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the
+similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards
+referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this
+interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_."
+
+[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.
+
+[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.
+
+[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.
+
+[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.
+
+[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.
+
+[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.
+
+[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.
+
+[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,
+Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
+
+[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.
+
+[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.
+
+[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.
+
+[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.
+
+[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with
+such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part
+itself.
+
+[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
+
+[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._
+p. 4, n. 4.
+
+[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the
+example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he
+introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within
+brackets.
+
+[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.
+
+[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.
+
+[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.
+
+[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
+
+[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as
+Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which
+is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is
+treated as a contemporary.
+
+[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.
+
+[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation
+attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho
+logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase
+from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is
+surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that
+Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and
+Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from
+the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is
+[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is
+rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The
+phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'
+hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên
+allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata
+korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês
+meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of
+the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to
+those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other
+side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after
+"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the
+sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
+Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage
+from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the
+uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which
+reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into
+the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and
+meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and
+their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,
+the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian
+proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel
+of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the
+assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could
+have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
+
+[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition,
+as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
+exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
+I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting
+the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence
+of the words given above.
+
+[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my
+having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic
+might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,
+but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie
+der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._
+p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_,
+p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.
+
+[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.
+
+[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above
+reference, but does not quote the passage.
+
+[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.
+
+[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.
+
+[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by
+Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
+
+[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.
+
+[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106.
+
+[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.
+
+[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].
+
+[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not
+refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
+
+[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]
+
+[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.
+
+[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]
+
+[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.
+
+[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.
+
+[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].
+
+[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly
+suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."
+
+[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that
+such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage
+Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the
+contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the
+allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even
+by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
+Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument
+regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)
+sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
+
+[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].
+
+[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].
+
+[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.
+
+[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.
+
+[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
+
+[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.
+
+[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.
+
+[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.
+
+[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.
+
+[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being
+silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the
+Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point
+out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,
+and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the
+doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it
+had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the
+composition of that work.
+
+[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.
+
+[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]
+
+[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more
+especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere
+Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."
+
+[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.
+
+[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.
+
+[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.
+
+[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.
+
+[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to
+the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).
+
+[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.
+
+[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.
+
+[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.
+
+[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.
+
+[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.
+
+[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._
+viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.
+
+[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.
+
+[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.
+
+[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.
+
+[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.
+
+[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.
+
+[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the
+current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who
+deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.
+Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with
+El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,
+note 1.
+
+[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.
+
+[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.
+
+[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.
+
+[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.
+
+[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.
+
+[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]
+
+[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.
+
+[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.
+
+[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.
+
+[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.
+
+[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.
+
+[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)
+
+[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.
+
+[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].
+
+[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].
+
+[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.
+p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used
+the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and
+not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this
+edition I have made my meaning clear.
+
+[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.
+
+[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.
+
+[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.
+
+[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.
+
+[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].
+
+[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.
+Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.
+
+[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.
+
+[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.
+
+[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.
+
+[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.
+
+[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.
+
+[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.
+
+[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.
+
+[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.
+
+[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.
+
+[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.
+
+[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.
+
+[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.
+
+[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.
+
+[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.
+
+[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to
+the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i.
+p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and
+the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.
+
+[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.
+
+[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59
+ff.]
+
+[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].
+
+[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].
+
+[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of
+reference.
+
+[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is
+explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2).
+Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.
+
+[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].
+
+[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.
+
+[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have
+added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the
+text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.
+vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this
+appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.
+
+[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].
+
+[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.
+
+[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]
+
+[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.
+
+[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.
+Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,
+where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
+Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages
+further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the
+authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority
+of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].
+
+[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii
+nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum
+impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr.
+Rel._ i. 13, § 39).
+
+[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.
+
+[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.
+
+[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].
+Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
+
+[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).
+
+[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].
+
+[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.
+
+[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.
+p. xxxviii.
+
+[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit.
+Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.
+
+[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]
+
+[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.
+
+[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]
+
+[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
+
+[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].
+
+[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.
+
+[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].
+
+[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.
+
+[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
+
+[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.
+
+[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in
+the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight
+lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
+
+[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.
+
+[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].
+
+[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].
+
+[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.
+
+[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
+Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The
+Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is
+embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection
+in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before
+the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles
+come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles
+in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are
+together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,
+_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."
+
+[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
+p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
+
+[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
+
+[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.
+
+[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.
+
+[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.
+
+[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.
+
+[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.
+
+[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.
+
+[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;
+Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,
+Amstel. 1646.
+
+[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.
+
+[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the
+Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
+
+[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
+p. xix f.
+
+[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.
+
+[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
+
+[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first
+quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second
+note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
+
+[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call
+attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.
+
+[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an
+extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der
+ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is
+part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth
+century.
+
+[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,
+but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to
+'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different
+object of the two notes.
+
+[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
+
+[97:1] P. 213.
+
+[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a
+note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display
+of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second
+edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might
+reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had
+reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which
+reference was necessary.
+
+[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
+
+[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._
+1631, p. 152.
+
+[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.
+
+[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].
+
+[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].
+
+[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether
+inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.
+
+[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.
+
+[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.
+
+[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.
+
+[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
+Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,
+1873, p. 517 ff.
+
+[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].
+
+[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.
+
+[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the
+almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the
+Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of
+Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of
+Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.
+
+[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.
+
+[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.
+
+[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.
+
+[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352
+[_ibid._ p. 79].
+
+[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].
+
+[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].
+
+[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].
+
+[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.
+
+[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these
+relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards
+translated to Antioch.
+
+[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.
+
+[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.
+
+[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of
+the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.
+(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)
+
+[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.
+
+[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in
+Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere
+allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"
+the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been
+celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is
+nothing else to establish it.
+
+[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.
+Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)
+
+[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in
+these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
+
+[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
+
+[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]
+
+[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.
+
+[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.
+
+[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.
+
+[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.
+
+[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
+
+[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.
+
+[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.
+
+[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
+
+[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.
+
+[125:2] i. 236 ff.
+
+[125:3] Note.
+
+[125:4] Note.
+
+[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f.
+
+[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
+
+[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
+
+[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
+
+[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.
+
+[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.
+
+[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.
+
+[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.
+
+[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.
+
+[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,
+Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the
+following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except
+that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,
+is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,
+and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume
+that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have
+no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is
+unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If
+Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the
+press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable
+to those who have none.
+
+[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.
+
+[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.
+
+[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.
+
+[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.
+
+[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.
+
+[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.
+
+[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.
+
+[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257
+
+[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.
+
+[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.
+
+[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.
+
+[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)
+
+[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a
+note.
+
+[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.
+
+[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.
+
+[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.
+
+[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.
+
+[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.
+
+[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.
+p. 159 sq.
+
+[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.
+
+[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.
+
+[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by
+Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).
+
+[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.
+
+[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.
+
+[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.
+
+[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.
+
+[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.
+
+[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.
+
+[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.
+
+[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.
+
+[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.
+
+[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.
+
+[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different
+religions is estimated as follows:
+
+   Parsees                          150,000
+   Sikhs                          1,200,000
+   Jews                           7,000,000, being about ½ per cent.
+                                             of the whole.
+   Greek Catholics               75,000,000      "       6   "    "
+   Roman Catholics              152,000,000      "      12   "    "
+   Other Christians             100,000,000      "       8   "    "
+   Hindus                       160,000,000      "      13   "    "
+   Muhammedans                  155,000,000      "      12½  "    "
+   Buddhists                    500,000,000      "      40   "    "
+   Not included in the above    100,000,000      "       8   "    "
+                                -----------
+                              1,250,350,000
+
+We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an
+excellent little work recently published by the Society for the
+Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.
+
+
+
+
+
+INDEX.
+
+
+Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164
+Addai, Doctrine of, 147
+Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148
+Anger, 5
+Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f.
+Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia
+Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff.
+Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137
+Aristion, 55
+Ascension, evidence for, 165
+Aubertin, 65, 66
+Aucher, 145
+
+Baronius, 112 n. 3
+Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f.
+Basnage, 65, 66
+Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72
+Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79;
+     date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.;
+     on Peregrinus Proteus, 102
+Beausobre, 70, 71
+Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93
+Blondel, 65, 66
+Bochart, 65, 66
+Böhringer, 59, 62, 63, 80
+Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79
+
+Calvin, 64
+Campianus, 64
+Casaubon, 65, 67
+Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146
+Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64
+Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65
+Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f.
+Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f.
+Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f.
+Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f.
+Cleophas, 52
+Cook, 65, 66
+Criticism, attitude towards, 1
+Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f.
+Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.
+
+Dallaeus, 62
+Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of
+     Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96
+Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32
+Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1
+Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff.
+Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff.
+Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's
+     commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and
+     Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.;
+     Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.;
+     Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the
+     genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed
+     in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify
+     it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated
+     from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151;
+     original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts
+     in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of
+     Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.;
+     case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace
+     says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154
+Dionysius of Corinth, 56
+Doctrine of Addai, 147
+Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150
+Dorner, 4
+Dressel, 79
+
+Ebrard, 7
+Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons
+     of Eusebius, 148
+Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.;
+     date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date
+     of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.;
+     Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154
+Epiphanius, 150
+Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence
+     of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.;
+     his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.;
+     on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus,
+     148 f., 152
+Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141
+
+Farrar, Dr., 34
+Francke, 97
+
+Gfrörer, 7, 75
+Glaucias, 15, 18, 19,
+Gobarus, Stephanus, 23
+Godet, 32
+Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2;
+     Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.;
+     Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.;
+     evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135;
+     alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     alleged evidence of Polycrates 137;
+     supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144;
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.;
+     insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.;
+     its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f.
+Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.;
+     object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels
+     circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not
+     necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.;
+     evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence
+     is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff.
+Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2
+Grove, 34
+Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93
+
+Hadrian, 12
+Hagenbach, 91, 93
+Harless, 75
+Hase, 76
+Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150
+Hefele, 80
+Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius,
+     52 ff.; on Simeon, 52
+Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_?
+     146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149;
+     its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153
+Hengstenberg, 31
+Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79;
+     place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and
+     Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142;
+     Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.
+Hippolytus, 17 f.
+Holtzmann, 135, 147
+Hug, 32
+Humfrey, 66
+
+Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of
+     his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.;
+     his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.;
+     compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to
+     martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.;
+     remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f.
+Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of
+     Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles,
+     67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as
+     evidence, 113 f.
+Irenaeus, 3 ff.
+
+Jacobson, 65
+Jerome, 110 f.
+John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.;
+     double use of name, 55 f.
+Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.
+
+Keim, 135
+Kestner, 70, 71
+Kirchhofer, 7
+
+Lange, 32
+Lardner, 70, 136
+Lechler, 76 f.
+Lightfoot, 32, 33
+Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f.,
+     13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f.,
+     36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of
+     Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott
+     on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.;
+     on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on
+     Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations,
+     23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character
+     of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar,
+     30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.;
+     the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.;
+     silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on
+     Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements
+     regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey
+     and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's,
+     100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on
+     John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his
+     Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116;
+     on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on
+     Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of
+     Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can
+     Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument
+     of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on
+     Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias,"
+     140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference
+     to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's
+     mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine
+     of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius
+     Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of
+     Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.;
+     similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of
+     Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.;
+     Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens,
+     154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.;
+     practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156
+Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of
+     Polycarp, 135
+Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff.
+Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1
+Lucian, 12, 101 f.
+Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne
+     and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153
+Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of
+     Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.
+
+Magdeburg Centuriators, 64
+Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff.
+Marcus Aurelius, 105 f.
+Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter
+     of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in
+     _Diatessaron_, 149
+Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in
+     Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_
+     of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f.
+Matthias, 16, 18
+Mayerhoff, 91, 93
+Melito of Sardis, 135 f.
+Merx, 78, 79
+Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82
+Mill, on miracles, 36 ff.
+Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f.
+Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150
+Mozley, on belief, 35 f.
+
+Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f.
+Neubauer, 30, 34
+Nicephorus, 111 n. 1
+
+Olshausen, 7, 32
+"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff.
+Origen, on Celsus, 10 f.
+
+Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of
+     his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of
+     the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had
+     nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.;
+     on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the
+     Gospels, 127 f.
+Parker, 65, 66
+Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius,
+     100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165;
+     his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.
+Pearson, 67
+Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff.
+Perpetua, Saturus and, 100
+Petau, 65, 67
+Petermann, 78 ff.
+Phillips, 147
+Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115
+Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with
+     the miraculous elements, 154 f.
+Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137
+Pressensé, de, 60
+Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115
+
+"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons
+     of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of
+     Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically
+     justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.;
+     evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles
+     as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence
+     not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true
+     character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in
+     supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles,
+     159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of
+     Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.;
+     evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which
+     evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for
+     Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence
+     of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.;
+     results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of
+     Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was
+     misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.;
+     alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not
+     valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to
+     man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology
+     to be mere human inventions, 173 f.
+Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f.
+Reuss, 147
+Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32
+Ritschl, 62, 63
+Rivet, 64, 65, 67
+Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4
+Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112
+Rumpf, 60
+
+Sanday, 33
+Saumaise, 65, 66
+Schleimann, 75 f.
+Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147
+Schroeckh, 70, 71
+Schürer, 135
+Shechem, 30 ff.
+Simeon, 52, 105 f.
+Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f.
+Socinus, 65
+Stephen, 142 f.
+Sychar, 30 ff.
+Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f.
+
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron
+Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81
+Thiersch, 7, 70
+Tholuck, 7
+Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.;
+     does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80;
+     "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142;
+     it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff.
+Tregelles, 60, 82 f.
+
+Uhlhorn, 78, 79
+Ussher, 67
+
+Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of
+     Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of
+     evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155
+Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice
+     Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place
+     of martyrdom, 94 ff.
+Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f.
+
+Wace, Dr., 153
+Waddington, 115
+Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79
+Weissmann, 69 f.
+Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.;
+     on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion,"
+     44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly
+     acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147
+Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32
+Wieseler, 31, 32
+Wotton, 68, 69
+
+Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.
+Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1,
+     101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112;
+     did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages
+     regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged
+     Armenian version, 150
+Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 13433 ***
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..381dccb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #13433 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13433)
diff --git a/old/13433-8.txt b/old/13433-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5175447
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/13433-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6867 @@
+Project Gutenberg's A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by Walter R. Cassels
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays
+
+Author: Walter R. Cassels
+
+Release Date: September 24, 2004 [EBook #13433]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
+Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PRODUCTION NOTES:
+A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)
+Originally published anonymously in 1889.
+Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS
+
+BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+
+
+
+LONDON
+1889
+
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent
+illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his
+republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided
+evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may
+be possible, however little we may agree on other points.
+
+It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving
+the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost
+him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion
+of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and
+attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to
+many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and
+of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence
+and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,
+which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt
+to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious
+argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
+I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
+Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,
+and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part
+which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play
+in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first
+moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even
+below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated
+theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should
+not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,
+is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
+Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:
+any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
+Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the
+effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
+In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed
+likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor
+questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst
+Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes
+his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of
+his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so
+little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the
+complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more
+palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of
+his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these
+Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental
+proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised
+notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:
+but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and
+the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute
+blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have
+frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
+They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,
+crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose
+the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's
+Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of
+_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the
+reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and
+others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the
+more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
+Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to
+be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.
+
+The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me
+the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of
+their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,
+and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural
+Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the
+portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that
+readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is
+published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference
+for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those
+Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such
+further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
+statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
+must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I
+trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
+allegations and their bearing on my argument.
+
+I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
+alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the
+first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to
+wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show
+the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
+moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
+reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
+contain them.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that
+I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but
+I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very
+serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the
+possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave
+the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon
+the basis of reason and not of reputation.
+
+
+
+
+
+       CONTENTS
+
+
+   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES
+
+ III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA
+
+  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
+
+   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES
+
+  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL
+
+ VII.  TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"
+
+VIII.  CONCLUSIONS
+
+       [ENDNOTES]
+
+       INDEX.
+
+
+
+
+
+I.
+
+_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_
+[Endnote 1:1]
+
+
+The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,
+that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work
+should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
+remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
+that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge
+fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and
+in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws
+and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
+perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
+application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
+otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
+which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
+more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which
+may be fallacious.
+
+Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
+silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
+face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the
+case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of
+the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the
+December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe
+lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance
+and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,
+falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to
+me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his
+impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
+fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold
+so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and
+I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
+Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
+I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his
+attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience
+and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general
+detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be
+pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the
+threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains
+in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still
+is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in
+translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with
+which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well
+founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of
+such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of
+the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not
+weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has
+been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of
+Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,
+however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there
+is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which
+have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
+which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change
+the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once
+to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to
+sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the
+weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has
+the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most
+critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most
+critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune
+to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many
+points, from most critics.
+
+The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
+regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
+reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
+that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
+and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
+would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
+in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words
+"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of
+a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
+in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
+supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
+Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
+Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what
+"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and
+he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
+reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
+question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
+passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
+Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
+Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:
+"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears
+to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a
+note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the
+Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of
+interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the
+indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of
+"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the
+slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing
+this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital
+bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
+The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the
+justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not
+acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical
+opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,
+understand the real position of the case.
+
+Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
+passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
+was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion
+to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom
+I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,
+now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated
+treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against
+Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there
+is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate
+the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is
+no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing
+the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers
+to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in
+italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as
+Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points
+out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
+should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo
+cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab
+Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,
+utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,
+[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether
+these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the
+saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it
+merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and
+only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the
+first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the
+translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,
+brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the
+circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly
+separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that
+they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,
+[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does
+not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but
+merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it
+formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does
+not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is
+impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
+150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with
+Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters
+from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back
+to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not
+evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without
+an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
+Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a
+passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of
+the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the
+Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In
+my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain
+whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and
+whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something
+borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
+[6:4]
+
+With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
+while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the
+external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in
+discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do
+apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,
+Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,
+Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,
+although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of
+Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so
+indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of
+Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on
+neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and
+whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with
+the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of
+apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
+Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as
+testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly
+have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken
+from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any
+of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the
+passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject
+generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in
+which the quotation is discussed.
+
+This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
+dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
+maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All
+that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there
+is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
+discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of
+Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what
+I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But
+although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who
+says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what
+was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,
+a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly
+trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,
+the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,
+but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai
+de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of
+showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point
+is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make
+any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,
+beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and
+that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage
+is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the
+work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended
+to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation
+made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had
+been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately
+withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different
+from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my
+argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which
+Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it
+as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this
+was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,
+and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]
+
+With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
+practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
+"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
+Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
+because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
+that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
+of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
+altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
+contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he
+has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted
+to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
+assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
+those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
+giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
+most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
+"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high
+authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
+[9:2]
+
+My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
+passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived
+from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a
+quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these
+words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the
+Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing
+more than the exegesis of his own day.
+
+The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with
+a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage
+from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:
+"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes
+that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile
+been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him
+as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
+everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen
+does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:
+epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge
+was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say
+'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not
+write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
+nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and
+finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
+itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with
+the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the
+triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here
+"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey
+a totally wrong impression of the case.
+
+The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
+between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
+[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the
+passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
+observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
+fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
+rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
+manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
+passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself
+by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick
+of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words
+in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments
+as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a
+completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's
+poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen
+rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words
+of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition
+of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
+"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
+seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten
+Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'
+'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht
+geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen
+acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch
+jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],
+'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"
+&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,
+but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words
+of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon
+these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,
+but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
+Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there
+may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered
+as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.
+
+Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
+however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of
+this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point
+is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than
+my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
+adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
+conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
+impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
+considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
+In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that
+his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
+little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
+is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
+actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
+whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
+which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as
+a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,
+on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
+considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
+proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
+Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;
+but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus
+attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
+circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
+Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
+about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
+scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
+it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
+Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,
+which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
+translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
+passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
+expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
+issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
+context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
+Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot
+interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept
+correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite
+content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair
+spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in
+which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely
+rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
+[13:1]
+
+I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
+errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
+magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
+apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as
+"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,
+_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the
+"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally
+omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,
+"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
+In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,
+I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have
+Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of
+such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,
+in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
+Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot
+points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon
+the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
+I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
+the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
+distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
+[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1]
+
+I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
+me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
+dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--
+
+    "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--
+
+    "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
+    as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
+    p. 264)
+
+    "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
+    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
+    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
+    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
+    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
+    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
+    remarks--
+
+    "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
+    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
+    in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
+    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
+    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
+    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact
+    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
+    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
+    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
+    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
+    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
+    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
+    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
+    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
+    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)
+
+    "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
+    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
+    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
+    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
+    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
+    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
+    would have thought of." [16:1]
+
+In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
+quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
+says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
+it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
+doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
+was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
+prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
+into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
+views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
+and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
+claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'
+[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a
+'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or
+'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth
+of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them
+as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony
+of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.
+In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain
+references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
+And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be
+sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]
+
+Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary
+statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to
+be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.
+Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"
+of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a
+"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow
+of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,
+that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of
+all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon
+a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,
+after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according
+to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they
+are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed
+by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the
+"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels
+in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'
+books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of
+his writings which remain there are certain references" to those
+gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon
+any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages
+in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,
+not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a
+mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the
+vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of
+the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from
+Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that
+of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that
+period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,
+as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments
+into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed
+by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values
+the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch
+apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of
+a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the
+fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"
+to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed
+the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original
+system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the
+'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,
+in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect
+responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,
+so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel
+in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the
+part of the founder himself." [18:1]
+
+It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides
+regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did
+not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,
+supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the
+heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,
+the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before
+us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single
+sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês
+kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou
+hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement
+exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order
+to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much
+stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott
+says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]
+Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the
+passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words
+of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"
+seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides
+which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see
+any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,
+let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the
+strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and
+then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after
+the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted
+commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,
+and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well
+indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,
+that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He
+has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed
+to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful
+illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which
+pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
+exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
+safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better
+to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
+advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
+be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
+the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
+other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
+motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,
+and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost
+that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
+possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
+particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
+unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
+should be more impartially made.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
+arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single
+out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and
+on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines
+of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in
+the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]
+I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion
+upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me
+"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists
+which I have ignored.
+
+The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with
+an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being
+spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested
+regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier
+passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--
+"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found
+in any common source of information, that when the Latin version
+(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated
+into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism'
+altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently
+attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for
+not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,
+may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on
+"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter
+Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians
+of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information
+with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur
+only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the
+difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words
+'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:
+peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,
+'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish
+particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could
+not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is
+no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty
+presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
+however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn
+translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling
+the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.
+Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock
+of grammar."
+
+The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of
+apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--
+
+    "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
+    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
+    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
+    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
+    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
+    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
+    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
+    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
+    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
+    question at issue." [22:1]
+
+I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
+without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
+himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
+more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
+any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
+believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
+are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
+cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
+the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
+as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
+and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
+clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
+documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
+discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
+it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
+reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:
+
+    "Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the
+    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
+    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
+    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
+    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
+    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
+    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
+    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
+    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen
+    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
+    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
+    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]
+
+I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
+merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
+sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
+in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
+we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
+opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
+fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
+he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
+Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
+instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
+anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
+upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
+It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
+against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I
+have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts
+of the Apostles.
+
+"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored
+weightier lines of reasoning,
+
+    "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical
+    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book
+    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are
+    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention
+    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's
+    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the
+    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
+    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_
+    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when
+    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,
+    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot
+    be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]
+
+Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of
+Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;
+and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what
+seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.
+[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are
+derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the
+very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give
+the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do
+not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott
+here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note
+quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right
+to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is
+put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader
+may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.
+Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations
+are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his
+variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that
+so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no
+proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that
+although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those
+who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his
+work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the
+writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to
+what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether
+they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which
+can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous
+contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for
+instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous
+quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which
+has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our
+Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old
+Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of
+Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I
+probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"
+than was at all necessary.
+
+Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,
+regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have
+selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations
+vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had
+devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"
+really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might
+have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If
+such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question
+may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to
+suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,
+because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic
+reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have
+rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the
+fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"
+writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and
+impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages
+from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main
+arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it
+somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said
+to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their
+main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he
+gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the
+Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
+to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and
+Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus
+between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three
+years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:
+
+"Why then," he asks,
+
+    "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
+    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...
+    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
+    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
+    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
+    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
+    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.
+    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall
+    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day
+    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as
+    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more
+    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
+    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
+    import." [27:1]
+
+Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
+into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
+charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
+of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
+this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
+and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
+itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
+very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
+other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
+is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
+exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
+only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
+work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
+of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
+explanations offered.
+
+Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
+when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
+of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
+Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that
+the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]
+Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and
+fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in
+which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New
+Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and
+abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of
+Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek
+and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and
+ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the
+purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of
+the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and
+beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]
+In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as
+we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
+Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according
+to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost
+invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is
+distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this
+respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I
+believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language
+of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost
+wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth
+Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,
+and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be
+supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of
+"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,
+I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the
+_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,
+of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the
+Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He
+argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,
+and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse
+wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written
+otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional
+emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient
+prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the
+Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author
+was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the
+Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and
+Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays
+the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he
+intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the
+conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf
+between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This
+result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic
+character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different
+from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an
+apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole
+character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents
+grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst
+the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond
+comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,
+to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding
+the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different
+arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma
+which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely
+dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the
+aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the
+one hand and the Gospel on the other.
+
+Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.
+Lightfoot says--
+
+    "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes
+    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._
+    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
+    altogether to notice others."
+
+In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--
+
+    "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
+    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
+    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
+    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchár]), and apologetic
+    ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
+    altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in
+    the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or
+    Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our
+    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
+    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
+    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
+    [30:3]
+
+I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
+I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
+for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
+of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
+to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
+There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
+he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
+I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
+article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
+rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
+because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
+asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]
+
+My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
+as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
+anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
+severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
+apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
+advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
+identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
+supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
+secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
+and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
+Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of
+some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not
+identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place
+bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The
+ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common
+source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for
+instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a
+name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place."
+This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,
+for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost
+universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere
+alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.
+He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great
+hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"
+to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and
+explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment
+as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation
+with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler,
+who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,
+argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:
+Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding
+this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects
+the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,
+which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in
+[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits
+this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,"
+[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot
+and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,
+[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]
+and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and
+Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town
+of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]
+Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct
+from, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the
+extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably
+receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of
+Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned
+in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he
+seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into
+Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such
+an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch
+as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and
+his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that
+Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the
+site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.
+[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another
+place:--
+
+    "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at
+    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally
+    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is
+    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east
+    of Naplûs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand
+    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other
+    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any
+    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.
+    or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3]
+
+Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,
+says:--
+
+    "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title
+    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.
+    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the
+    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is
+    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the
+    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,
+    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not
+    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to
+    Jacob's Well."
+
+To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says:
+"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:
+legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'
+'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village
+nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El
+Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion
+may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne
+un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-être le Sychar
+de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus
+logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with
+regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect
+Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from
+a "common source of information:"--
+
+    "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of
+    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which
+    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and
+    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These
+    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading
+    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,
+    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not
+    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3]
+
+Mr. Grove is very right.
+
+I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either
+"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not
+perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably
+identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel
+mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have
+been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for
+it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there
+was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have
+not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.
+
+With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes
+constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating,"
+Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those
+who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support
+me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,
+that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall
+very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may
+be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,
+my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further
+to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them
+discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions
+with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by
+anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made
+acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and
+honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief
+rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any
+strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,
+if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would
+not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as
+they appear to find it." [36:1]
+
+I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks
+regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to
+discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his
+misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the
+Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the
+pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before
+coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I
+have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal
+Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear
+to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has
+been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own
+imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,
+the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the
+contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such
+a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter
+are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish
+Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable
+laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and
+security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of
+inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which
+view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to
+secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the
+last page of my work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion,"
+but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess
+that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I
+hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they
+are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how
+singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of
+_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement
+almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more
+closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:
+"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
+part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat
+strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work
+should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the
+first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is
+quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that
+miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,
+and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the
+amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the
+evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,
+although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took
+place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main
+principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be
+proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of
+supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to
+prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to
+prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the
+occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after
+showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:
+"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive
+evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,
+the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that
+this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception
+equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the
+evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with
+my results:
+
+    "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is
+    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence
+    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,
+    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in
+    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts
+    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent
+    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the
+    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be
+    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,
+    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely
+    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are
+    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by
+    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2]
+
+It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to
+confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I
+enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses
+for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous
+nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to
+examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an
+ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should
+represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the
+forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he
+altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend
+the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical
+enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of
+witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been
+represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the
+remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some
+degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being
+already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of
+the enquiry.
+
+I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much
+which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion
+of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able
+and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or
+faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and
+instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,
+it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to
+refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid
+fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,
+differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability
+attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due
+even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to
+courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever
+he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully
+to follow every serious line of argument than the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_.
+
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]
+
+
+This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
+both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
+to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
+opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
+review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
+my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
+generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
+completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
+conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
+courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
+necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
+course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
+diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.
+
+There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
+argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
+objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
+advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
+been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
+only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
+I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
+philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
+completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
+is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
+incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
+antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
+therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
+incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
+certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
+into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
+parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
+other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...
+
+The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
+frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
+prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
+the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
+which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
+anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
+the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
+fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
+Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
+so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
+the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
+incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
+Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
+have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
+truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
+some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
+has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
+the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
+evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
+and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
+the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
+requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
+serious consideration.
+
+It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
+gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
+existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
+as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
+shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
+totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
+belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
+sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
+urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
+occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
+of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
+place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
+age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
+investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
+equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
+to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
+can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
+relation of miracles to the order of nature.
+
+The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
+statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
+precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,
+if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four
+Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the
+second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as
+Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
+for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature
+in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready
+acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment
+regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century
+either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which
+concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but
+the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of
+Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and
+Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as
+personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are
+shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct
+trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses
+for miracles.
+
+After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
+against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
+truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
+divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
+argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
+inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
+professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
+attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
+defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
+shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
+breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
+to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
+sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.
+
+I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
+with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
+elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
+official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
+and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
+book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
+course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
+reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
+assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
+although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
+in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
+hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
+error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
+argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
+Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
+all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
+details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
+against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
+against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
+words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
+have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
+it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.
+
+
+The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
+Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
+attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
+under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
+limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
+singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
+especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
+occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
+"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
+not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
+unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
+the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
+the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
+that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
+say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
+they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
+authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
+at least, limited to Eusebius.
+
+The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
+of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
+blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
+works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
+supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
+lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
+contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
+that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
+argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
+expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
+and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
+that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
+says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
+Eusebius:--
+
+    "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
+    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
+    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
+    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
+    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
+    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
+    neglected to do." [46:1]
+
+Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
+belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--
+
+    "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
+    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
+    [46:2]
+
+I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
+allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
+importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
+representations made in the above passages are a very strange
+exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
+criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
+strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
+and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
+amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
+vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
+proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
+inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
+was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
+which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
+some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
+withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
+to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
+regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
+three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
+find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
+mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
+Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
+this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
+that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
+contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
+we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
+Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
+warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
+writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
+books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
+to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
+the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
+which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
+that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
+kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
+Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
+Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
+reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
+Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
+Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
+asserted.
+
+We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
+carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
+intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
+or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
+the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
+merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
+statement into three paragraphs. He says:
+
+    "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
+    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.
+
+    "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
+    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
+    tines hopoiais kechrêntai]);
+
+    "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
+    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
+    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any
+    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
+    others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded.
+
+    "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
+    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
+    [48:1]
+
+In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
+can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
+point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
+undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
+the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
+which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
+undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
+omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
+the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
+the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
+as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
+mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
+himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
+might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
+importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
+it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
+include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
+of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
+subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
+altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
+occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
+could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
+quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
+nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
+evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
+have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
+any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
+establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
+point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
+We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
+Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
+hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.
+
+The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
+is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
+promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
+writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
+of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
+only information of the slightest value to this work which could
+be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
+the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
+Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
+Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
+Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.
+
+    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
+    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
+    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
+    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
+    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
+    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
+    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
+    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
+    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
+    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
+    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
+    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
+    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
+    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
+    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
+    says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
+    justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
+    case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
+    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
+    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
+    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
+    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
+    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
+    11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
+    statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
+    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
+    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
+    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
+    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
+    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
+    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
+    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
+    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
+    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
+    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
+    apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
+    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
+    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
+    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
+    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
+    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
+    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
+    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
+    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
+    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
+    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
+    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
+    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
+    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
+    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
+    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.
+
+It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
+record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
+undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
+writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
+conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
+writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
+of Eusebius."
+
+I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
+estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
+he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
+Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
+martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
+the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
+Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
+Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
+reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
+regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
+were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
+martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
+Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
+Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
+statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
+Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
+his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
+the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
+state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
+mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
+in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
+escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
+were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
+was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
+single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
+inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
+did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
+Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
+whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
+confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
+composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
+well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
+Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
+Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
+speaks with so much respect.
+
+    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
+    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
+    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
+    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
+    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
+    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
+    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
+    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
+    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
+    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
+    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
+    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
+    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
+    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
+    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
+    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
+    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
+    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
+    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
+    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
+    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
+    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
+    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
+    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
+    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
+    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
+    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
+    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
+    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
+    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
+    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
+    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
+    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
+    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
+    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
+    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
+    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
+    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
+    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
+    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
+    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
+    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
+    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
+    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
+    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
+    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
+    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
+    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
+    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
+    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
+    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
+    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
+    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
+    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.
+
+In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
+quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
+[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
+regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
+confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
+that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
+have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
+information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
+Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
+the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
+Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
+only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
+which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
+to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
+reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
+of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
+more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
+Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
+had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
+first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
+of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
+words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
+disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
+disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
+points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
+former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
+evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
+distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
+proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
+John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
+name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
+of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
+What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
+subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
+with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
+moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
+am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
+peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
+Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
+fourth Gospels.
+
+I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
+equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
+to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
+to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
+constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
+statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
+respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
+its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
+Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
+not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
+witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
+that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
+by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
+classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
+not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
+very small.
+
+
+Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
+with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
+limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
+the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
+readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
+is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
+misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
+criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
+that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
+right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
+is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
+this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
+possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
+entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
+alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
+spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
+accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
+that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
+himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
+all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
+some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
+Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
+they commit themselves.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
+which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
+difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
+"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
+student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
+considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
+A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
+familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
+expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
+some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
+with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
+here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
+Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
+make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
+recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
+to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
+The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
+and war is declared in the following terms:
+
+    "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
+    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
+    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
+    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
+    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
+    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
+    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
+    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
+    arguments." [59:1]
+
+This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
+a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
+them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
+be in the least degree affected.
+
+The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
+one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
+as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
+(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
+genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
+by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
+epistles." [59:2]
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--
+
+    "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results
+    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac
+    epistles than this." [59:1]
+
+It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
+who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
+Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the
+Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to
+be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to
+consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
+six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
+of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
+five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
+may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles,
+which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
+limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
+certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
+three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
+of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
+consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
+Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
+regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
+that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
+edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
+prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous
+on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
+for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
+priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
+Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:
+
+    "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this
+    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of
+    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,
+    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
+only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
+whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
+spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
+first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
+"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der
+kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
+the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
+quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in
+zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
+meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
+to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
+matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
+the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
+analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
+given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
+to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
+tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
+attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
+accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
+and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
+as follows:--
+
+    "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
+    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
+    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
+    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
+    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
+    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
+    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
+    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
+    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
+    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
+    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
+    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
+    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
+    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
+    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
+    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
+    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
+    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
+    and that they can only be considered later and spurious
+    compositions.(4)" [62:1]
+
+In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer,
+Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
+proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
+explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
+to call more immediate attention to the point:
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Many of the ablest critics have     | "These references, it will be
+pronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate
+authentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps
+whilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that
+that even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that
+emanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian
+prefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters
+seven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still
+them the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of
+letters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
+                                     | them the most ancient form of the
+                                     | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]
+
+
+It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
+sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
+sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
+of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
+priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
+statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
+light" upon the point by the following remarks:--
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald,  | "The reader, therefore, will
+Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that
+maintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers
+genuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters
+_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
+distinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some
+in any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to
+Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight
+Echtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the
+keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
+priority of the Curetonian "in the   | letters." [63:1]
+highest degree probable."            |
+                                     |
+_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |
+as I have already said, but          |
+maintains the priority of the        |
+Syriac.                              |
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
+the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
+Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
+would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
+was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.
+
+Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
+ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
+early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
+regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
+and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
+them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
+Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
+Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
+that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
+were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
+This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
+Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:
+
+    "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
+    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
+    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
+    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
+    the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]
+
+Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
+Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
+as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
+of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
+Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
+them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
+before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
+"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
+leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
+referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
+epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
+ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
+are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
+igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
+transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
+regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
+"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
+the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
+critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
+more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
+from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
+here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
+follows:
+
+    "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
+    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
+    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
+    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--
+
+    "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
+    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
+    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
+    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]
+
+As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is
+"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the
+whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he
+persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for
+which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute
+classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of
+a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course
+of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large
+class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,
+illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case
+on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,
+decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the
+Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did
+not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise
+the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts,
+more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and
+would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,
+Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook
+pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So
+far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in
+succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have
+been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the
+main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the
+text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of
+the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and
+all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I
+should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed
+"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot
+says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far
+as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very
+denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more
+or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
+Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the
+Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he
+"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the
+promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he
+might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not
+necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to
+Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a
+subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop
+Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to
+"that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by
+Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the
+writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius
+varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:
+tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio
+Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He
+then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles
+and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more
+decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio
+sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus
+illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]
+
+The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for
+convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it
+as follows:--
+
+    "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef.
+    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,
+    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin,
+    _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex
+    Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_,
+    ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichée_, &c. 1734, i.
+    p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489;
+    [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in
+    Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._
+    1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341;
+    Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist.
+    Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.
+    in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.
+    condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
+    p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11;
+    Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.
+    _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._
+    p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.
+    p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
+    eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16;
+    J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._,
+    in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.
+    Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.
+    p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.'
+
+    "The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
+
+    "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have
+    made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it
+    stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the
+    by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the
+    gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,
+    however, that every one of these references, except those which I
+    have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's
+    'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus
+    two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten
+    minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the
+    quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in
+    Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his
+    notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought
+    fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the
+    rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
+    references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]
+
+I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might
+suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is
+here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to
+the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask
+every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to
+insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references
+in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and
+thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted
+references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed
+the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of
+criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and
+reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's
+appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from
+it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly
+indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The
+fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but
+in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note
+"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly
+does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself
+acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing
+the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they
+illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_,"
+continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much
+obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name
+is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list
+on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and
+was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose
+doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's
+further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as
+genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the
+Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the
+seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These
+three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an
+older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes
+found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the
+doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in
+which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed.
+For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles
+attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1]
+Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite."
+Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as,
+for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander,
+and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or
+uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."
+[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my
+words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a
+leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of
+these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or
+less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name
+in order.
+
+_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
+    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
+    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
+    of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
+    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
+    question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:
+    "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_
+    the genuine epistles of Ignatius."
+
+_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité
+    des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles
+    ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit
+    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées."
+
+_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for
+    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them
+    suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
+    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
+    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
+    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
+    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
+    interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent
+    observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
+    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it
+    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
+    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.
+
+_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
+    but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy
+    too much space.
+
+_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from
+    the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History
+    given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief
+    German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the
+    original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing
+    "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been
+    classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian
+    Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who
+    merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom
+    of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose
+    the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the
+    impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who
+    is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical
+    purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he
+    still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian
+    Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and
+    then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of
+    Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me
+    for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which
+    presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me
+    with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state
+    additional grounds for disbelief.
+
+_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
+    Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
+    extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
+    he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
+    agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
+    the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
+    more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
+    later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
+    concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
+    Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
+    shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
+    (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
+    statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
+    the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
+    of the letters cannot be ascertained.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly
+unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.
+
+He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour,
+and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been
+possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
+of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain
+this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will
+put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses
+the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement
+which he altogether disregards:--
+
+                                    |        DR. LIGHTFOOT.
+                                    |
+"Further examination and more       | "References to twenty authorities
+comprehensive knowledge of the      | are then given, as belonging to
+subject have confirmed earlier      | the 'large mass of critics' who
+doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian
+recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered
+none_ of these Epistles _can be     | later and spurious compositions.'"
+established_, and that they can     | [73:1]
+only be considered later and        |
+spurious compositions."             |
+
+
+There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two
+approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the
+Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming
+to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively
+pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred
+to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming
+what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that
+a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot
+be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does
+not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the
+extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may
+have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may
+have been based. I will analyse the six references.
+
+_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
+    previous note) expresses no definite opinion."
+
+    Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
+    directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
+    I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
+    difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
+    of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
+    refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
+    Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
+    does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
+    authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
+    next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
+    Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
+    is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
+    probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences
+    in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how
+    the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these
+    Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which
+    we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their
+    authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him
+    here at all.
+
+_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
+    this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
+    reference to his remarks.
+
+_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
+    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
+    recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
+    the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
+    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
+    as in the Long Recension."
+
+    This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
+    Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
+    case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
+    _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
+    the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
+    ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
+    somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
+    Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
+    Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.
+
+_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
+    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
+    satisfied with either existing recension."
+
+    Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
+    still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
+    can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
+    without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
+    "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine
+    substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
+    Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
+    Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."
+
+_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."
+
+    If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
+    that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
+    says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
+    of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
+    fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
+    least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
+    if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
+    would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
+    second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
+    opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.
+
+_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
+    favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
+    but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
+    to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
+    able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
+    improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
+    journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
+    can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
+    does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
+    and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
+    possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
+    inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
+    justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be
+    established.
+
+Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon
+my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with
+what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian
+literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name
+totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been
+removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and
+consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose
+doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in
+dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more
+or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly
+expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only
+too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks
+such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of
+"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I
+have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,
+but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be
+able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen
+into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but
+the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1]
+
+There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must
+briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with
+unhesitating boldness:
+
+    "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,
+    from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that
+    this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been
+    felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has
+    raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)
+    maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially
+    bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most
+    formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the
+    world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later
+    work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown
+    to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,
+    or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian
+    question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of
+    Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not
+    less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_."
+    [78:2]
+
+Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the
+Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal
+opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general
+declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my
+diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as
+evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning
+of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely
+represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot
+very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian
+version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above
+quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture
+to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key
+of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played
+a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and
+as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will
+state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn,
+Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them.
+Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which
+appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press,
+in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian
+question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the
+Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's
+work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So
+much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.
+
+As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question
+during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think
+it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of
+Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments
+in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against
+Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's
+representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument"
+against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even
+allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,
+[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian
+manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his
+text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele
+[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar,
+Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them
+worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other
+writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into
+the controversy at all.
+
+The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag
+into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the
+reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the
+following lines:
+
+    "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven
+    Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text
+    is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac
+    idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply
+    proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must
+    have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the
+    Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
+    and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the
+ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the
+Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital
+problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer
+misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek
+Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.
+
+Passing on to another point, I say:
+
+    "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
+    equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
+    number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1]
+
+Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a
+little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon
+this he writes as follows:--
+
+    "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
+    with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented
+    themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
+    important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
+    after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
+    there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
+    Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
+    confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
+    Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
+    Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
+    Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
+    which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
+    composition." [81:2]
+
+Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are
+advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to
+its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,
+if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first
+reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical
+admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles
+are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,
+does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius,"
+the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely
+receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.
+Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how
+changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would
+have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has
+conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the
+controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the
+"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the
+controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The
+testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument
+(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and
+interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same
+accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian
+Epistles.
+
+The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second
+paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which
+I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is
+this:--
+
+    "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
+    by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
+    Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
+    Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
+    be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
+    honour." [82:2]
+
+I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with
+the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and
+orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--
+
+          DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.
+                                  |
+(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_
+the seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having
+with the confessedly spurious     | been _transmitted_ to us, for no
+Epistles. In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through
+MSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by
+version, the spurious Epistles    | _editors_ from the Medicean MS.
+come after the others; and the    | which contains so much that
+circumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;--a fact
+facts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a
+shows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of
+addition, borrowed from the Long  | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2]
+Recension to complete the body    |
+of Ignatian letters." [83:1]      |
+
+
+I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot
+advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the
+testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own
+statement. Cureton says:
+
+    "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us
+    to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of
+    St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient
+    Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles
+    presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed
+    up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.
+    Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same
+    footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only
+    ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been
+    the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of
+    any mention of the others." [83:3]
+
+    "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour
+    of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the
+    Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which
+    have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both
+    Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two
+    distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to
+    Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two
+    recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the
+    circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its
+    reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies
+    of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,
+    Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...
+    In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the
+    former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and
+    there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of
+    the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed
+    one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice
+    result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to
+    Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others
+    in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological
+    order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,
+    at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had
+    despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence
+    of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the
+    recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the
+    rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained."
+    [84:1]
+
+Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly
+show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the
+principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin
+version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which
+was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined
+table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod.
+Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a
+Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at
+the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third
+(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published
+by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean
+MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646.
+[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14.
+[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:
+
+        A.        |      B.       |       C.        |       D.        |
+     FABER STAP.  | VAL. PACAEUS. |     USHER       |    VOSSIUS.     |
+                  |               |                 |                 |
+  1. Trallians    | _Mar. Cass._  | Smyrn.          | Smyrn.          |
+  2. Magn.        | Trallians     | Polycarp        | Polycarp        |
+  3. _Tarsians_   | Magnes.       | Ephes.          | Ephes.          |
+  4. _Philip._    | _Tarsians_    | Magnes.         | Magnes.         |
+  5. Philad.      | _Philip.      | Philad.         | Philad.         |
+  6. Smyrn.       | Philad.       | Trallians       | Trallians       |
+  7. Polycarp     | Smyrn.        | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |
+  8. _Antioch._   | Polycarp      | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |
+  9. _Hero_       | _Antioch.     | _Tarsians_      | _Tarsians_      |
+ 10. Ephes.       | _Hero_        | _Antioch._      |                 |
+ 11. Romans       | Ephes.        | _Hero_          |                 |
+ 12.              | Romans        | _Mart. Ign._    |                 |
+ 13.              |               | Romans          |                 |
+
+I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well
+as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,
+the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have
+an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is
+obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and
+the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not
+contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle
+to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression,
+"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the
+epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which
+Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.
+
+I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn
+for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I
+have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out
+serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my
+references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before
+proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations.
+Dr. Westcott says:--
+
+    "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite
+    capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his
+    while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,
+    arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many
+    cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress
+    the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics
+    are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by
+    evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1]
+
+Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have
+almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in
+this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the
+Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted
+reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a
+very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned
+and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of
+little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,
+therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these
+questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical
+authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to
+works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add,
+that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to
+critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is
+right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and
+recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as
+they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as
+English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott,
+however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who
+oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.
+
+Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to
+investigate. He says:
+
+    "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion
+    which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than
+    this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One
+    example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I
+shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.
+The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by
+a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed
+contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he
+does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely
+worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be
+unfair. The example selected is as follows:
+
+    "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at
+    all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,
+    A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
+    amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by
+    the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)"
+    [87:2]
+
+    "'The references in support of these statements are the following:--
+
+    "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,
+    p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.
+    N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,
+    _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,
+    _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,
+    50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.
+    pp. 121 f., 136.
+
+    "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;
+    _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f.
+    Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.
+    p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die
+    ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._
+    1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'"
+
+Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:
+
+    Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot
+    but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are
+    quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their
+    testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact
+that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes
+differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being
+absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do
+not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the
+place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed
+being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to
+Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar
+transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are
+made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the
+date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4,
+placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is
+made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but
+which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,
+although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that
+there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only
+as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have
+in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my
+omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.
+The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add
+to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or
+115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a
+majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later
+date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the
+text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at
+the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but
+unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of
+this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the
+writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite
+regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,
+therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in
+Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred
+to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references
+[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two
+notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.
+
+                   NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.
+
+   DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.       |     THE TRUTH.
+                                    |
+                                    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
+                                    | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149,
+                                    | Anm.) Baur states as the date of
+                                    | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's
+                                    | visit to Rome, "during which the
+                                    | above order" (the sentence against
+                                    | Ignatius) is said to have been
+                                    | given, A.D. 115 and not 107.
+                                    |
+"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.   | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm.
+Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155,     |
+Anm. In this note, which is too     | After showing the extreme
+long  to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances
+so far as I see, _in any way        | under which the letters to the
+bearing_ upon the history [90:1]    | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said
+except a passing supposition 'wenn  | to have been written, Baur points
+... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn       | out the additional difficulty in
+[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...'         | regard to the latter that, if
+                                    | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his
+                                    | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him
+                                    | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D.
+                                    | 116, he must have become bishop at
+                                    | least in his 35th year, and
+                                    | continued so for upwards of half
+                                    | a century. The inference is clear
+                                    | that if Ignatius died so much
+                                    | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves
+                                    | the still greater improbability
+                                    | that Polycarp must have become
+                                    | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his
+                                    | 26th year, which is scarcely to be
+                                    | maintained, and the later date is
+                                    | thus obviously supported.
+                                    |
+                                    | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_,
+                                    | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.)
+                                    |
+                                    | Baur supports the assertion that
+                                    | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in
+                                    | Antioch, A.D. 115.
+                                    |
+"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same.
+p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui |
+circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' |
+                                    |
+"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144      | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144.
+[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den       |
+Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von  | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome
+Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen  | under Trajan, A.D. 115.
+115 _zu Rom_ als Märtyrer starb.'   |
+                                    |
+"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i.      | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148.
+p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the     |
+edition which I have used].         | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under
+'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien  | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed
+(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_  | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116.
+wegen seines standhaften            |
+Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan |
+115 _nach Rom geführt, und hier 116 |
+im Colosseum von Löwen zerrissen    |
+wurde_ (vgl. § 23, i.)' [where the  |
+same statement is repeated].        |
+                                    |
+"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I    | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f.
+have not been able to see the book  |
+referred to, but in his Lectures    | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his
+'Die christliche Kirche der drei    | office about 40 years when the
+ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853   | Emperor, in the year 115 (according
+(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions   | to others still earlier), came to
+the difficulty which has been felt  | Antioch. It was during his war
+as to the execution at Rome, while  | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach
+an execution at Antioch might have  | states some of the arguments for and
+been simpler and more impressive,   | against the martyrdom in Antioch,
+and then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former
+and passes on with 'Wie dem such    | of which he seems to consider more
+sei.']                              | probable.]
+                                    |
+"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i.     | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19.
+p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of        |
+Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite.
+himself, who was not thrown to the  |
+wild beasts in the amphitheatre at  | These "peremptory statements" are
+Rome by command of Trajan, but at   | of course based upon what is
+Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115.   | considered satisfactory evidence,
+The Epistles were written after     | though it may not be adduced here.
+150 A.D.' [For these peremptory     |
+statements no authority whatever is |
+adduced].                           |
+                                    |
+"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._  | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._
+p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der          | p. 79.
+spätestens 117 zu Rom den           |
+Märtyrertod litt ..._'              | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome
+                                    | at latest A.D. 117.
+                                    |
+"8. Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
+p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of  | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date
+Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The       | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he
+Ignatian letters are rejected       | repeats this statement, and gives
+partly 'weil sie eine Märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his
+des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on
+schon früher erkanntes              | the 20th December, A.D. 115.
+ungeschichtliches Wesen durch       |
+Volkmar's nicht ungegründete        |
+Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher   |
+wird. Darnach scheint nämlich       |
+Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl    |
+des sanftmüthigen Trajans, sondern  |
+zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines |
+am dreizehnten December 115         |
+eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer  |
+eines abergläubischen Volkswahns am |
+zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres  |
+im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren  |
+zur Beute überliefert worden zu     |
+sein.'                              |
+                                    |
+"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52  | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52,
+[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I     | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch,
+have not been able to consult, but  | 20th December, 115.
+from secondary references I gather  |
+that it repeats the arguments given |
+under the next reference.]          |
+                                    |
+"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der     | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom
+Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius,    | at Antioch, 20th December, 115.
+wurde, während Trajan dortselbst    |
+überwinterte, am 20. December den   |
+Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der   |
+durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December |
+115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi]       |
+erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer      |
+zugleich der Siegesfeste des        |
+Parthicus, welche die Judith-       |
+Erzählung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio     |
+(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt  |
+...'                                |
+                                    |
+"P. 136. The same statement is      | Ibid. p. 136. The same
+repeated briefly." [93:1]           | statement, with fuller
+                                    | chronological evidence.
+
+It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the
+later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in
+which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history
+except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it
+and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,
+that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not
+perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as
+statements of evidence.
+
+To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine
+writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,
+three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to
+Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is
+doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the
+martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the
+purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,
+and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,
+regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of
+the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which
+I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's
+statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention.
+
+                               NOTE 4.
+
+  DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.      |           THE TRUTH.
+                                  |
+1. Volkmar: see above.            | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+                                  | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.
+                                  |
+                                  | It will be observed on turning to
+                                  | the passage "above" (10), to which
+                                  | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes
+                                  | a single sentence containing merely
+                                  | a concise statement of facts, and
+                                  | that no indication is given to the
+                                  | reader that there is anything beyond
+                                  | it. At p. 136 "the same statement
+                                  | is repeated briefly." Now either
+                                  | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most
+                                  | serious charge against my work, based
+                                  | upon this "one example," has actually
+                                  | not taken the trouble to examine my
+                                  | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,"
+                                  | and p. 50 ff., to which he would
+                                  | have found himself there directed,
+                                  | or he has acted towards me with a
+                                  | want of fairness which I venture to
+                                  | say he will be the first to regret,
+                                  | when he considers the facts.
+                                  |
+                                  | Would it be divined from the words
+                                  | opposite, and the sentence "above,"
+                                  | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate
+                                  | argument, extending over a dozen
+                                  | closely printed pages, to prove that
+                                  | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,
+                                  | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch
+                                  | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,
+                                  | probably as a sacrifice to the
+                                  | superstitious fury of the people
+                                  | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited
+                                  | by the earthquake which occurred on
+                                  | the thirteenth of that month? I shall
+                                  | not here attempt to give even an
+                                  | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall
+                                  | presently reproduce some of the
+                                  | arguments of Volkmar and others in a
+                                  | more condensed and consecutive form.
+                                  |
+                                  | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.
+                                  |
+                                  | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which
+                                  | he had fully argued in the above
+                                  | work and elsewhere.
+                                  |
+2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc.,    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb.
+Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3,   | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.
+p. 149 f.                         |
+                                  |
+"In this passage Baur discusses   | Baur enters into a long and minute
+generally the historical          | examination of the historical
+character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of
+he considers, as a whole, to be   | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian
+'doubtful and incredible.' To     | Epistles, and pronounces the whole
+establish this result he notices  | to be fabulous, and more especially
+the relation of Christianity to   | the representation of his sentence
+the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He
+which he regards as inconsistent  | shows that, while isolated cases of
+with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under
+and the improbable circumstances  | occurred during Trajan's reign may
+of the journey. The personal      | justify the mere tradition that he
+characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no
+history of Ignatius, are, in his  | instance recorded in which a
+opinion, all a mere creation of   | Christian was condemned to be sent
+the imagination. The utmost he    | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;
+allows is that he may have        | that such a sentence is opposed to
+suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.)    | all historical data of the reign of
+                                  | Trajan, and to all that is known of
+                                  | his character and principles; and
+                                  | that the whole of the statements
+                                  | regarding the supposed journey
+                                  | directly discredit the story. The
+                                  | argument is much too long and
+                                  | elaborate to reproduce here, but I
+                                  | shall presently make use of some
+                                  | parts of it.
+                                  |
+"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_,   | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,
+1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1.          |  i. p. 440, Anm. 1.
+                                  |
+"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_  | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in
+und die Abführung dazu nach Rom   | the year 115, when Trajan wintered
+... mag auch unter Trajan nichts  | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered
+zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein,   | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a
+aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte     | sacrifice to popular fury
+seines Märtyrerthums auch nach    | consequent on the earthquake of
+der Vertheidigung derselben von   | that year. The rest was developed
+Lipsius ... höchst                | out of the reference to Trajan for
+unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische   | the glorification of martyrdom."
+ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J.  |
+115, als Trajan in Antiochien     |
+überwinterte, in Folge des        |
+Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in      |
+Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer   |
+der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer        |
+wurde.'                           |
+                                  |
+4. Davidson: see above.           | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.
+                                  |
+                                  | "All (the Epistles) are posterior
+                                  | to Ignatius himself, who was not
+                                  | thrown to the wild beasts in the
+                                  | amphitheatre at Rome by command of
+                                  | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December
+                                  | 20th, A.D. 115."
+                                  |
+5. Scholten: see above.           | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_,
+                                  | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are
+                                  | declared to be spurious for various
+                                  | reasons, but partly "because they
+                                  | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius
+                                  | to Rome, the unhistorical character
+                                  | of which, already earlier recognised
+                                  | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,
+                                  | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;
+                                  | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.
+                                  | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.
+                                  | Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville,
+                                  | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is
+                                  | made all the more probable by
+                                  | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.
+                                  | According to it Ignatius is reported
+                                  | to have become the prey of wild beasts
+                                  | on the 20th December, 115, not in the
+                                  | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of
+                                  | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch
+                                  | itself, as the victim of superstitious
+                                  | popular fury consequent on an
+                                  | earthquake which occurred on the
+                                  | 13th December of that year."
+                                  |
+6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch.          | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,
+Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative
+[A discussion of the date of the  | reference to establish the important
+beginning of Trajan's Parthian    | point of the date of the Parthian
+war, which he fixes in A.D. 115,  | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.
+but he decides nothing directly   | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf."
+as to the time of Ignatius'       |
+martyrdom.]                       |
+                                  |
+7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_,  | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff.
+p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld   | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's
+points out the objections to the  | argument which is referred to
+narrative in the Acts of the      | above, and while declaring the
+Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more
+refers to the period between      | especially the journey to Rome,
+Eusebius and Jerome: setting      | incredible, he considers the mere
+aside this detailed narrative he  | fact that Ignatius suffered
+considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding
+of the general statements in the  | which the possibility has been made
+letters. The mode of punishment   | out. He shows [97:1] that the
+by a provincial governor causes   | martyrology states the 20th
+some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,'  | December as the day of Ignatius'
+he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were
+andre Punct, die Versendung nach  | buried at Antioch, where they still
+Rom.' Why was the punishment not  | were in the days of Chrysostom and
+carried out at Antioch? Would it  | Jerome. He argues from all that is
+be likely that under an Emperor   | known of the reign and character of
+like Trajan a prisoner like       | Trajan, that such a sentence from
+Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite
+fight in the amphitheatre? The    | unsupported and inconceivable. A
+circumstances of the journey as   | provincial Governor might have
+described are most improbable.    | condemned him ad bestias, but in
+The account of the persecution    | any case the transmission to Rome
+itself is beset by difficulties.  | is more doubtful. He shows,
+Having set out these objections   | however, that the whole story is
+he leaves the question, casting   | inconsistent with historical facts,
+doubt (like Baur) upon the whole  | and the circumstances of the
+history, and gives no support to  | journey incredible. It is
+the bold affirmation of a         | impossible to give even a sketch of
+martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over
+December, A.D. 115.'"             | five long pages, but although
+                                  | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer
+                                  | to the theory of the martyrdom in
+                                  | Antioch itself, his reasoning
+                                  | forcibly points to that conclusion,
+                                  | and forms part of the converging
+                                  | trains of reasoning which result in
+                                  | that "demonstration" which I
+                                  | assert. I will presently make use
+                                  | of some of his arguments.
+
+At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:
+
+    "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments
+    in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the
+    references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,
+    what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1]
+
+It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of
+the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in
+support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon
+any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate
+idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but
+I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to
+Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be
+evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he
+expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity
+of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer
+to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to
+be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.
+A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,
+but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all
+when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld
+is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:
+
+    "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.
+    Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,
+    agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which
+    runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous
+    and misleading"--[99:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his
+own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and
+misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has
+been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy
+of my references.
+
+As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in
+regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,
+and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme
+brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and
+must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to
+suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the
+Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing
+Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his
+journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as
+well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various
+Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding
+the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases,
+however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is
+assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should
+receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything
+but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
+cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
+Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai
+euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,
+the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
+leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described
+by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing
+approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be
+pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,
+even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very
+different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the
+extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the
+contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a
+Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes
+letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with
+Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible
+to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and
+Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the
+story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the
+latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a
+Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a
+Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly
+declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
+(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he
+had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one
+which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with
+beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten
+leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different
+treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come
+and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is
+said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,
+gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome
+he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him
+(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house
+(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under
+which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.
+
+"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is
+derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case
+of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate
+than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know
+little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as
+serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,
+a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,
+found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his
+travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,
+according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his
+hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and
+ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him
+as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he
+was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real
+service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in
+prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which
+Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the
+Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,
+living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last
+they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some
+forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself
+into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An
+earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out
+from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,
+Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by
+the fire.
+
+Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct
+satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the
+history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any
+of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is
+obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to
+prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to
+Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of
+the satire.
+
+There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account
+of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as
+evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this
+narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking
+coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was
+acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters."
+These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in
+referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not
+express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is
+conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners
+were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On
+the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true
+that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles
+and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as
+independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
+treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be
+shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical
+value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man
+confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and
+not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius
+condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,
+cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of
+pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of
+Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free
+intercourse as they represent.
+
+I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of
+the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,
+in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,
+demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered
+martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into
+the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and
+I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the
+source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when
+necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies
+set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at
+least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch
+during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in
+the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,
+he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more
+difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by
+himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to
+secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but
+all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he
+"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely
+receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being
+molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to
+accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,
+but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,
+which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words
+which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled
+with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the
+episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions
+of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.
+
+When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by
+historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known
+of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as
+of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
+Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a
+provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.
+It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of
+Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent
+members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular
+fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom
+of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not
+condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
+purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In
+fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although
+Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is
+no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to
+Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of
+Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
+Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere
+fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined
+with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open
+demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by
+persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and
+the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the
+policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this
+severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation
+excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a
+long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some
+of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
+Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the
+fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have
+been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and
+enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results
+of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to
+accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole
+tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the
+Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore
+cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well
+as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
+beasts." [106:2]
+
+If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan
+himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,
+the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that
+such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition
+to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor
+did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in
+Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the
+more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the
+clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_
+would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is
+besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,
+of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome
+is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that
+Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death
+during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with
+some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,
+to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not
+without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.
+
+It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is
+A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake
+occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to
+excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here
+the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he
+mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still
+associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:
+"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with
+singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
+... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
+destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most
+appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for
+the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings
+from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;
+houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:
+the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped
+through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some
+days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of
+the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards
+the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,
+was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of
+public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the
+panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe
+that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by
+the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,
+the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome."
+[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution
+in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the
+earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took
+place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His
+remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,
+interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the
+only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome
+but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against
+the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.
+
+I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just
+made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first
+place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.
+I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important
+statement. He says:--
+
+    "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing
+    in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the
+    earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop
+    of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:
+    emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was
+    exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.
+He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,
+and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece
+of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere
+may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish
+stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything
+else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are
+disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot
+also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced
+by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who
+gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to
+the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts
+it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before
+him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by
+the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the
+Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas
+is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the
+main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually
+makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--
+
+    "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
+    capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some
+    earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.
+    The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used
+    especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,
+    including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression
+    [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either
+    'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A
+    blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either
+    expression." [110:1]
+
+This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not
+sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his
+language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:
+marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,
+were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
+which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express
+martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in
+the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so
+implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.
+"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify
+'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]
+only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's
+own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such
+quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems
+excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.
+
+That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the
+Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that
+none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian
+Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,
+Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and
+Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is
+the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and
+different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to
+Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas
+lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
+objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet
+he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against
+Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of
+Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,
+and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,
+some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly
+have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have
+been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have
+shaped the prevailing tradition.
+
+The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,
+long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the
+time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and
+ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had
+previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that
+the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum
+and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some
+centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome
+to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch
+to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
+of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in
+Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they
+had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which
+reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend
+of the Ignatian Epistles.
+
+The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in
+the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is
+undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated
+on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin
+Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that
+this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was
+evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively
+contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci
+vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta
+testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus
+reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn
+[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was
+celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance
+which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]
+
+On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess
+regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that
+Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and
+all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles
+themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in
+Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the
+statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based
+upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in
+discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And
+what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles
+and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,
+are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles
+all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down
+together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin
+only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of
+which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven
+there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,
+known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected
+as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics
+assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.
+Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,
+the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine
+letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal
+and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.
+The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I
+venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous
+than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the
+simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample
+justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,
+that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification
+and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as
+genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this
+mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents
+which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove
+anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the
+value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in
+favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.
+
+I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their
+attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,
+and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of
+"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally
+advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is
+impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,
+to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but
+I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to
+think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the
+actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has
+been made.
+
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._
+
+
+In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by
+critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and
+I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide
+that it is either spurious or interpolated.
+
+That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts,
+but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual
+Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of
+course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part
+of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that
+supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom
+of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly
+believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167,
+and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius
+Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia
+Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided
+that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp
+was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death
+must have taken place in one of those years.
+
+Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of
+Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been
+expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing
+the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and
+their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels
+record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find
+small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having
+arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and
+does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of
+Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which
+other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural
+Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest
+form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses
+expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in
+our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are
+referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their
+authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could
+be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could
+this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the
+reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels
+would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in
+the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty
+quite untouched.
+
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,
+although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.
+I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject
+fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to
+refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is
+merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few
+words on the fundamental question at issue.
+
+Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of
+whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the
+first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have
+written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little
+weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,
+his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.
+
+Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's
+Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows:
+
+    "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter
+    of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
+    without, however, recording in order what was either said or done
+    by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
+    but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his
+    instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of
+    giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]
+    ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]
+    or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus
+    wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
+    one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
+    false statement therein." [118:1]
+
+The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here
+given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now
+possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without
+recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative
+answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar
+enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has
+consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that
+there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to
+a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.
+However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of
+argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the
+value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our
+second Gospel.
+
+In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who
+is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the
+circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that
+he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.
+It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy
+of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false
+statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one
+supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented
+what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can
+be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.
+The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,
+confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to
+attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his
+information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal
+evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.
+Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says
+so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of
+the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the
+Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so
+Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with
+Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason
+whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the
+contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render
+more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as
+it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not
+here go.
+
+Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability
+of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have
+been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly
+appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required
+as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself
+seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer
+examination of the supposed evidence.
+
+    "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:
+    'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles
+    in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'"
+    [119:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing
+that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the
+Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with
+him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the
+statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,
+Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so
+far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but
+for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow
+that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have
+been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he
+said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always
+exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with
+the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what
+inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general
+correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this
+doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as
+evidence?
+
+I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground
+of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt
+as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in
+the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them
+as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our
+first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the
+original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at
+the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,
+because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our
+synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if
+it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a
+translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and
+no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may
+be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.
+
+The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw
+from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his
+severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.
+Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of
+Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the
+verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the
+present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias
+contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one
+interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the
+necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives
+at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a
+recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek
+St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all
+considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any
+other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the
+time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the
+"Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the
+words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St.
+Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth
+while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to
+interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot
+well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the
+substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and
+Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that
+our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have
+been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not
+a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would
+have been nearer the truth." [122:1]
+
+That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid
+of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that
+he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have
+been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not
+know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in
+language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field
+for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias
+said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may
+have said something more, which may have been consistent with any
+theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot
+continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which
+some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the
+Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think
+that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me
+for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of
+vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot
+continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to
+conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion
+unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of
+the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself
+any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,
+and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly
+demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the
+Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions
+upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.
+
+In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel
+of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,
+in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,
+has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general
+flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,
+the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,
+Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation
+which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which
+he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least
+that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our
+present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three,
+it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could
+quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel
+of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we
+are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents
+of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel
+according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius
+that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the
+Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's
+Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
+contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could
+not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes
+of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?
+
+Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,
+accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and
+called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic
+as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of
+Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,
+[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some
+points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion
+with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not
+without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some
+difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would
+justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is
+encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not
+think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be
+called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant
+the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the
+signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])
+became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as
+well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for
+straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond
+a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine."
+[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any
+force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that
+books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be
+called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine
+sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,
+could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike
+are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers
+proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the
+discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.
+[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's
+Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,
+that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.
+
+Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:
+
+    "The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
+    instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
+    they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
+    suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
+    by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
+    of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
+    fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
+    Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
+    the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
+    wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21
+    _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
+    chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
+    than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
+    refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
+    meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
+    teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
+    of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
+    writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
+    their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
+    Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
+    logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
+    _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
+    anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
+    passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
+    Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
+    sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
+    immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
+    _sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
+    precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
+    Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
+    the Lord." [126:1]
+
+He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
+Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine
+myself to that which I have quoted.
+
+"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were
+entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but
+the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues
+Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not
+refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or
+revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately
+to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,
+according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the
+Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to
+mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,
+where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on
+Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to give
+unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted
+to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles
+of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as
+Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own
+teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly
+explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when
+he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,
+at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also
+urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the
+_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo
+considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and
+held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When
+he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative,
+but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained
+in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant
+manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the
+expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"
+([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the
+New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement
+of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell
+against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the
+oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from
+the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are
+contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the
+whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much
+"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the
+Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus
+regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.
+
+In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I
+have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in
+connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have
+concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but
+he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not
+scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in
+suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It
+comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account
+of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we
+have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,
+we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or
+incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards
+establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine
+Revelation.
+
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._
+
+
+Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most
+complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the
+evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in
+_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands
+and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes
+increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully
+denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that
+he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the
+writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius
+Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected
+documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter
+of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of
+Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He
+really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is
+clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these
+particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do
+not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that
+our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during
+this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to
+examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin,
+authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of
+miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.
+
+I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by
+any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other
+apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my
+argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few
+sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to
+restore the discussion to its proper lines.
+
+In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally
+concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--
+
+    "Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
+    embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
+    the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
+    supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
+    complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
+    any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
+    Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
+    clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
+    from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
+    to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
+    have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
+    miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
+    conclusive." [130:1]
+
+Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was
+careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to
+proceed. I said:
+
+    "Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
+    authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
+    few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
+    criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
+    the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
+    simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
+    ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
+    certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely
+    conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively
+    as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for
+    information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged
+    indications of their use ... It is still more important that we
+    should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels
+    existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most
+    of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than
+    refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement
+    of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:
+    polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the
+    things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,
+    evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar
+    works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity
+    of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that
+    many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each
+    other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,
+    for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to
+    the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with
+    quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with
+    passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
+    however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the
+    similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof
+    that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from
+    some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially
+    not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from
+    sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our
+    Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources
+    cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
+    suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious
+    that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot
+    in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
+    unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
+    times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
+    our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
+    Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
+    of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
+    Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
+    to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
+    circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
+    a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
+    [132:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has
+made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his
+essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling
+attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have
+been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these
+canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which
+he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has
+adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after
+all, with many it is quite as effective.
+
+It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for
+such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be
+done very simply from our own Gospels:
+
+    "Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
+    due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
+    discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
+    to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it
+    stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment
+    suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the
+    'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works
+    of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an
+    unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de
+    pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
+    few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send
+    forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):
+    behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of
+    wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and
+    others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a
+    compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first
+    Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his
+    disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathêtais autou]), The harvest,'
+    &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: egô]) send you forth as
+    sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'
+    &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It
+    would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a
+    continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the
+    probability of a different source, and still more so to point out
+    that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,
+    might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the
+    first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation
+    was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,
+    is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,
+    had been lost.
+
+    "Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might
+    find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to
+    yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
+    is hypocrisy ([Greek: hêtis estin hupocrisis]). For there is
+    nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be
+    revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,
+    be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of
+    our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very
+    immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory
+    words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a
+    part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,
+    'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the
+    Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaiôn]), and Matt. x. 26,
+    '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:
+    kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not
+    be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of
+    Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in
+    separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it
+    is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly
+    established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a
+    combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according
+    to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]
+
+    "If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which
+    differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.
+    Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source
+    assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the
+    work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketês])
+    can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the
+    other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
+    cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed
+    as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly
+    corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,
+    [Greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
+    and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
+    first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
+    from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
+    Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
+    Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
+    source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
+    Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
+    philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
+    synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
+    and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
+    damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
+    from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
+    couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
+    46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
+    critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
+    derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
+    instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
+    extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
+    passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
+    trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
+    kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
+    memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
+    the substitution of [Greek: trupêmatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
+    would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
+    [134:1]
+
+Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
+anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
+variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it
+must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels
+existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from
+circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the
+laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to
+others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived
+from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is
+not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,
+but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring
+evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.
+
+Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"
+it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the
+account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the
+more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a
+note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative
+are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like
+Keim, Schürer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need
+to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the
+life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and
+it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their
+counterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by
+the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he
+relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that
+not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document,
+is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single
+Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship
+and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot
+in connection with this document further on.
+
+The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed
+[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is
+unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially
+as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing
+which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments
+attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot
+chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full
+knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the
+four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of
+the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted
+acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply
+enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis,
+in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly
+versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our
+four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the
+fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not
+add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their
+composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.
+If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a
+corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books
+of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even
+in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the
+names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything
+to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached
+by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for
+which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of
+vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings
+merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if,
+when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence
+of Melito to greater account. [136:2]
+
+Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris,
+[137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract
+preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of
+which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the
+writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm
+that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels
+seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the
+passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic,
+and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the
+composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show
+that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we
+consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really
+contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a
+jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius
+preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years
+of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force
+the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In
+this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,"
+which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the
+meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a
+phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the
+slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when
+the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.
+
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._
+
+
+A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus
+Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an
+account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter
+from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in
+Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by
+Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents
+that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for
+the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the
+Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in
+_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and
+a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how
+exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those
+documents. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is
+directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any
+supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity
+to passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness
+which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the
+object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course,
+indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect
+coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere
+fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions
+of his essay here.
+
+    "Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,
+    though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder
+    Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zacharious
+    marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the
+    commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have
+    the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias
+    and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was
+    filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression
+"the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: tê Zachariou marturia]), which he
+points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was
+accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in
+a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was
+almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.
+Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent
+to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the
+interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon
+the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could
+not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the
+passage in my complete edition:
+
+    "The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian
+    community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first
+    of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that
+    time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--
+    martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the
+    martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,
+    we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the
+    word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere
+    description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."
+
+This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld,
+and many eminent critics.
+
+It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the
+commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to
+be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
+the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say
+anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in
+Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to
+another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.
+
+    "Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,
+    the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are
+    supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable
+    to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which
+    likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in
+    the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,
+    although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any
+    narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the
+    Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered
+    an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of
+    his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written
+    narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first
+    chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth
+    recognisable book.'" [141:1]
+
+No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can
+have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where,
+then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited
+to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the
+prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work,
+would lead us to infer a written source.
+
+    "The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the
+    history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
+    which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
+    the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
+    history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
+    'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
+    not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
+    of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
+    it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
+    use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
+    far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
+    he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
+    observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
+    that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
+    acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
+    [142:1]
+
+Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader
+whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced
+without the slightest indication of the source from which they were
+derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have
+been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in
+circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone
+accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove
+the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.
+
+    "But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
+    Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
+    those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
+    are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
+    Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
+    charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
+    another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
+    supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
+    with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
+    taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
+    case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
+    Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
+    [143:1]
+
+My reply to this is:
+
+    "There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and
+    the source from which the writers obtained their information about
+    Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of
+    the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,
+    the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may
+    well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings
+    then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,
+    Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts
+    derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does
+    not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never
+    was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story
+    must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,
+    then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the
+    use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus
+    indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the
+    Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of
+    Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
+    upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor
+    its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be
+    in the slightest degree established." [143:2]
+
+Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under
+examination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that
+the "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The only
+interest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the
+paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has
+been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the
+apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took
+in hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the
+books of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian
+literature in circulation in the early days of the Church.
+
+I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the
+fourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you
+will think that he doeth God service." The Gospel has: "There cometh an
+hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain
+that the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any
+other, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add
+one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the
+Gospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_
+maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the
+outside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public
+document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our
+canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels
+instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are
+actually found in our canonical Gospels." [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot
+betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns
+upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular
+documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did
+contain similar passages to those in debate.
+
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_
+
+
+I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what
+I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may
+here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has
+appeared since the publication of my work.
+
+An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of
+Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as
+1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a
+Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and
+this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument
+regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more
+important addition to critical materials was made by the publication
+in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,
+with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before
+Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only
+refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt
+as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that
+they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.
+
+In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will
+be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius
+is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I
+give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--
+
+    "Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
+    how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the Gospels, and called it
+    _Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
+    persons) even to the present day." [146:1]
+
+I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
+acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
+hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--
+
+    "His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
+    altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
+    personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
+    speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
+    contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
+    the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
+    he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
+    that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
+    contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
+    the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
+    commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
+    often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]
+
+If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
+certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance,
+although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
+the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
+from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
+speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
+I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
+should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
+Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
+[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
+and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
+_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
+by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
+not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
+to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
+of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
+of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
+be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
+it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with
+the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to
+be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue
+the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding
+of its character and contents?
+
+The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites
+them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the
+twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--
+
+    "Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
+    selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed
+    a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.
+    On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
+    was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
+    called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the
+    _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
+    the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
+    _Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
+    this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several
+    things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and
+    rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met
+    with." [148:1]
+
+This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it
+remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for
+this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that
+Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It
+is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by
+Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius
+in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a
+third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of
+the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:
+
+    "It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of
+    Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four
+    Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of
+    Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving
+    its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages
+    from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;
+    of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could
+    confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.
+    Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in
+    his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same
+    place." [148:2]
+
+Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse
+them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen
+more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.
+The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of
+Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its
+continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite
+different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the
+supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the
+work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,
+in preference to making any statement of my own:--
+
+    "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this
+    Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon
+    on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his
+    brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his
+    work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.
+    Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out
+    of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other
+    hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,
+    in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1]
+
+This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_
+of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--
+
+    "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the
+    corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a
+    necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was
+    destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2]
+
+The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.
+453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes
+the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,
+which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but
+also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not
+perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and
+other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David
+after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn
+points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these
+passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]
+as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite
+information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond
+the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered
+works.
+
+I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some
+called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
+Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same
+ignorance as to its character.
+
+It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding
+the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should
+not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it
+told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]
+
+We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the
+Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.
+1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of
+which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the
+judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the
+fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be
+received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the
+author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the
+authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In
+any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.
+
+The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one
+belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from
+Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.
+states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic
+translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the
+presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have
+flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of
+these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,
+which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end
+of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the
+original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only
+ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."
+
+So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the
+language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name
+would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek
+composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere
+fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and
+that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of
+Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it
+was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can
+be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the
+original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,
+even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the
+_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the
+original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to
+a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.
+Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,
+the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.
+
+It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of
+the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the
+composition and its object. We have met with three works of this
+description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have
+existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain
+that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the
+first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it
+was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of
+correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if
+such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style
+and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already
+current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in
+details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its
+authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of
+an arranger's name?
+
+An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of
+Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.
+
+    "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
+    anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence
+    to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of
+    such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the
+    canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
+    _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that
+    the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in
+    favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew
+    continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as
+    Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in
+    the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin
+    dress.
+
+    "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the
+    authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general
+    plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke
+    i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore,
+    at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius."
+    [153:1]
+
+How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as
+he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the
+words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
+still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
+"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
+&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
+the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
+_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
+Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
+Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
+discovered:--
+
+    "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
+    543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
+    without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
+    once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
+    already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
+    was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
+    generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
+    have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
+    better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
+    point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
+    fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
+    to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
+    passu_." [153:3]
+
+But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
+could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
+such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
+about the reading _Diapente_?
+
+I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing
+how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the
+Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not
+at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the
+recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,
+I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the
+assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or
+less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony"
+itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of
+any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information
+given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these
+works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the
+Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more
+credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some
+arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of
+the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]
+
+    "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an
+    objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all
+    the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
+    at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
+    supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early
+    Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with
+    notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more
+    recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of
+    Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which
+    ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.
+
+    "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is
+    the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this
+    might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances
+    it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.
+    But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent
+    reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which
+    had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice
+    from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9).
+    But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.
+    The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.
+    This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human
+    utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr
+    like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as
+    a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been
+    witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the
+    martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet
+    scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this
+    phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the
+    fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In
+    another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions
+    at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are
+    told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
+    stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet
+    odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had
+    been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai
+    kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no
+    burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must
+    have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican
+    martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more
+    startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.
+
+    "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the
+    _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
+    amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was
+    accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense,
+    'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
+    the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification
+    as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his
+    forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
+    of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
+    burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo
+    martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,
+    when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common
+    instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a
+    prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'
+    is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is
+    sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to
+    a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any
+    Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at
+    least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,
+    is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,
+    relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his
+    master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac
+    dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
+    postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1]
+
+I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written
+long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents
+Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity
+of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards
+freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of
+supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the
+authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with
+which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into
+naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without
+doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of
+miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and
+insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to
+explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which
+he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but
+very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the
+imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,
+I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.
+
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+CONCLUSIONS.
+
+
+We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
+conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we
+could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which
+are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested
+in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.
+It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the
+specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of
+which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its
+doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be
+pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just
+and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
+announcements."
+
+On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine
+Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the
+supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would
+be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to
+one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are
+performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and
+are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive
+and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are
+beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
+human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a
+nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the
+Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of
+performing.
+
+The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is
+not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common
+also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or
+details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first
+promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for
+centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has
+flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed
+through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has
+entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and
+commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
+miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to
+convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The
+selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more
+characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.
+
+The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that
+their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance
+and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or
+place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and
+ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There
+is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate
+the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so
+freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the
+witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of
+knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No
+miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent
+reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
+imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
+connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
+miraculous pretension.
+
+There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
+interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have
+sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a
+single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,
+wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure
+occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely
+acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and
+'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as
+knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural
+interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles
+have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the
+present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and
+phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of
+natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken
+order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for
+ever annihilated them.
+
+To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite
+Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution
+of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is
+argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate
+causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this
+Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the
+Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably
+maintained.
+
+The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and
+unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can
+possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working
+miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order
+of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is
+further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is
+avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other
+spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to
+prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not
+with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of
+Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived
+from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise
+the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as
+arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine
+design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and
+opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any
+theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the
+human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of
+creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as
+inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed
+punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them
+are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
+inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.
+
+Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena
+must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute
+knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and
+it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of
+nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously
+greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On
+the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of
+the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only
+possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of
+phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
+especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and
+superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only
+reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the
+probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of
+miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the
+order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation
+and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the
+circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are
+examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which
+wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.
+
+When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian
+miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising
+the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case
+turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere
+narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years
+ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force
+and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should
+be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
+of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,
+however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
+distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
+themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the
+writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are
+even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and
+third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor
+eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we
+are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding
+the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.
+
+In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite
+principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the
+date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for
+information regarding the composition and character of these works and
+even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these
+could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the
+date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were
+guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based
+upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
+complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and
+character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition
+preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details
+of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second
+Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been
+composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever
+directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to
+whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no
+value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence
+from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With
+one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a
+half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
+use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,
+does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually
+in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere
+suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence
+shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to
+which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our
+third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the
+existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest
+information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against
+it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
+its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end
+anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not
+themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from
+the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the
+inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor
+contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to
+reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
+Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be
+pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by
+unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous
+occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They
+cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar
+results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the
+third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.
+There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,
+but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with
+miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the
+narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for
+it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are
+compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with
+authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it
+becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been
+supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be
+regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends
+to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so
+suspiciously abound.
+
+The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate
+examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional
+testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief
+in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is
+unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles
+believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so
+supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic
+Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of
+four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders
+it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters
+attributed to him.
+
+The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church
+is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After
+elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating
+conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the
+unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with
+which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into
+supernatural occurrences.
+
+As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the
+cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of
+Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of
+these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict
+and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such
+stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the
+statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,
+which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
+Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries
+of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.
+His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the
+belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and
+undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the
+statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare
+fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he
+had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the
+risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal
+testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which
+we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
+Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of
+which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation
+in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in
+all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The
+testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to
+ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an
+earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active
+persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the
+case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the
+fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is
+not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the
+evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly
+inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must
+consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or
+even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
+the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
+accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in
+the case of any common question of property or title before a legal
+tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be
+established, the more complete must be the proof required.
+
+If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,
+we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing
+original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,
+and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,
+or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.
+There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst
+men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written
+books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There
+is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not
+substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single
+phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous
+conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and
+ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.
+Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held
+an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The
+same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated
+precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had
+already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated
+by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality
+of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity
+has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,
+and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could
+practically interest us now.
+
+There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which
+can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the
+salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a
+single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for
+whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost
+unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to
+be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the
+present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of
+salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a
+third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
+could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as
+Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical
+position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to
+Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even
+now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries
+never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme
+Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human
+race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
+incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the
+cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be
+regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate
+for a system of elevated morality.
+
+We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher
+may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances
+have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to
+him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;
+but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by
+the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It
+is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we
+owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
+people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the
+doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.
+The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had
+never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after
+it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the
+East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the
+development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most
+instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas
+were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents
+several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had
+passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
+who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,
+piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and
+humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate
+structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of
+human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,
+displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which
+commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of
+the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
+churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have
+naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate
+Conception and Papal Infallibility.
+
+It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such
+conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but
+remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before
+existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a
+substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or
+silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth
+cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by
+considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and
+suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be
+premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a
+humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality
+is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,
+although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,
+have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
+even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and
+civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far
+Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here
+venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that
+whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not
+to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic
+Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
+Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has
+been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of
+Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards
+enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema
+of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been
+tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.
+"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
+enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of
+Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of
+assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological
+resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
+enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to
+the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the
+world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher
+principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals
+sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating
+rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine
+institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than
+it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
+social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological
+question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have
+finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and
+modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will
+necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent
+on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed
+to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right
+principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,
+for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation
+which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
+been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any
+degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the
+true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,
+we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and
+punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as
+essential to Christianity.
+
+As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by
+such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any
+means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The
+Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an
+illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and
+its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the
+traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and
+green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool
+fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his
+wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.
+Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the
+desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not
+vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other
+horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to
+ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search
+elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of
+the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make
+four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose
+fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is
+it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five
+than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who
+represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special
+illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a
+former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of
+existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we
+believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to
+repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at
+least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.
+
+The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is
+necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation
+are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived
+from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing
+absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must
+our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the
+expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through
+natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
+as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we
+desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to
+complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To
+attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should
+be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be
+certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is
+as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires
+to know.
+
+We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human
+invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the
+incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine
+government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the
+place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic
+visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of
+unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered
+from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our
+eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured
+in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of
+life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light
+of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable
+horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless
+victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
+representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation,"
+it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways
+of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the
+perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call
+wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now
+the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns
+to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.
+
+As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be
+baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass
+away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although
+it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for
+so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can
+rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish
+between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from
+characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.
+That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply
+an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which
+excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.
+
+
+
+
+
+[ENDNOTES]
+
+
+[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.
+
+[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.
+
+[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.
+
+[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the
+similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards
+referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this
+interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_."
+
+[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.
+
+[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.
+
+[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.
+
+[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.
+
+[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.
+
+[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.
+
+[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.
+
+[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,
+Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
+
+[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.
+
+[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.
+
+[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.
+
+[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.
+
+[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with
+such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part
+itself.
+
+[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
+
+[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._
+p. 4, n. 4.
+
+[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the
+example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he
+introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within
+brackets.
+
+[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.
+
+[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.
+
+[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.
+
+[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
+
+[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as
+Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which
+is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is
+treated as a contemporary.
+
+[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.
+
+[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation
+attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho
+logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase
+from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is
+surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that
+Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and
+Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from
+the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is
+[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is
+rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The
+phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'
+hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên
+allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata
+korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês
+meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of
+the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to
+those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other
+side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after
+"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the
+sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
+Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage
+from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the
+uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which
+reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into
+the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and
+meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and
+their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,
+the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian
+proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel
+of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the
+assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could
+have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
+
+[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition,
+as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
+exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
+I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting
+the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence
+of the words given above.
+
+[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my
+having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic
+might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,
+but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie
+der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._
+p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_,
+p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.
+
+[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.
+
+[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above
+reference, but does not quote the passage.
+
+[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.
+
+[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.
+
+[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by
+Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
+
+[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.
+
+[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106.
+
+[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.
+
+[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].
+
+[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not
+refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
+
+[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]
+
+[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.
+
+[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]
+
+[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.
+
+[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.
+
+[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].
+
+[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly
+suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."
+
+[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that
+such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage
+Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the
+contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the
+allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even
+by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
+Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument
+regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)
+sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
+
+[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].
+
+[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].
+
+[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.
+
+[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.
+
+[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
+
+[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.
+
+[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.
+
+[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.
+
+[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.
+
+[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being
+silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the
+Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point
+out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,
+and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the
+doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it
+had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the
+composition of that work.
+
+[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.
+
+[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]
+
+[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more
+especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere
+Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."
+
+[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.
+
+[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.
+
+[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.
+
+[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.
+
+[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to
+the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).
+
+[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.
+
+[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.
+
+[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.
+
+[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.
+
+[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.
+
+[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._
+viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.
+
+[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.
+
+[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.
+
+[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.
+
+[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.
+
+[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.
+
+[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the
+current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who
+deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.
+Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with
+El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,
+note 1.
+
+[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.
+
+[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.
+
+[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.
+
+[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.
+
+[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.
+
+[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]
+
+[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.
+
+[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.
+
+[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.
+
+[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.
+
+[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.
+
+[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)
+
+[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.
+
+[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].
+
+[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].
+
+[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.
+p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used
+the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and
+not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this
+edition I have made my meaning clear.
+
+[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.
+
+[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.
+
+[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.
+
+[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.
+
+[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].
+
+[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.
+Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.
+
+[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.
+
+[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.
+
+[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.
+
+[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.
+
+[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.
+
+[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.
+
+[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.
+
+[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.
+
+[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.
+
+[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.
+
+[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.
+
+[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.
+
+[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.
+
+[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.
+
+[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to
+the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i.
+p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and
+the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.
+
+[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.
+
+[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59
+ff.]
+
+[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].
+
+[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].
+
+[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of
+reference.
+
+[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is
+explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2).
+Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.
+
+[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].
+
+[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.
+
+[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have
+added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the
+text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.
+vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this
+appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.
+
+[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].
+
+[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.
+
+[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]
+
+[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.
+
+[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.
+Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,
+where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
+Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages
+further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the
+authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority
+of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].
+
+[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii
+nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum
+impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr.
+Rel._ i. 13, § 39).
+
+[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.
+
+[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.
+
+[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].
+Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
+
+[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).
+
+[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].
+
+[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.
+
+[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.
+p. xxxviii.
+
+[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit.
+Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.
+
+[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]
+
+[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.
+
+[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]
+
+[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
+
+[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].
+
+[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.
+
+[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].
+
+[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.
+
+[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
+
+[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.
+
+[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in
+the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight
+lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
+
+[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.
+
+[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].
+
+[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].
+
+[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.
+
+[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
+Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The
+Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is
+embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection
+in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before
+the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles
+come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles
+in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are
+together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,
+_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."
+
+[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
+p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
+
+[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
+
+[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.
+
+[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.
+
+[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.
+
+[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.
+
+[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.
+
+[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.
+
+[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;
+Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,
+Amstel. 1646.
+
+[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.
+
+[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the
+Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
+
+[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
+p. xix f.
+
+[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.
+
+[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
+
+[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first
+quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second
+note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
+
+[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call
+attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.
+
+[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an
+extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der
+ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is
+part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth
+century.
+
+[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,
+but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to
+'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different
+object of the two notes.
+
+[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
+
+[97:1] P. 213.
+
+[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a
+note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display
+of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second
+edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might
+reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had
+reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which
+reference was necessary.
+
+[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
+
+[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._
+1631, p. 152.
+
+[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.
+
+[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].
+
+[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].
+
+[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether
+inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.
+
+[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.
+
+[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.
+
+[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.
+
+[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
+Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,
+1873, p. 517 ff.
+
+[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].
+
+[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.
+
+[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the
+almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the
+Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of
+Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of
+Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.
+
+[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.
+
+[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.
+
+[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.
+
+[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352
+[_ibid._ p. 79].
+
+[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].
+
+[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].
+
+[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].
+
+[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.
+
+[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these
+relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards
+translated to Antioch.
+
+[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.
+
+[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.
+
+[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of
+the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.
+(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)
+
+[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.
+
+[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in
+Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere
+allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"
+the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been
+celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is
+nothing else to establish it.
+
+[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.
+Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)
+
+[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in
+these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
+
+[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
+
+[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]
+
+[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.
+
+[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.
+
+[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.
+
+[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.
+
+[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
+
+[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.
+
+[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.
+
+[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
+
+[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.
+
+[125:2] i. 236 ff.
+
+[125:3] Note.
+
+[125:4] Note.
+
+[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f.
+
+[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
+
+[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
+
+[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
+
+[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.
+
+[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.
+
+[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.
+
+[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.
+
+[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.
+
+[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,
+Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the
+following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except
+that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,
+is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,
+and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume
+that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have
+no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is
+unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If
+Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the
+press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable
+to those who have none.
+
+[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.
+
+[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.
+
+[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.
+
+[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.
+
+[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.
+
+[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.
+
+[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.
+
+[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257
+
+[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.
+
+[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.
+
+[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.
+
+[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)
+
+[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a
+note.
+
+[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.
+
+[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.
+
+[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.
+
+[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.
+
+[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.
+
+[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.
+p. 159 sq.
+
+[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.
+
+[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.
+
+[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by
+Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).
+
+[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.
+
+[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.
+
+[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.
+
+[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.
+
+[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.
+
+[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.
+
+[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.
+
+[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.
+
+[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.
+
+[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.
+
+[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different
+religions is estimated as follows:
+
+   Parsees                          150,000
+   Sikhs                          1,200,000
+   Jews                           7,000,000, being about ½ per cent.
+                                             of the whole.
+   Greek Catholics               75,000,000      "       6   "    "
+   Roman Catholics              152,000,000      "      12   "    "
+   Other Christians             100,000,000      "       8   "    "
+   Hindus                       160,000,000      "      13   "    "
+   Muhammedans                  155,000,000      "      12½  "    "
+   Buddhists                    500,000,000      "      40   "    "
+   Not included in the above    100,000,000      "       8   "    "
+                                -----------
+                              1,250,350,000
+
+We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an
+excellent little work recently published by the Society for the
+Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.
+
+
+
+
+
+INDEX.
+
+
+Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164
+Addai, Doctrine of, 147
+Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148
+Anger, 5
+Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f.
+Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia
+Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff.
+Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137
+Aristion, 55
+Ascension, evidence for, 165
+Aubertin, 65, 66
+Aucher, 145
+
+Baronius, 112 n. 3
+Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f.
+Basnage, 65, 66
+Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72
+Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79;
+     date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.;
+     on Peregrinus Proteus, 102
+Beausobre, 70, 71
+Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93
+Blondel, 65, 66
+Bochart, 65, 66
+Böhringer, 59, 62, 63, 80
+Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79
+
+Calvin, 64
+Campianus, 64
+Casaubon, 65, 67
+Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146
+Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64
+Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65
+Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f.
+Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f.
+Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f.
+Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f.
+Cleophas, 52
+Cook, 65, 66
+Criticism, attitude towards, 1
+Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f.
+Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.
+
+Dallaeus, 62
+Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of
+     Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96
+Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32
+Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1
+Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff.
+Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff.
+Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's
+     commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and
+     Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.;
+     Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.;
+     Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the
+     genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed
+     in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify
+     it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated
+     from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151;
+     original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts
+     in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of
+     Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.;
+     case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace
+     says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154
+Dionysius of Corinth, 56
+Doctrine of Addai, 147
+Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150
+Dorner, 4
+Dressel, 79
+
+Ebrard, 7
+Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons
+     of Eusebius, 148
+Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.;
+     date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date
+     of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.;
+     Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154
+Epiphanius, 150
+Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence
+     of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.;
+     his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.;
+     on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus,
+     148 f., 152
+Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141
+
+Farrar, Dr., 34
+Francke, 97
+
+Gfrörer, 7, 75
+Glaucias, 15, 18, 19,
+Gobarus, Stephanus, 23
+Godet, 32
+Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2;
+     Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.;
+     Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.;
+     evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135;
+     alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     alleged evidence of Polycrates 137;
+     supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144;
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.;
+     insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.;
+     its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f.
+Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.;
+     object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels
+     circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not
+     necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.;
+     evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence
+     is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff.
+Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2
+Grove, 34
+Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93
+
+Hadrian, 12
+Hagenbach, 91, 93
+Harless, 75
+Hase, 76
+Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150
+Hefele, 80
+Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius,
+     52 ff.; on Simeon, 52
+Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_?
+     146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149;
+     its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153
+Hengstenberg, 31
+Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79;
+     place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and
+     Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142;
+     Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.
+Hippolytus, 17 f.
+Holtzmann, 135, 147
+Hug, 32
+Humfrey, 66
+
+Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of
+     his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.;
+     his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.;
+     compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to
+     martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.;
+     remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f.
+Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of
+     Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles,
+     67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as
+     evidence, 113 f.
+Irenaeus, 3 ff.
+
+Jacobson, 65
+Jerome, 110 f.
+John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.;
+     double use of name, 55 f.
+Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.
+
+Keim, 135
+Kestner, 70, 71
+Kirchhofer, 7
+
+Lange, 32
+Lardner, 70, 136
+Lechler, 76 f.
+Lightfoot, 32, 33
+Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f.,
+     13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f.,
+     36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of
+     Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott
+     on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.;
+     on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on
+     Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations,
+     23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character
+     of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar,
+     30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.;
+     the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.;
+     silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on
+     Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements
+     regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey
+     and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's,
+     100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on
+     John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his
+     Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116;
+     on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on
+     Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of
+     Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can
+     Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument
+     of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on
+     Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias,"
+     140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference
+     to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's
+     mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine
+     of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius
+     Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of
+     Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.;
+     similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of
+     Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.;
+     Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens,
+     154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.;
+     practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156
+Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of
+     Polycarp, 135
+Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff.
+Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1
+Lucian, 12, 101 f.
+Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne
+     and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153
+Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of
+     Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.
+
+Magdeburg Centuriators, 64
+Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff.
+Marcus Aurelius, 105 f.
+Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter
+     of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in
+     _Diatessaron_, 149
+Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in
+     Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_
+     of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f.
+Matthias, 16, 18
+Mayerhoff, 91, 93
+Melito of Sardis, 135 f.
+Merx, 78, 79
+Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82
+Mill, on miracles, 36 ff.
+Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f.
+Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150
+Mozley, on belief, 35 f.
+
+Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f.
+Neubauer, 30, 34
+Nicephorus, 111 n. 1
+
+Olshausen, 7, 32
+"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff.
+Origen, on Celsus, 10 f.
+
+Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of
+     his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of
+     the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had
+     nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.;
+     on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the
+     Gospels, 127 f.
+Parker, 65, 66
+Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius,
+     100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165;
+     his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.
+Pearson, 67
+Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff.
+Perpetua, Saturus and, 100
+Petau, 65, 67
+Petermann, 78 ff.
+Phillips, 147
+Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115
+Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with
+     the miraculous elements, 154 f.
+Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137
+Pressensé, de, 60
+Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115
+
+"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons
+     of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of
+     Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically
+     justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.;
+     evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles
+     as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence
+     not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true
+     character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in
+     supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles,
+     159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of
+     Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.;
+     evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which
+     evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for
+     Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence
+     of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.;
+     results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of
+     Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was
+     misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.;
+     alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not
+     valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to
+     man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology
+     to be mere human inventions, 173 f.
+Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f.
+Reuss, 147
+Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32
+Ritschl, 62, 63
+Rivet, 64, 65, 67
+Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4
+Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112
+Rumpf, 60
+
+Sanday, 33
+Saumaise, 65, 66
+Schleimann, 75 f.
+Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147
+Schroeckh, 70, 71
+Schürer, 135
+Shechem, 30 ff.
+Simeon, 52, 105 f.
+Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f.
+Socinus, 65
+Stephen, 142 f.
+Sychar, 30 ff.
+Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f.
+
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron
+Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81
+Thiersch, 7, 70
+Tholuck, 7
+Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.;
+     does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80;
+     "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142;
+     it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff.
+Tregelles, 60, 82 f.
+
+Uhlhorn, 78, 79
+Ussher, 67
+
+Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of
+     Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of
+     evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155
+Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice
+     Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place
+     of martyrdom, 94 ff.
+Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f.
+
+Wace, Dr., 153
+Waddington, 115
+Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79
+Weissmann, 69 f.
+Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.;
+     on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion,"
+     44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly
+     acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147
+Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32
+Wieseler, 31, 32
+Wotton, 68, 69
+
+Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.
+Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1,
+     101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112;
+     did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages
+     regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged
+     Armenian version, 150
+Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 13433-8.txt or 13433-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/3/4/3/13433/
+
+Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
+Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/13433-8.zip b/old/13433-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3402c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/13433-8.zip
diff --git a/old/13433.txt b/old/13433.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ff0237c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/13433.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,6867 @@
+Project Gutenberg's A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by Walter R. Cassels
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays
+
+Author: Walter R. Cassels
+
+Release Date: September 24, 2004 [EBook #13433]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
+Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PRODUCTION NOTES:
+A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907)
+Originally published anonymously in 1889.
+Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+
+
+
+A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS
+
+BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+
+
+
+LONDON
+1889
+
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent
+illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his
+republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided
+evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may
+be possible, however little we may agree on other points.
+
+It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving
+the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost
+him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion
+of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and
+attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to
+many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and
+of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence
+and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume,
+which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt
+to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious
+argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter.
+I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed.
+Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction,
+and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part
+which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play
+in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first
+moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even
+below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated
+theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should
+not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection,
+is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared.
+Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_:
+any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements.
+Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the
+effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting.
+In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed
+likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor
+questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst
+Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes
+his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of
+his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so
+little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the
+complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more
+palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of
+his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these
+Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental
+proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised
+notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details:
+but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and
+the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute
+blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have
+frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed.
+They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable,
+crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose
+the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's
+Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of
+_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the
+reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and
+others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the
+more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable.
+Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to
+be solved really is will not get any help from his volume.
+
+The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me
+the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of
+their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_,
+and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural
+Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the
+portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that
+readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is
+published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference
+for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those
+Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such
+further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my
+statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments
+must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I
+trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his
+allegations and their bearing on my argument.
+
+I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any
+alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the
+first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to
+wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show
+the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been
+moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier
+reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not
+contain them.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that
+I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but
+I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very
+serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the
+possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave
+the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon
+the basis of reason and not of reputation.
+
+
+
+
+
+       CONTENTS
+
+
+   I.  A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+  II.  THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES
+
+ III.  POLYCARP OF SMYRNA
+
+  IV.  PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
+
+   V.  MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES
+
+  VI.  THE CHURCHES OF GAUL
+
+ VII.  TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"
+
+VIII.  CONCLUSIONS
+
+       [ENDNOTES]
+
+       INDEX.
+
+
+
+
+
+I.
+
+_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_
+[Endnote 1:1]
+
+
+The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important,
+that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work
+should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his
+remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible
+that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge
+fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and
+in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws
+and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose
+perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained
+application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel
+otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes
+which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing
+more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which
+may be fallacious.
+
+Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of
+silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the
+face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the
+case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of
+the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the
+December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe
+lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance
+and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens,
+falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to
+me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his
+impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I
+fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold
+so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and
+I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat
+Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand.
+I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his
+attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience
+and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general
+detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be
+pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the
+threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains
+in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still
+is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in
+translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with
+which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well
+founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of
+such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of
+the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not
+weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has
+been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of
+Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is,
+however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there
+is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which
+have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked"
+which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change
+the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once
+to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to
+sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the
+weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has
+the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most
+critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most
+critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune
+to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many
+points, from most critics.
+
+The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is
+regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a
+reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers
+that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive
+and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy"
+would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf
+in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words
+"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of
+a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation,
+in the total absence of the original, that these special words were
+supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of
+Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr.
+Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what
+"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and
+he then proceeds (Sec. 2) with indirect construction, indicating a
+reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in
+question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This
+passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of
+Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of
+Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text:
+"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears
+to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a
+note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the
+Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of
+interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the
+indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of
+"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the
+slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing
+this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital
+bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel."
+The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the
+justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not
+acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical
+opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements,
+understand the real position of the case.
+
+Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole
+passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he
+was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion
+to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom
+I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot,
+now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated
+treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against
+Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there
+is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate
+the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is
+no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing
+the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers
+to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in
+italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as
+Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points
+out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"
+should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo
+cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab
+Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est,
+utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer,
+[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether
+these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the
+saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it
+merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and
+only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the
+first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the
+translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer,
+brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the
+circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly
+separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that
+they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt,
+[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does
+not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but
+merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it
+formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does
+not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is
+impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D.
+150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with
+Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters
+from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back
+to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not
+evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without
+an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr.
+Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a
+passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of
+the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the
+Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In
+my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain
+whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and
+whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something
+borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel."
+[6:4]
+
+With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his
+while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the
+external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in
+discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do
+apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer,
+Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette,
+Gfroerer, Luecke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it,
+although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of
+Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so
+indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of
+Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on
+neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and
+whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with
+the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of
+apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved.
+Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as
+testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly
+have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken
+from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any
+of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the
+passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject
+generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in
+which the quotation is discussed.
+
+This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to
+dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in
+maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All
+that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there
+is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely
+discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of
+Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what
+I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But
+although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who
+says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what
+was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction,
+a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly
+trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note,
+the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below,
+but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai
+de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of
+showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point
+is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make
+any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott,
+beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and
+that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage
+is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the
+work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended
+to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation
+made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had
+been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately
+withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different
+from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my
+argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which
+Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it
+as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this
+was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared,
+and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]
+
+With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is
+practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself.
+"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der
+Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,'
+because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact
+that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing
+of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not
+altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the
+contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he
+has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted
+to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct
+assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters,
+those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not
+giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of
+most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the
+"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high
+authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own.
+[9:2]
+
+My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the
+passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived
+from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a
+quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these
+words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the
+Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing
+more than the exegesis of his own day.
+
+The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with
+a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage
+from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:
+"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes
+that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile
+been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him
+as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which
+everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen
+does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:
+epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge
+was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say
+'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not
+write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);
+nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and
+finished_' ([Greek:_arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language
+itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with
+the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the
+triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here
+"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey
+a totally wrong impression of the case.
+
+The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy
+between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;
+[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the
+passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary
+observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually
+fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose
+rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The
+manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this
+passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself
+by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick
+of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words
+in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments
+as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a
+completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's
+poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen
+rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words
+of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition
+of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:
+"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in
+seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten
+Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.'
+'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht
+geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genuegt es uns mit diesen
+acht Buechern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch
+jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_],
+'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'"
+&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly,
+but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words
+of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon
+these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases,
+but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]
+Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there
+may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered
+as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist.
+
+Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated,"
+however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of
+this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point
+is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than
+my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his
+adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the
+conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his
+impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
+considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons.
+In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that
+his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a
+little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
+is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
+actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to
+whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
+which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as
+a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert,
+on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other
+considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I
+proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of
+Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date;
+but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus
+attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the
+circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against
+Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated
+about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short,
+scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders
+it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the
+Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors,
+which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding
+translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of
+passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and
+expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main
+issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural
+context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as
+Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot
+interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept
+correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite
+content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair
+spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in
+which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely
+rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.
+[13:1]
+
+I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical
+errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and
+magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his
+apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as
+"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking,
+_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the
+"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally
+omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read,
+"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1]
+In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage,
+I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have
+Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of
+such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24,
+in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS.
+Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot
+points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon
+the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation.
+I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him
+the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once
+distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition
+[Greek: ho Baptistes]. [15:1]
+
+I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks
+me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of
+dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says--
+
+    "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:--
+
+    "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
+    as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,'
+    p. 264)
+
+    "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's
+    book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating
+    the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of
+    St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark
+    was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of
+    information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author
+    remarks--
+
+    "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
+    system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
+    in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as
+    St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics
+    are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
+    have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact
+    that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
+    represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers
+    that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
+    interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
+    the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
+    infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
+    of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
+    allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the
+    apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459)
+
+    "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself.
+    It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these.
+    I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed
+    Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage
+    so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be
+    sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself
+    would have thought of." [16:1]
+
+In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to
+quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott
+says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,
+it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian
+doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration
+was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary
+prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror
+into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar
+views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2]
+and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which
+claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.'
+[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a
+'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or
+'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth
+of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them
+as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony
+of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear.
+In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain
+references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c."
+And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be
+sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1]
+
+Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary
+statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to
+be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54.
+Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel"
+of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a
+"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow
+of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance,
+that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of
+all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon
+a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that,
+after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according
+to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they
+are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed
+by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the
+"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels
+in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged'
+books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of
+his writings which remain there are certain references" to those
+gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon
+any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages
+in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides,
+not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a
+mere indefinite [Greek: phesi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the
+vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of
+the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from
+Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that
+of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that
+period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting,
+as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments
+into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed
+by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values
+the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch
+apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of
+a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the
+fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references"
+to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed
+the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original
+system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the
+'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus,
+in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect
+responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples,
+so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel
+in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the
+part of the founder himself." [18:1]
+
+It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides
+regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did
+not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work,
+supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the
+heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity,
+the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before
+us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single
+sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileides
+kan Glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou
+hermenea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement
+exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order
+to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much
+stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott
+says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias,
+who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2]
+Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the
+passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words
+of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark,"
+seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides
+which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see
+any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does,
+let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the
+strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and
+then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after
+the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted
+commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement,
+and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well
+indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is,
+that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He
+has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed
+to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful
+illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which
+pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather
+exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may
+safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better
+to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such
+advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would
+be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in
+the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any
+other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt
+motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise,
+and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost
+that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly
+possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in
+particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
+unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which
+should be more impartially made.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the
+arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single
+out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and
+on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines
+of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in
+the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1]
+I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion
+upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me
+"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists
+which I have ignored.
+
+The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with
+an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being
+spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested
+regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier
+passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--
+"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found
+in any common source of information, that when the Latin version
+(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated
+into the original language, [Greek: tois sun auto], the 'anachronism'
+altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently
+attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for
+not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope,
+may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on
+"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter
+Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians
+of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information
+with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur
+only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the
+difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words
+'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:
+peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean,
+'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish
+particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could
+not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is
+no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty
+presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
+however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn
+translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling
+the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen.
+Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock
+of grammar."
+
+The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of
+apologists which I have ignored is as follows:--
+
+    "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion
+    of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by
+    Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict
+    interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in
+    his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative,
+    but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already
+    lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct,
+    entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and
+    its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main
+    question at issue." [22:1]
+
+I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced
+without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias
+himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much
+more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords
+any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our
+believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they
+are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it
+cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him,
+the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch
+as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;
+and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so
+clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written
+documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a
+discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence,
+it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of
+reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following:
+
+    "Again, when he reproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the
+    strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the
+    often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer
+    refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the
+    words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these
+    words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of
+    initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that
+    Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as
+    misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tuebingen
+    interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which
+    we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists'
+    might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1]
+
+I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I
+merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single
+sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation
+in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and
+we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus
+opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in
+fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does
+he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that
+Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that,
+instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the
+anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based
+upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain?
+It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling
+against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I
+have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts
+of the Apostles.
+
+"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored
+weightier lines of reasoning,
+
+    "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical
+    quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book
+    to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are
+    discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention
+    Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's
+    quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the
+    degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
+    Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_
+    will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when
+    he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves,
+    misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot
+    be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1]
+
+Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of
+Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;
+and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what
+seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention.
+[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are
+derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the
+very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give
+the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do
+not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott
+here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note
+quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right
+to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is
+put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader
+may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139.
+Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations
+are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his
+variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that
+so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no
+proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that
+although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those
+who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his
+work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the
+writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to
+what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether
+they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which
+can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous
+contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for
+instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous
+quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which
+has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our
+Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old
+Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of
+Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I
+probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"
+than was at all necessary.
+
+Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances,
+regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have
+selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations
+vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had
+devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue"
+really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might
+have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If
+such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question
+may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to
+suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness,
+because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic
+reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have
+rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the
+fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic"
+writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and
+impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages
+from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main
+arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it
+somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said
+to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their
+main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he
+gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the
+Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited
+to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and
+Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus
+between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three
+years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem:
+
+"Why then," he asks,
+
+    "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
+    Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ...
+    _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
+    expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate
+    other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not
+    recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested
+    also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St.
+    Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall
+    be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day
+    following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as
+    indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more
+    remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while
+    wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical
+    import." [27:1]
+
+Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry
+into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape
+charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations
+of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like
+this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;
+and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
+itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is
+very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any
+other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but
+is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not
+exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not
+only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his
+work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship
+of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the
+explanations offered.
+
+Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why,
+when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character
+of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of
+Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that
+the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]
+Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and
+fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in
+which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New
+Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and
+abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of
+Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek
+and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and
+ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the
+purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of
+the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and
+beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4]
+In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as
+we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
+Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according
+to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost
+invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is
+distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this
+respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I
+believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language
+of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost
+wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth
+Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other,
+and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be
+supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of
+"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived,
+I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the
+_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is,
+of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the
+Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He
+argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter,
+and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse
+wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written
+otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional
+emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient
+prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the
+Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author
+was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the
+Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and
+Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays
+the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he
+intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the
+conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf
+between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This
+result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic
+character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different
+from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an
+apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole
+character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents
+grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst
+the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond
+comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying,
+to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding
+the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different
+arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma
+which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely
+dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the
+aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the
+one hand and the Gospel on the other.
+
+Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr.
+Lightfoot says--
+
+    "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes
+    care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._
+    the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting
+    altogether to notice others."
+
+In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--
+
+    "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
+    with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
+    mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
+    there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: 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 Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our
+    author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr.
+    J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the
+    article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_."
+    [30:3]
+
+I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which
+I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible
+for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers
+of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism,
+to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself.
+There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and
+he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;"
+I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the
+article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he
+rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently
+because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously
+asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1]
+
+My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
+as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit
+anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is
+severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted
+apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are
+advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which
+identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's
+supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a
+secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle,
+and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of
+Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of
+some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not
+identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place
+bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The
+ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common
+source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for
+instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a
+name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place."
+This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion,
+for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost
+universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere
+alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place.
+He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great
+hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"
+to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and
+explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment
+as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation
+with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler,
+who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot,
+argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:
+Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding
+this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects
+the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation,
+which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in
+[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits
+this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader,"
+[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot
+and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette,
+[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]
+and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and
+Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town
+of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]
+Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct
+from, Sichem. Luecke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the
+extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably
+receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of
+Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned
+in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he
+seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into
+Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such
+an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch
+as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and
+his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that
+Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the
+site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful.
+[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another
+place:--
+
+    "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at
+    the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally
+    called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is
+    the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east
+    of Naplus. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand
+    for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other
+    reason, and the addition [Greek: legomene] does not indicate, here any
+    more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem.
+    or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3]
+
+Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks,
+says:--
+
+    "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title
+    (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews.
+    [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the
+    Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is
+    not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the
+    hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not,
+    however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not
+    Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to
+    Jacob's Well."
+
+To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says:
+"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek:
+legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,'
+'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village
+nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El
+Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion
+may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne
+un endroit appele 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-etre le Sychar
+de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus
+logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with
+regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect
+Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from
+a "common source of information:"--
+
+    "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of
+    this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which
+    Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and
+    enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These
+    considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading
+    to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless,
+    as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not
+    nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3]
+
+Mr. Grove is very right.
+
+I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either
+"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not
+perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably
+identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel
+mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have
+been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for
+it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there
+was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have
+not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations.
+
+With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes
+constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating,"
+Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those
+who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support
+me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references,
+that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall
+very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may
+be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating,
+my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further
+to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them
+discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions
+with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by
+anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made
+acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and
+honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief
+rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any
+strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many,
+if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would
+not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as
+they appear to find it." [36:1]
+
+I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks
+regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to
+discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his
+misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the
+Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the
+pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before
+coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I
+have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal
+Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear
+to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has
+been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own
+imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance,
+the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the
+contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such
+a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter
+are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish
+Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable
+laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and
+security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of
+inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which
+view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to
+secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the
+last page of my work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion,"
+but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess
+that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I
+hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they
+are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how
+singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of
+_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement
+almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more
+closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:
+"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
+part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat
+strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work
+should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the
+first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is
+quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that
+miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so,
+and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the
+amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the
+evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that,
+although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took
+place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main
+principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be
+proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of
+supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to
+prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to
+prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the
+occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after
+showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:
+"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive
+evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words,
+the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that
+this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception
+equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the
+evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with
+my results:
+
+    "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is
+    not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence
+    of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand,
+    but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in
+    the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts
+    asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent
+    character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the
+    impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be
+    little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are,
+    in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely
+    difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are
+    hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by
+    human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2]
+
+It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to
+confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I
+enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses
+for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous
+nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to
+examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an
+ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should
+represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the
+forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he
+altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend
+the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical
+enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of
+witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been
+represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the
+remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some
+degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being
+already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of
+the enquiry.
+
+I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much
+which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion
+of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able
+and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or
+faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and
+instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me,
+it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to
+refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid
+fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who,
+differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability
+attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due
+even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to
+courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever
+he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully
+to follow every serious line of argument than the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_.
+
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1]
+
+
+This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but
+both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected
+to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of
+opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to
+review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express
+my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed
+generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its
+completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my
+conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the
+courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must
+necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a
+course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not
+diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.
+
+There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of
+argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have
+objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition
+advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have
+been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is
+only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now
+I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the
+philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to
+completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation
+is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently
+incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be
+antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is,
+therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
+incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that
+certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry
+into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third
+parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until
+other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ...
+
+The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has
+frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to
+prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of
+the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that
+which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how
+anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of
+the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The
+fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the
+Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that,
+so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in
+the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently
+incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the
+Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to
+have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and
+truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish
+some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument
+has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at
+the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as
+evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear
+and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for
+the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary
+requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of
+serious consideration.
+
+It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special
+gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in
+existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief
+as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without
+shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however,
+totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious
+belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the
+sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors
+urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual
+occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out
+of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took
+place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious
+age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful
+investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons,
+equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture
+to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring
+can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the
+relation of miracles to the order of nature.
+
+The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the
+statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences
+precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how,
+if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four
+Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the
+second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as
+Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account
+for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature
+in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready
+acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment
+regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century
+either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which
+concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but
+the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of
+Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and
+Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as
+personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are
+shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct
+trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses
+for miracles.
+
+After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced
+against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the
+truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able
+divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main
+argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by
+inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have
+professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically
+attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth
+defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have
+shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable
+breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference
+to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no
+sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.
+
+I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who,
+with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most
+elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and
+official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot
+and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my
+book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of
+course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in
+reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has
+assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred,
+although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so
+in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of
+hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or
+error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main
+argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.
+Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at
+all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to
+details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent
+against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed
+against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such
+words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may
+have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render
+it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.
+
+
+The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by
+Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called
+attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers,
+under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious
+limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as
+singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more
+especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence
+occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this
+"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will
+not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that
+unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for
+the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only
+the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere
+that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or
+say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that
+they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and
+authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present
+at least, limited to Eusebius.
+
+The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole
+of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete
+blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal
+works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I
+supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their
+lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not
+contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary
+that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main
+argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has
+expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it,
+and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose
+that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot
+says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of
+Eusebius:--
+
+    "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis
+    of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how
+    much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to
+    be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his
+    foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he
+    piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether
+    neglected to do." [46:1]
+
+Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his
+belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:--
+
+    "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part
+    of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces."
+    [46:2]
+
+I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must
+allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the
+importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the
+representations made in the above passages are a very strange
+exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with
+criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and
+strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever,
+and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an
+amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that
+vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion,
+proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an
+inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it
+was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument
+which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding
+some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be
+withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is
+to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers
+regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of
+three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not
+find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works
+mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing
+Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in
+this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact
+that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers
+contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have
+we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of
+Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius
+warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these
+writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical
+books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend
+to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was
+the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements,
+which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose
+that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any
+kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?
+Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and
+Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The
+reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement
+Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural
+Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has
+asserted.
+
+We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He
+carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared
+intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention
+or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of
+the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words,
+merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his
+statement into three paragraphs. He says:
+
+    "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings
+    in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage.
+
+    "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any
+    ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek:
+    tines hopoiais kechrentai]);
+
+    "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only
+    professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell
+    about them_ ([Greek: tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai]). Any
+    _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the
+    others ([Greek: ton me toiouton]), will be recorded.
+
+    "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will
+    allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise."
+    [48:1]
+
+In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we
+can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to
+point out mere quotations of the books which he considered
+undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in
+the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John,
+which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be
+undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he
+omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in
+the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to
+the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down
+as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did
+mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged
+himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much
+might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little
+importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing
+it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise
+include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations
+of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very
+subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it
+altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had
+occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they
+could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book
+quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done
+nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the
+evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully
+have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely
+any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to
+establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this
+point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?
+We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the
+Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of
+Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other
+hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any.
+
+The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius
+is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his
+promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient
+writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_
+of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the
+only information of the slightest value to this work which could
+be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing
+the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural
+Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself,
+Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of
+Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner.
+
+    Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under
+    discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of
+    Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the
+    matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have
+    to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that
+    Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the
+    Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he
+    quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the
+    composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements
+    regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the
+    information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the
+    four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say
+    concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact
+    that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or
+    interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot
+    says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which
+    justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the
+    case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal
+    passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus,
+    _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain
+    interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
+    question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the
+    errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii.
+    11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting
+    statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted,
+    is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only
+    in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it
+    from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well
+    have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he
+    quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the
+    Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits
+    the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important
+    bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared
+    that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus
+    confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the
+    apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however,
+    could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to
+    represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one
+    at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an
+    elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy
+    between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular
+    quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three
+    Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after
+    the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the
+    other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not
+    embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the
+    extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the
+    Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could
+    not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although
+    Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the
+    Presbyters who were acquainted with John.
+
+It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to
+record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the
+undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant
+writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the
+conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three
+writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence
+of Eusebius."
+
+I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high
+estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that
+he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings.
+Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the
+martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for
+the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus,
+Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of
+Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by
+reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story
+regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who
+were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the
+martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early
+Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of
+Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the
+statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of
+Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions
+his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about
+the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general
+state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I
+mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them
+in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have
+escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works
+were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
+was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a
+single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate
+inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus
+did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as
+Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of
+whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in
+confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the
+composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as
+well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that
+Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by
+Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he
+speaks with so much respect.
+
+    I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted
+    anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to
+    go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No
+    one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care
+    with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially
+    apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any
+    doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to
+    the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles
+    called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and
+    the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having
+    written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully
+    quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently
+    made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to
+    the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of
+    the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics.
+    The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the
+    tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution
+    under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in
+    support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the
+    close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the
+    persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command
+    given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as
+    also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the
+    historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded
+    Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the
+    latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and,
+    according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He
+    states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist,
+    governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his
+    return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan
+    succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from
+    Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account
+    of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must
+    be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly
+    put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he
+    gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his
+    account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition,
+    which he states to have been John's receiving the other three
+    Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did
+    not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this
+    reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings
+    of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very
+    extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully
+    considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at
+    variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably
+    omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them.
+    [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking
+    of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and
+    interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings
+    attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting
+    traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities,
+    would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any
+    information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so
+    frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any.
+
+In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius
+quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark,
+[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative
+regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in
+confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose
+that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not
+have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their
+information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if
+Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of
+the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
+Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not
+only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case
+which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had
+to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very
+reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims
+of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still
+more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth
+Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have
+had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The
+first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop
+of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the
+words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the
+disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
+disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly
+points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the
+former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles,
+evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly
+distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this
+proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of
+John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the
+name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second
+of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation.
+What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the
+subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted
+with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very
+moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I
+am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the
+peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of
+Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or
+fourth Gospels.
+
+I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning
+equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words
+to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended
+to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the
+constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following
+statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius
+respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in
+its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by
+Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means,
+not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are
+witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply
+that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel
+by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century,
+classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does
+not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is
+very small.
+
+
+Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection
+with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and
+limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which
+the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that
+readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy
+is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of
+misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute
+criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression
+that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most
+right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It
+is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like
+this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not
+possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course
+entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even
+alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a
+spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be
+accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown
+that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon
+himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to
+all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with
+some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian
+Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which
+they commit themselves.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon
+which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its
+difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says:
+"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the
+student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
+considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
+A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
+familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
+expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
+some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions
+with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would
+here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for
+Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question
+make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to
+recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult
+to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels.
+The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack,
+and war is declared in the following terms:
+
+    "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use
+    such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery
+    of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references
+    to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the
+    author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon
+    it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer
+    shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies
+    us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his
+    arguments." [59:1]
+
+This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play
+a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to
+them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not
+be in the least degree affected.
+
+The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is
+one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well
+as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led
+(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most
+genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted
+by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
+epistles." [59:2]
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--
+
+    "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results
+    of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac
+    epistles than this." [59:1]
+
+It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one
+who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however,
+Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the
+Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to
+be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to
+consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or
+six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation
+of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the
+five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles
+may be added those of Milman, Boehringer, de Pressense, and Dr. Tregelles,
+which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he
+limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I
+certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the
+three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly
+of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still
+consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the
+Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With
+regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say
+that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this
+edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity
+prefer the Curetonian version. The Tuebingen school are not unanimous
+on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek,
+for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the
+priority of the Curetonian "im hoechsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar,
+Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says:
+
+    "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this
+    point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of
+    the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him,
+    retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has
+only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but,
+whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are
+spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He
+first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added:
+"An dem relativ groessern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenueber der
+kuerzeren griechischen halte ich uebrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In
+the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says
+quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt ueberzeugt, dass der Syrer in
+zahlreichen Faellen den relativ urspruenglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl.
+meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard
+to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only
+matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny
+the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by
+analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject
+given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems
+to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather
+tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his
+attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the
+accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error
+and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is
+as follows:--
+
+    "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest
+    scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
+    the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
+    admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
+    prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider
+    them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As
+    early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were
+    expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed
+    to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and
+    Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully
+    shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts,
+    more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth
+    century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although
+    the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now.
+    That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller
+    examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have
+    confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise
+    that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established,
+    and that they can only be considered later and spurious
+    compositions.(4)" [62:1]
+
+In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Boehringer,
+Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot
+proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his
+explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both
+to call more immediate attention to the point:
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |    DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Many of the ablest critics have     | "These references, it will be
+pronounced them to be the only       | observed, are given to illustrate
+authentic Epistles of Ignatius,      | _more immediately_, though perhaps
+whilst others_ who do not admit      | not solely, the statement that
+that even these are genuine letters  | writers '_who do not admit that
+emanating from Ignatius, _still      | even these_ (the Curetonian
+prefer them_ to the version of       | Epistles) _are genuine letters
+seven Greek Epistles, _and consider  | emanating from Ignatius, still
+them the most ancient form of the    | prefer them_ to the version of
+letters_ which we possess.           | seven Greek Epistles, and consider
+                                     | them the most ancient form of the
+                                     | letters which we possess.'" [62:2]
+
+
+It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this
+sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that
+sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether
+of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative
+priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main
+statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws
+light" upon the point by the following remarks:--
+
+          THE TRUTH.                 |   DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT.
+                                     |
+_Cureton, Bunsen, Boehringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will
+Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_        | hardly be prepared to hear that
+maintain both the priority and       | not one of these nine writers
+genuineness of the Syriac Epistles.  | condemns the Ignatian letters
+_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves
+distinct recognition of the letters  | leaves the matter in some
+in any form. Of the Vossian          | uncertainty while inclining to
+Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die    | Bunsen's view; the other eight
+Echtheit dieser Recension ist        | distinctly maintain the
+keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian
+priority of the Curetonian "in the   | letters." [63:1]
+highest degree probable."            |
+                                     |
+_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles,  |
+as I have already said, but          |
+maintains the priority of the        |
+Syriac.                              |
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of
+the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury.
+Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but
+would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note
+was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct.
+
+Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the
+ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so
+early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed
+regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius,
+and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared
+them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of
+Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the
+Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at
+that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections
+were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3]
+This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of
+Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says:
+
+    "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz
+    did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the
+    contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says
+    that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen
+    the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4]
+
+Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for
+Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles
+as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts
+of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg
+Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing
+them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were
+before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:
+"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece
+leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non
+referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas
+epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in
+ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius
+are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis
+igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:
+transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum
+regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he
+"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon
+the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my
+critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade
+more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received
+from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and
+here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as
+follows:
+
+    "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
+    Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c.
+    &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae
+    Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix."
+
+Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:--
+
+    "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they
+    are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted
+    from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the
+    Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2]
+
+As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is
+"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the
+whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he
+persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for
+which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute
+classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of
+a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course
+of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large
+class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch,
+illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case
+on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase,
+decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the
+Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did
+not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise
+the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts,
+more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and
+would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel,
+Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook
+pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So
+far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in
+succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have
+been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the
+main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the
+text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of
+the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and
+all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I
+should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed
+"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot
+says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far
+as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very
+denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more
+or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether,"
+Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the
+Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he
+"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the
+promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he
+might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not
+necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to
+Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a
+subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop
+Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion
+to "that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by
+Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of
+the writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius
+varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:
+tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio
+Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He
+then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles
+and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more
+decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio
+sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus
+illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3]
+
+The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for
+convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it
+as follows:--
+
+    "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef.
+    Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c.,
+    Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin,
+    _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex
+    Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_,
+    ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichee_, &c. 1734, i.
+    p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489;
+    [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in
+    Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._
+    1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341;
+    Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmueller, _Hist.
+    Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr.
+    in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E.
+    condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i.
+    p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11;
+    Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf.
+    _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._
+    p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i.
+    p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
+    eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16;
+    J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch ueb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._,
+    in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f.
+    Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i.
+    p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.'
+
+    "The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
+
+    "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have
+    made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it
+    stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the
+    by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the
+    gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe,
+    however, that every one of these references, except those which I
+    have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's
+    'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus
+    two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten
+    minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the
+    quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in
+    Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his
+    notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought
+    fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the
+    rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional
+    references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1]
+
+I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might
+suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is
+here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to
+the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask
+every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to
+insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references
+in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and
+thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted
+references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed
+the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of
+criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and
+reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's
+appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from
+it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly
+indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The
+fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but
+in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note
+"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly
+does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself
+acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing
+the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they
+illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_,"
+continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much
+obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name
+is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list
+on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and
+was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose
+doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's
+further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as
+genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the
+Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the
+seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These
+three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an
+older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes
+found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the
+doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in
+which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed.
+For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles
+attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1]
+Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite."
+Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as,
+for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander,
+and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or
+uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."
+[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my
+words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a
+leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of
+these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or
+less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name
+in order.
+
+_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves
+    are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a
+    question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens
+    of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have
+    shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult
+    question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely:
+    "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_
+    the genuine epistles of Ignatius."
+
+_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l'authenticite
+    des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles
+    ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit
+    la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete interpolees."
+
+_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for
+    the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them
+    suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and
+    anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon
+    the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these
+    and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which
+    cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are
+    interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent
+    observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as
+    difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it
+    would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly
+    doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles.
+
+_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite,"
+    but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy
+    too much space.
+
+_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from
+    the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History
+    given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief
+    German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the
+    original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing
+    "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been
+    classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian
+    Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who
+    merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom
+    of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose
+    the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the
+    impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who
+    is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical
+    purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he
+    still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian
+    Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and
+    then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of
+    Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me
+    for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which
+    presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me
+    with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state
+    additional grounds for disbelief.
+
+_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven
+    Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the
+    extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note
+    he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to
+    agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably
+    the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being
+    more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years
+    later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet
+    concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the
+    Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the
+    shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations
+    (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious
+    statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in
+    the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material
+    of the letters cannot be ascertained.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly
+unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous.
+
+He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour,
+and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been
+possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose"
+of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain
+this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will
+put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses
+the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement
+which he altogether disregards:--
+
+                                    |        DR. LIGHTFOOT.
+                                    |
+"Further examination and more       | "References to twenty authorities
+comprehensive knowledge of the      | are then given, as belonging to
+subject have confirmed earlier      | the 'large mass of critics' who
+doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian
+recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered
+none_ of these Epistles _can be     | later and spurious compositions.'"
+established_, and that they can     | [73:1]
+only be considered later and        |
+spurious compositions."             |
+
+
+There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two
+approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the
+Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming
+to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively
+pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred
+to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming
+what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that
+a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot
+be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does
+not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the
+extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may
+have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may
+have been based. I will analyse the six references.
+
+_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a
+    previous note) expresses no definite opinion."
+
+    Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek
+    directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions.
+    I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some
+    difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin
+    of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He
+    refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the
+    Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he
+    does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The
+    authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and,
+    next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this
+    Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek
+    is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree
+    probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences
+    in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how
+    the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these
+    Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which
+    we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their
+    authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him
+    here at all.
+
+_Gfroerer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite
+    this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a
+    reference to his remarks.
+
+_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly
+    reject with the most considerable critics of older and more
+    recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that
+    the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a
+    passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well
+    as in the Long Recension."
+
+    This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with
+    Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this
+    case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is
+    _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have
+    the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that
+    ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is
+    somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of
+    Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian
+    Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century.
+
+_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies
+    oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not
+    satisfied with either existing recension."
+
+    Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and
+    still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles
+    can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless,
+    without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds:
+    "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine
+    substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his
+    Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from
+    Ignatius the contents sufficiently show."
+
+_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion."
+
+    If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what
+    that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he
+    says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion
+    of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not
+    fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and
+    least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even
+    if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they
+    would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the
+    second century." These last words are a clear admission of his
+    opinion that the authenticity cannot be established.
+
+_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in
+    favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension,
+    but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable
+    to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been
+    able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal
+    improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed
+    journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself
+    can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler
+    does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case;
+    and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the
+    possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the
+    inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly
+    justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be
+    established.
+
+Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon
+my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with
+what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian
+literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name
+totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been
+removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and
+consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose
+doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in
+dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more
+or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly
+expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only
+too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks
+such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of
+"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I
+have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact,
+but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be
+able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen
+into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but
+the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1]
+
+There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must
+briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with
+unhesitating boldness:
+
+    "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention,
+    from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that
+    this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been
+    felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has
+    raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author)
+    maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially
+    bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most
+    formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the
+    world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later
+    work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown
+    to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all,
+    or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian
+    question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of
+    Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not
+    less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_."
+    [78:2]
+
+Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the
+Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal
+opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general
+declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my
+diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as
+evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning
+of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely
+represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot
+very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian
+version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above
+quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture
+to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key
+of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played
+a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and
+as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will
+state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn,
+Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them.
+Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which
+appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press,
+in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian
+question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the
+Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's
+work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So
+much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot.
+
+As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question
+during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think
+it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of
+Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments
+in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against
+Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's
+representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument"
+against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even
+allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,
+[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian
+manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his
+text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele
+[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar,
+Tischendorf, Boehringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them
+worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other
+writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into
+the controversy at all.
+
+The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag
+into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the
+reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the
+following lines:
+
+    "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven
+    Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text
+    is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac
+    idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply
+    proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must
+    have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the
+    Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
+    and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the
+ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the
+Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital
+problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer
+misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian
+Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek
+Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels.
+
+Passing on to another point, I say:
+
+    "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
+    equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
+    number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1]
+
+Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a
+little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon
+this he writes as follows:--
+
+    "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
+    with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented
+    themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the
+    important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century
+    after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and
+    there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious
+    Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The
+    confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven
+    Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven
+    Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long
+    Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms
+    which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their
+    composition." [81:2]
+
+Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are
+advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to
+its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly,
+if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first
+reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical
+admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles
+are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius,
+does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius,"
+the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely
+receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret.
+Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how
+changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would
+have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has
+conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the
+controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the
+"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the
+controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The
+testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument
+(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and
+interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same
+accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian
+Epistles.
+
+The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second
+paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which
+I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is
+this:--
+
+    "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
+    by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
+    Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
+    Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
+    be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
+    honour." [82:2]
+
+I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with
+the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and
+orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:--
+
+          DR. LIGHTFOOT.          |       DR. TREGELLES.
+                                  |
+(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_
+the seven Epistles are mixed up   | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having
+with the confessedly spurious     | been _transmitted_ to us, for no
+Epistles. In the Greek and Latin  | such seven exist, except through
+MSS., as also in the Armenian     | their having been selected by
+version, the spurious Epistles    | _editors_ from the Medicean MS.
+come after the others; and the    | which contains so much that
+circumstance, combined with the   | is confessedly spurious;--a fact
+facts already mentioned, plainly  | which some who imagine a
+shows that they were a later      | diplomatic transmission of
+addition, borrowed from the Long  | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2]
+Recension to complete the body    |
+of Ignatian letters." [83:1]      |
+
+
+I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot
+advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the
+testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own
+statement. Cureton says:
+
+    "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us
+    to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of
+    St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient
+    Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles
+    presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed
+    up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious.
+    Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same
+    footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only
+    ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been
+    the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of
+    any mention of the others." [83:3]
+
+    "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour
+    of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the
+    Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which
+    have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both
+    Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two
+    distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to
+    Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two
+    recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the
+    circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its
+    reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies
+    of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College,
+    Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ...
+    In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the
+    former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and
+    there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of
+    the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed
+    one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice
+    result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to
+    Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others
+    in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological
+    order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi,
+    at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had
+    despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence
+    of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the
+    recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the
+    rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained."
+    [84:1]
+
+Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly
+show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the
+principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin
+version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which
+was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined
+table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod.
+Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a
+Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at
+the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third
+(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published
+by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean
+MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646.
+[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14.
+[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles:
+
+        A.        |      B.       |       C.        |       D.        |
+     FABER STAP.  | VAL. PACAEUS. |     USHER       |    VOSSIUS.     |
+                  |               |                 |                 |
+  1. Trallians    | _Mar. Cass._  | Smyrn.          | Smyrn.          |
+  2. Magn.        | Trallians     | Polycarp        | Polycarp        |
+  3. _Tarsians_   | Magnes.       | Ephes.          | Ephes.          |
+  4. _Philip._    | _Tarsians_    | Magnes.         | Magnes.         |
+  5. Philad.      | _Philip.      | Philad.         | Philad.         |
+  6. Smyrn.       | Philad.       | Trallians       | Trallians       |
+  7. Polycarp     | Smyrn.        | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ |
+  8. _Antioch._   | Polycarp      | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ |
+  9. _Hero_       | _Antioch.     | _Tarsians_      | _Tarsians_      |
+ 10. Ephes.       | _Hero_        | _Antioch._      |                 |
+ 11. Romans       | Ephes.        | _Hero_          |                 |
+ 12.              | Romans        | _Mart. Ign._    |                 |
+ 13.              |               | Romans          |                 |
+
+I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well
+as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them,
+the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have
+an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is
+obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and
+the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not
+contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle
+to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression,
+"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the
+epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which
+Dr. Lightfoot contradicts.
+
+I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn
+for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I
+have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out
+serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my
+references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before
+proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations.
+Dr. Westcott says:--
+
+    "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite
+    capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his
+    while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings,
+    arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many
+    cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress
+    the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics
+    are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by
+    evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1]
+
+Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have
+almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in
+this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the
+Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted
+reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a
+very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned
+and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of
+little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time,
+therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these
+questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical
+authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to
+works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add,
+that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to
+critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is
+right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and
+recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as
+they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as
+English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott,
+however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who
+oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions.
+
+Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to
+investigate. He says:
+
+    "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion
+    which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than
+    this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One
+    example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I
+shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care.
+The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by
+a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed
+contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he
+does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely
+worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be
+unfair. The example selected is as follows:
+
+    "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at
+    all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December,
+    A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
+    amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by
+    the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)"
+    [87:2]
+
+    "'The references in support of these statements are the following:--
+
+    "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3,
+    p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl.
+    N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach,
+    _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff,
+    _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40,
+    50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i.
+    pp. 121 f., 136.
+
+    "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.;
+    _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tueb. Zeitschr. f.
+    Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i.
+    p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die
+    aelt. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._
+    1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, p, 214.'"
+
+Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:
+
+    Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot
+    but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are
+    quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their
+    testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact
+that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes
+differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being
+absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do
+not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the
+place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed
+being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to
+Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar
+transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are
+made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the
+date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4,
+placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is
+made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but
+which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3,
+although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that
+there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only
+as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have
+in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my
+omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book.
+The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add
+to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or
+115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a
+majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later
+date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the
+text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at
+the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but
+unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of
+this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the
+writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite
+regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3,
+therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in
+Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred
+to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references
+[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two
+notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements.
+
+                   NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116.
+
+   DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.        |     THE TRUTH.
+                                     |
+                                     | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb.
+                                     | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149,
+                                     | Anm.) Baur states as the date of
+                                     | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's
+                                     | visit to Rome, "during which the
+                                     | above order" (the sentence against
+                                     | Ignatius) is said to have been
+                                     | given, A.D. 115 and not 107.
+                                     |
+"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb.   | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm.
+Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155,      |
+Anm. In this note, which is too      | After showing the extreme
+long  to quote, _there is nothing_,  | improbability of the circumstances
+so far as I see, _in any way         | under which the letters to the
+bearing_ upon the history [90:1]     | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said
+except a passing supposition 'wenn   | to have been written, Baur points
+... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn        | out the additional difficulty in
+[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...'          | regard to the latter that, if
+                                     | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his
+                                     | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him
+                                     | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D.
+                                     | 116, he must have become bishop at
+                                     | least in his 35th year, and
+                                     | continued so for upwards of half
+                                     | a century. The inference is clear
+                                     | that if Ignatius died so much
+                                     | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves
+                                     | the still greater improbability
+                                     | that Polycarp must have become
+                                     | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his
+                                     | 26th year, which is scarcely to be
+                                     | maintained, and the later date is
+                                     | thus obviously supported.
+                                     |
+                                     | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_,
+                                     | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.)
+                                     |
+                                     | Baur supports the assertion that
+                                     | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in
+                                     | Antioch, A.D. 115.
+                                     |
+"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x.  | The same.
+p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui  |
+circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.'  |
+                                     |
+"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144       | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144.
+[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den        |
+Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von   | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome
+Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen   | under Trajan, A.D. 115.
+115 _zu Rom_ als Maertyrer starb.'   |
+                                     |
+"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i.       | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148.
+p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the      |
+edition which I have used].          | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under
+'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien   | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed
+(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_   | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116.
+wegen seines standhaften             |
+Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan  |
+115 _nach Rom gefuehrt, und hier 116 |
+im Colosseum von Loewen zerrissen    |
+wurde_ (vgl. Sec. 23, i.)' [where    |
+the same statement is repeated].     |
+                                     |
+"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I     | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f.
+have not been able to see the book   |
+referred to, but in his Lectures     | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his
+'Die christliche Kirche der drei     | office about 40 years when the
+ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853    | Emperor, in the year 115 (according
+(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions    | to others still earlier), came to
+the difficulty which has been felt   | Antioch. It was during his war
+as to the execution at Rome, while   | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach
+an execution at Antioch might have   | states some of the arguments for and
+been simpler and more impressive,    | against the martyrdom in Antioch,
+and then quotes Gieseler's solution, | and the journey to Rome, the former
+and passes on with 'Wie dem such     | of which he seems to consider more
+sei.']                               | probable.]
+                                     |
+"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i.      | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19.
+p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of         |
+Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius  | The same as opposite.
+himself, who was not thrown to the   |
+wild beasts in the amphitheatre at   | These "peremptory statements" are
+Rome by command of Trajan, but at    | of course based upon what is
+Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115.    | considered satisfactory evidence,
+The Epistles were written after      | though it may not be adduced here.
+150 A.D.' [For these peremptory      |
+statements no authority whatever is  |
+adduced].                            |
+                                     |
+"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._   | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._
+p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der           | p. 79.
+spaetestens 117 zu Rom den           |
+Maertyrertod litt ..._'              | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome
+                                     | at latest A.D. 117.
+                                     |
+"8. Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_,
+p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of   | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date
+Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The        | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he
+Ignatian letters are rejected        | repeats this statement, and gives
+partly 'weil sie eine Maertyrerreise | his support to the view that his
+des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren  | martyrdom took place in Antioch on
+schon frueher erkanntes              | the 20th December, A.D. 115.
+ungeschichtliches Wesen durch        |
+Volkmar's nicht ungegruendete        |
+Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher    |
+wird. Darnach scheint naemlich       |
+Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl     |
+des sanftmuethigen Trajans, sondern  |
+zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines  |
+am dreizehnten December 115          |
+eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer   |
+eines aberglaeubischen Volkswahns am |
+zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres   |
+im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren   |
+zur Beute ueberliefert worden zu     |
+sein.'                               |
+                                     |
+"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52   | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52,
+[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I      | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch,
+have not been able to consult, but   | 20th December, 115.
+from secondary references I gather   |
+that it repeats the arguments given  |
+under the next reference.]           |
+                                     |
+"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._ | Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der      | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom
+Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius,     | at Antioch, 20th December, 115.
+wurde, waehrend Trajan dortselbst    |
+ueberwinterte, am 20. December den   |
+Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der    |
+durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December  |
+115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi]        |
+erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer       |
+zugleich der Siegesfeste des         |
+Parthicus, welche die Judith-        |
+Erzaehlung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio     |
+(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt   |
+...'                                 |
+                                     |
+"P. 136. The same statement is       | Ibid. p. 136. The same
+repeated briefly." [93:1]            | statement, with fuller
+                                     | chronological evidence.
+
+It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the
+later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in
+which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history
+except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it
+and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly,
+that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not
+perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as
+statements of evidence.
+
+To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine
+writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted,
+three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to
+Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is
+doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the
+martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the
+purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction,
+and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text,
+regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of
+the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which
+I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's
+statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention.
+
+                               NOTE 4.
+
+  DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS.      |           THE TRUTH.
+                                  |
+1. Volkmar: see above.            | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._
+                                  | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.
+                                  |
+                                  | It will be observed on turning to
+                                  | the passage "above" (10), to which
+                                  | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes
+                                  | a single sentence containing merely
+                                  | a concise statement of facts, and
+                                  | that no indication is given to the
+                                  | reader that there is anything beyond
+                                  | it. At p. 136 "the same statement
+                                  | is repeated briefly." Now either
+                                  | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most
+                                  | serious charge against my work, based
+                                  | upon this "one example," has actually
+                                  | not taken the trouble to examine my
+                                  | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.,"
+                                  | and p. 50 ff., to which he would
+                                  | have found himself there directed,
+                                  | or he has acted towards me with a
+                                  | want of fairness which I venture to
+                                  | say he will be the first to regret,
+                                  | when he considers the facts.
+                                  |
+                                  | Would it be divined from the words
+                                  | opposite, and the sentence "above,"
+                                  | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate
+                                  | argument, extending over a dozen
+                                  | closely printed pages, to prove that
+                                  | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all,
+                                  | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch
+                                  | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115,
+                                  | probably as a sacrifice to the
+                                  | superstitious fury of the people
+                                  | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited
+                                  | by the earthquake which occurred on
+                                  | the thirteenth of that month? I shall
+                                  | not here attempt to give even an
+                                  | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall
+                                  | presently reproduce some of the
+                                  | arguments of Volkmar and others in a
+                                  | more condensed and consecutive form.
+                                  |
+                                  | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.
+                                  |
+                                  | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which
+                                  | he had fully argued in the above
+                                  | work and elsewhere.
+                                  |
+2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc.,    | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb.
+Tueb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3,  | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.
+p. 149 f.                         |
+                                  |
+"In this passage Baur discusses   | Baur enters into a long and minute
+generally the historical          | examination of the historical
+character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of
+he considers, as a whole, to be   | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian
+'doubtful and incredible.' To     | Epistles, and pronounces the whole
+establish this result he notices  | to be fabulous, and more especially
+the relation of Christianity to   | the representation of his sentence
+the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He
+which he regards as inconsistent  | shows that, while isolated cases of
+with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under
+and the improbable circumstances  | occurred during Trajan's reign may
+of the journey. The personal      | justify the mere tradition that he
+characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no
+history of Ignatius, are, in his  | instance recorded in which a
+opinion, all a mere creation of   | Christian was condemned to be sent
+the imagination. The utmost he    | to Rome to be cast to the beasts;
+allows is that he may have        | that such a sentence is opposed to
+suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.)    | all historical data of the reign of
+                                  | Trajan, and to all that is known of
+                                  | his character and principles; and
+                                  | that the whole of the statements
+                                  | regarding the supposed journey
+                                  | directly discredit the story. The
+                                  | argument is much too long and
+                                  | elaborate to reproduce here, but I
+                                  | shall presently make use of some
+                                  | parts of it.
+                                  |
+"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_,   | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863,
+1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1.          |  i. p. 440, Anm. 1.
+                                  |
+"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_  | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in
+und die Abfuehrung dazu nach Rom  | the year 115, when Trajan wintered
+... mag auch unter Trajan nichts  | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered
+zu ungewoehnliches gewesen sein,  | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a
+aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte     | sacrifice to popular fury
+seines Maertyrerthums auch nach   | consequent on the earthquake of
+der Vertheidigung derselben von   | that year. The rest was developed
+Lipsius ... hoechst               | out of the reference to Trajan for
+unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische   | the glorification of martyrdom."
+ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J.  |
+115, als Trajan in Antiochien     |
+ueberwinterte, in Folge des       |
+Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in      |
+Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer   |
+der Volkswuth zum Maertyrer       |
+wurde.'                           |
+                                  |
+4. Davidson: see above.           | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19.
+                                  |
+                                  | "All (the Epistles) are posterior
+                                  | to Ignatius himself, who was not
+                                  | thrown to the wild beasts in the
+                                  | amphitheatre at Rome by command of
+                                  | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December
+                                  | 20th, A.D. 115."
+                                  |
+5. Scholten: see above.           | Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_,
+                                  | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are
+                                  | declared to be spurious for various
+                                  | reasons, but partly "because they
+                                  | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius
+                                  | to Rome, the unhistorical character
+                                  | of which, already earlier recognised
+                                  | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838,
+                                  | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848;
+                                  | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii.
+                                  | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost.
+                                  | Vaeter_, p. 210 ff.; Reville,
+                                  | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is
+                                  | made all the more probable by
+                                  | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture.
+                                  | According to it Ignatius is reported
+                                  | to have become the prey of wild beasts
+                                  | on the 20th December, 115, not in the
+                                  | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of
+                                  | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch
+                                  | itself, as the victim of superstitious
+                                  | popular fury consequent on an
+                                  | earthquake which occurred on the
+                                  | 13th December of that year."
+                                  |
+6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch.          | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_,
+Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative
+[A discussion of the date of the  | reference to establish the important
+beginning of Trajan's Parthian    | point of the date of the Parthian
+war, which he fixes in A.D. 115,  | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch.
+but he decides nothing directly   | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf."
+as to the time of Ignatius'       |
+martyrdom.]                       |
+                                  |
+7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, p. 214
+p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld   | ff. Hilgenfeld strongly supports
+points out the objections to the  | Baur's argument which is referred to
+narrative in the Acts of the      | above, and while declaring the
+Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more
+refers to the period between      | especially the journey to Rome,
+Eusebius and Jerome: setting      | incredible, he considers the mere
+aside this detailed narrative he  | fact that Ignatius suffered
+considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding
+of the general statements in the  | which the possibility has been made
+letters. The mode of punishment   | out. He shows [97:1] that the
+by a provincial governor causes   | martyrology states the 20th
+some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,'  | December as the day of Ignatius'
+he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were
+andre Punct, die Versendung nach  | buried at Antioch, where they still
+Rom.' Why was the punishment not  | were in the days of Chrysostom and
+carried out at Antioch? Would it  | Jerome. He argues from all that is
+be likely that under an Emperor   | known of the reign and character of
+like Trajan a prisoner like       | Trajan, that such a sentence from
+Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite
+fight in the amphitheatre? The    | unsupported and inconceivable. A
+circumstances of the journey as   | provincial Governor might have
+described are most improbable.    | condemned him ad bestias, but in
+The account of the persecution    | any case the transmission to Rome
+itself is beset by difficulties.  | is more doubtful. He shows,
+Having set out these objections   | however, that the whole story is
+he leaves the question, casting   | inconsistent with historical facts,
+doubt (like Baur) upon the whole  | and the circumstances of the
+history, and gives no support to  | journey incredible. It is
+the bold affirmation of a         | impossible to give even a sketch of
+martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over
+December, A.D. 115.'"             | five long pages, but although
+                                  | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer
+                                  | to the theory of the martyrdom in
+                                  | Antioch itself, his reasoning
+                                  | forcibly points to that conclusion,
+                                  | and forms part of the converging
+                                  | trains of reasoning which result in
+                                  | that "demonstration" which I
+                                  | assert. I will presently make use
+                                  | of some of his arguments.
+
+At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows:
+
+    "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments
+    in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the
+    references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most,
+    what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1]
+
+It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of
+the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in
+support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon
+any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate
+idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but
+I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to
+Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be
+evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he
+expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity
+of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer
+to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to
+be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it.
+A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient,
+but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all
+when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld
+is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say:
+
+    "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results.
+    Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe,
+    agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which
+    runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous
+    and misleading"--[99:1]
+
+Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his
+own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and
+misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has
+been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy
+of my references.
+
+As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in
+regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot,
+and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme
+brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and
+must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to
+suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the
+Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing
+Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his
+journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as
+well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various
+Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding
+the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases,
+however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is
+assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should
+receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything
+but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
+cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
+Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai
+euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes,
+the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
+leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described
+by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing
+approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be
+pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua,
+even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very
+different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the
+extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the
+contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a
+Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes
+letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with
+Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible
+to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and
+Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the
+story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the
+latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a
+Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a
+Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly
+declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
+(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he
+had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one
+which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with
+beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten
+leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different
+treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come
+and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is
+said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and,
+gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome
+he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him
+(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house
+(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under
+which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.
+
+"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is
+derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case
+of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate
+than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know
+little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as
+serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus,
+a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes,
+found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his
+travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and,
+according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his
+hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and
+ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him
+as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he
+was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real
+service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in
+prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which
+Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the
+Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about,
+living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last
+they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some
+forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself
+into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An
+earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out
+from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after,
+Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by
+the fire.
+
+Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct
+satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the
+history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any
+of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is
+obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to
+prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to
+Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of
+the satire.
+
+There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account
+of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as
+evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this
+narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking
+coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was
+acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters."
+These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in
+referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not
+express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is
+conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners
+were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On
+the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true
+that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles
+and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as
+independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
+treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be
+shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical
+value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man
+confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and
+not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius
+condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement,
+cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of
+pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of
+Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free
+intercourse as they represent.
+
+I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of
+the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott,
+in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion,
+demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered
+martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into
+the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and
+I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the
+source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when
+necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies
+set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at
+least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch
+during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in
+the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage,
+he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more
+difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by
+himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to
+secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but
+all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he
+"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely
+receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being
+molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to
+accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely,
+but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches,
+which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words
+which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled
+with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the
+episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions
+of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth.
+
+When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by
+historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known
+of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as
+of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
+Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a
+provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts.
+It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of
+Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent
+members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular
+fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom
+of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not
+condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
+purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In
+fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although
+Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is
+no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to
+Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of
+Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
+Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere
+fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined
+with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open
+demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by
+persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and
+the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the
+policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this
+severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation
+excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a
+long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some
+of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
+Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the
+fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have
+been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and
+enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results
+of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to
+accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole
+tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the
+Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore
+cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well
+as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
+beasts." [106:2]
+
+If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan
+himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor,
+the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that
+such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition
+to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor
+did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in
+Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the
+more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the
+clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_
+would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is
+besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution,
+of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome
+is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that
+Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death
+during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with
+some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians,
+to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not
+without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius.
+
+It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is
+A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake
+occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to
+excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here
+the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he
+mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still
+associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says:
+"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with
+singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
+... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
+destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most
+appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for
+the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings
+from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets;
+houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed:
+the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped
+through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some
+days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of
+the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards
+the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius,
+was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of
+public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the
+panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe
+that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by
+the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice,
+the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome."
+[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution
+in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the
+earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took
+place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His
+remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact,
+interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the
+only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome
+but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against
+the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake.
+
+I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just
+made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first
+place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December.
+I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important
+statement. He says:--
+
+    "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing
+    in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the
+    earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop
+    of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:
+    emarturese]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was
+    exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.
+He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters,
+and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece
+of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere
+may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish
+stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything
+else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are
+disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot
+also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced
+by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who
+gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to
+the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts
+it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before
+him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by
+the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the
+Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas
+is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the
+main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually
+makes use of the following extraordinary argument:--
+
+    "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
+    capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some
+    earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.
+    The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used
+    especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense,
+    including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression
+    [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either
+    'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A
+    blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either
+    expression." [110:1]
+
+This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not
+sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his
+language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:
+marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament,
+were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
+which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express
+martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in
+the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so
+implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.
+"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify
+'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese]
+only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's
+own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such
+quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems
+excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.
+
+That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the
+Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that
+none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian
+Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus,
+Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and
+Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is
+the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and
+different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to
+Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas
+lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
+objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet
+he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against
+Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of
+Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation,
+and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that,
+some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly
+have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have
+been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have
+shaped the prevailing tradition.
+
+The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome,
+long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the
+time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and
+ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had
+previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that
+the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum
+and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some
+centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome
+to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch
+to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
+of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in
+Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they
+had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which
+reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend
+of the Ignatian Epistles.
+
+The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in
+the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is
+undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated
+on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin
+Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that
+this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was
+evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively
+contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci
+vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta
+testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus
+reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn
+[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was
+celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance
+which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]
+
+On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess
+regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that
+Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and
+all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles
+themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in
+Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the
+statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based
+upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in
+discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And
+what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles
+and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says,
+are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles
+all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down
+together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin
+only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of
+which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven
+there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter,
+known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected
+as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics
+assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure.
+Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only,
+the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine
+letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal
+and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form.
+The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I
+venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous
+than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the
+simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample
+justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot,
+that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification
+and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as
+genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this
+mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents
+which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove
+anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the
+value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in
+favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them.
+
+I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their
+attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles,
+and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of
+"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally
+advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is
+impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials,
+to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but
+I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to
+think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the
+actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has
+been made.
+
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._
+
+
+In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by
+critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and
+I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide
+that it is either spurious or interpolated.
+
+That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts,
+but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual
+Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of
+course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part
+of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that
+supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom
+of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly
+believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167,
+and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius
+Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia
+Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided
+that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp
+was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death
+must have taken place in one of those years.
+
+Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of
+Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been
+expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing
+the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and
+their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels
+record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find
+small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having
+arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and
+does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of
+Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which
+other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural
+Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest
+form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses
+expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in
+our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are
+referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their
+authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could
+be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could
+this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the
+reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels
+would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in
+the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty
+quite untouched.
+
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._
+
+
+Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,
+although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.
+I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject
+fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to
+refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is
+merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few
+words on the fundamental question at issue.
+
+Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of
+whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the
+first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have
+written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little
+weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,
+his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.
+
+Eusebius states that, in his last work [117:2], "Exposition of the Lord's
+Oracles" ([Greek: Logion kuriakon exegesis]), Papias wrote as follows:
+
+    "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter
+    of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
+    without, however, recording in order what was either said or done
+    by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
+    but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his
+    instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of
+    giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]
+    ([Greek: all' ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]
+    or [Greek: logon).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus
+    wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his
+    one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any
+    false statement therein." [118:1]
+
+The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here
+given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now
+possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without
+recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative
+answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar
+enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has
+consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that
+there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to
+a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.
+However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of
+argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the
+value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our
+second Gospel.
+
+In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who
+is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the
+circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that
+he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.
+It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy
+of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false
+statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one
+supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented
+what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can
+be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.
+The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,
+confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to
+attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his
+information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal
+evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.
+Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says
+so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of
+the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the
+Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so
+Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with
+Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason
+whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the
+contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render
+more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as
+it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not
+here go.
+
+Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability
+of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have
+been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly
+appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required
+as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself
+seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer
+examination of the supposed evidence.
+
+    "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:
+    'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles
+    in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'"
+    [119:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing
+that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the
+Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with
+him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the
+statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,
+Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so
+far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but
+for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow
+that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have
+been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he
+said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always
+exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with
+the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what
+inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general
+correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this
+doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as
+evidence?
+
+I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground
+of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt
+as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in
+the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them
+as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our
+first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the
+original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at
+the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,
+because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our
+synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if
+it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a
+translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and
+no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may
+be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.
+
+The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw
+from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his
+severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.
+Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of
+Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the
+verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the
+present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias
+contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one
+interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the
+necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives
+at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a
+recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek
+St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all
+considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any
+other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the
+time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the
+"Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the
+words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St.
+Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth
+while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to
+interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot
+well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the
+substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and
+Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that
+our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have
+been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not
+a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would
+have been nearer the truth." [122:1]
+
+That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid
+of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that
+he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have
+been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not
+know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in
+language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field
+for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias
+said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may
+have said something more, which may have been consistent with any
+theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot
+continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which
+some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the
+Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think
+that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me
+for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of
+vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot
+continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to
+conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion
+unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of
+the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself
+any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,
+and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly
+demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the
+Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions
+upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.
+
+In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel
+of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,
+in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,
+has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general
+flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,
+the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,
+Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation
+which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which
+he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least
+that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our
+present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three,
+it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could
+quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel
+of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we
+are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents
+of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel
+according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius
+that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the
+Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's
+Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews
+contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could
+not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes
+of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?
+
+Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,
+accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and
+called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic
+as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of
+Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,
+[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some
+points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion
+with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not
+without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some
+difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would
+justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is
+encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not
+think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be
+called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant
+the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the
+signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])
+became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as
+well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for
+straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond
+a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine."
+[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any
+force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that
+books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be
+called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine
+sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,
+could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike
+are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers
+proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the
+discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.
+[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's
+Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,
+that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.
+
+Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:
+
+    "The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
+    instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
+    they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
+    suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
+    by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
+    of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
+    fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
+    Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
+    the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
+    wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21
+    _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
+    chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
+    than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
+    refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
+    meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
+    teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
+    of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
+    writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
+    their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
+    Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
+    logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
+    _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
+    anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
+    passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
+    Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
+    sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
+    immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
+    _sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
+    precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
+    Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
+    the Lord." [126:1]
+
+He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
+Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine
+myself to that which I have quoted.
+
+"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were
+entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but
+the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues
+Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not
+refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or
+revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately
+to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,
+according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the
+Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to
+mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,
+where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on
+Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zonta]) to give
+unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted
+to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles
+of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as
+Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own
+teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly
+explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when
+he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,
+at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also
+urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the
+_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo
+considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and
+held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When
+he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative,
+but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained
+in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant
+manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the
+expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"
+([Greek: hos logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the
+New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement
+of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell
+against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the
+oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from
+the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are
+contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the
+whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much
+"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the
+Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus
+regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.
+
+In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I
+have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in
+connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have
+concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but
+he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not
+scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in
+suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It
+comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account
+of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we
+have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,
+we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or
+incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards
+establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine
+Revelation.
+
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._
+
+
+Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most
+complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the
+evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in
+_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands
+and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes
+increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully
+denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that
+he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the
+writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius
+Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected
+documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter
+of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of
+Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He
+really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is
+clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these
+particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do
+not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that
+our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during
+this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to
+examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin,
+authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of
+miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.
+
+I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by
+any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other
+apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my
+argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few
+sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to
+restore the discussion to its proper lines.
+
+In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally
+concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--
+
+    "Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
+    embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
+    the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
+    supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
+    complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
+    any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
+    Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
+    clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
+    from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
+    to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
+    have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
+    miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
+    conclusive." [130:1]
+
+Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was
+careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to
+proceed. I said:
+
+    "Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
+    authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
+    few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
+    criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
+    the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
+    simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
+    ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
+    certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely
+    conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively
+    as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for
+    information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged
+    indications of their use ... It is still more important that we
+    should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels
+    existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most
+    of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than
+    refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement
+    of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:
+    polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the
+    things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,
+    evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar
+    works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity
+    of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that
+    many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each
+    other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,
+    for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to
+    the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with
+    quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with
+    passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
+    however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the
+    similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof
+    that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from
+    some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially
+    not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from
+    sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our
+    Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources
+    cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
+    suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious
+    that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot
+    in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
+    unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
+    times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
+    our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
+    Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
+    of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
+    Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
+    to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
+    circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
+    a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
+    [132:1]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has
+made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his
+essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling
+attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have
+been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these
+canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which
+he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has
+adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after
+all, with many it is quite as effective.
+
+It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for
+such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be
+done very simply from our own Gospels:
+
+    "Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
+    due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
+    discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
+    to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it
+    stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment
+    suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the
+    'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works
+    of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an
+    unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de
+    pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
+    few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send
+    forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):
+    behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of
+    wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and
+    others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a
+    compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first
+    Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his
+    disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathetais autou]), The harvest,'
+    &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: ego]) send you forth as
+    sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'
+    &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It
+    would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a
+    continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the
+    probability of a different source, and still more so to point out
+    that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,
+    might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the
+    first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation
+    was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,
+    is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,
+    had been lost.
+
+    "Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might
+    find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to
+    yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
+    is hypocrisy ([Greek: hetis estin hupocrisis]). For there is
+    nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be
+    revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,
+    be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of
+    our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very
+    immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory
+    words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a
+    part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,
+    'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the
+    Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaion]), and Matt. x. 26,
+    '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:
+    kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not
+    be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of
+    Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in
+    separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it
+    is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly
+    established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a
+    combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according
+    to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]
+
+    "If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which
+    differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.
+    Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source
+    assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the
+    work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketes])
+    can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the
+    other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
+    cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed
+    as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly
+    corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,
+    [Greek: oiketes], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
+    and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
+    first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
+    from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
+    Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
+    Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
+    source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
+    Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
+    philounton]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
+    synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
+    and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
+    damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
+    from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
+    couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
+    46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
+    critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
+    derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
+    instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
+    extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
+    passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
+    trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
+    kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
+    memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
+    the substitution of [Greek: trupematos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
+    would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
+    [134:1]
+
+Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
+anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
+variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it
+must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels
+existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from
+circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the
+laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to
+others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived
+from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is
+not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels,
+but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring
+evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.
+
+Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"
+it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the
+account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the
+more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a
+note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative
+are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like
+Keim, Schuerer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need
+to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.
+Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the
+life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and
+it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their
+counterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by
+the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he
+relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that
+not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document,
+is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single
+Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship
+and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot
+in connection with this document further on.
+
+The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed
+[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is
+unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially
+as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing
+which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments
+attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot
+chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full
+knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the
+four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of
+the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted
+acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply
+enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis,
+in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly
+versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our
+four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the
+fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not
+add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their
+composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.
+If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a
+corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books
+of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even
+in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the
+names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything
+to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached
+by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for
+which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of
+vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings
+merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if,
+when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence
+of Melito to greater account. [136:2]
+
+Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris,
+[137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract
+preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of
+which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the
+writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm
+that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels
+seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the
+passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic,
+and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the
+composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show
+that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we
+consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really
+contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a
+jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius
+preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years
+of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force
+the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In
+this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,"
+which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the
+meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a
+phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the
+slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when
+the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.
+
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._
+
+
+A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus
+Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an
+account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter
+from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in
+Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by
+Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents
+that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for
+the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the
+Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in
+_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and
+a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how
+exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those
+documents. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is
+directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any
+supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity
+to passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness
+which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the
+object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course,
+indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect
+coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere
+fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions
+of his essay here.
+
+    "Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,
+    though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder
+    Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai te tou presbuterou Zacharious
+    marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the
+    commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have
+    the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias
+    and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was
+    filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]
+
+Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression
+"the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: te Zachariou marturia]), which he
+points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'
+_i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was
+accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in
+a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was
+almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.
+Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent
+to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the
+interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon
+the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could
+not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the
+passage in my complete edition:
+
+    "The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian
+    community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first
+    of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that
+    time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--
+    martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the
+    martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,
+    we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the
+    word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere
+    description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."
+
+This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld,
+and many eminent critics.
+
+It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the
+commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to
+be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth,
+the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say
+anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in
+Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to
+another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.
+
+    "Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,
+    the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are
+    supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable
+    to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which
+    likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in
+    the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,
+    although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any
+    narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the
+    Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered
+    an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of
+    his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written
+    narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first
+    chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth
+    recognisable book.'" [141:1]
+
+No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can
+have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where,
+then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited
+to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the
+prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work,
+would lead us to infer a written source.
+
+    "The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the
+    history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
+    which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
+    the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
+    history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
+    'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
+    not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
+    of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
+    it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
+    use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
+    far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
+    he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
+    observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
+    that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
+    acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
+    [142:1]
+
+Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader
+whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced
+without the slightest indication of the source from which they were
+derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have
+been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in
+circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone
+accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove
+the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.
+
+    "But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
+    Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
+    those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
+    are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
+    Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
+    charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
+    another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
+    supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
+    with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
+    taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
+    case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
+    Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
+    [143:1]
+
+My reply to this is:
+
+    "There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and
+    the source from which the writers obtained their information about
+    Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of
+    the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,
+    the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may
+    well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings
+    then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,
+    Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts
+    derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does
+    not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never
+    was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story
+    must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,
+    then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the
+    use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus
+    indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the
+    Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of
+    Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
+    upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor
+    its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be
+    in the slightest degree established." [143:2]
+
+Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under
+examination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that
+the "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The only
+interest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the
+paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has
+been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the
+apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took
+in hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the
+books of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian
+literature in circulation in the early days of the Church.
+
+I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the
+fourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you
+will think that he doeth God service." The Gospel has: "There cometh an
+hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain
+that the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any
+other, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add
+one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the
+Gospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_
+maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the
+outside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public
+document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our
+canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels
+instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are
+actually found in our canonical Gospels." [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot
+betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns
+upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular
+documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did
+contain similar passages to those in debate.
+
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_
+
+
+I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what
+I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may
+here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has
+appeared since the publication of my work.
+
+An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of
+Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as
+1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a
+Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and
+this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument
+regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more
+important addition to critical materials was made by the publication
+in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,
+with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before
+Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only
+refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt
+as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that
+they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.
+
+In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will
+be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius
+is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I
+give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--
+
+    "Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
+    how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopos]), of the Gospels, and called it
+    _Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
+    persons) even to the present day." [146:1]
+
+I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
+acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
+hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--
+
+    "His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
+    altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
+    personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
+    speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
+    contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
+    the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
+    he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
+    that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
+    contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
+    the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
+    commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
+    often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]
+
+If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
+certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopos] is used to express ignorance,
+although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
+the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
+from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
+speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
+I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
+should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
+Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
+[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
+and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.
+
+Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
+_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
+by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
+not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
+to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
+of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
+of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
+be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
+it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with
+the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to
+be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue
+the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding
+of its character and contents?
+
+The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites
+them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the
+twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--
+
+    "Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
+    selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed
+    a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.
+    On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
+    was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
+    called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the
+    _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
+    the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
+    _Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
+    this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several
+    things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and
+    rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met
+    with." [148:1]
+
+This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it
+remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for
+this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that
+Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It
+is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by
+Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius
+in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a
+third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of
+the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:
+
+    "It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of
+    Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four
+    Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of
+    Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving
+    its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages
+    from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;
+    of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could
+    confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.
+    Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in
+    his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same
+    place." [148:2]
+
+Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse
+them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen
+more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.
+The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of
+Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its
+continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite
+different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the
+supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the
+work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,
+in preference to making any statement of my own:--
+
+    "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this
+    Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon
+    on the Mount to the Last Supper (Sec.Sec. 30-134) that Tatian, like his
+    brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his
+    work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.
+    Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out
+    of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other
+    hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,
+    in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1]
+
+This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_
+of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--
+
+    "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the
+    corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a
+    necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was
+    destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2]
+
+The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.
+453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes
+the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,
+which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but
+also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not
+perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and
+other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David
+after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn
+points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these
+passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]
+as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite
+information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond
+the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered
+works.
+
+I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some
+called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
+Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same
+ignorance as to its character.
+
+It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding
+the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should
+not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it
+told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]
+
+We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the
+Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.
+1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of
+which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the
+judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the
+fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be
+received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the
+author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the
+authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In
+any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.
+
+The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one
+belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from
+Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.
+states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic
+translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the
+presbyter Abu-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have
+flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of
+these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,
+which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end
+of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the
+original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only
+ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."
+
+So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the
+language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name
+would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek
+composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere
+fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and
+that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of
+Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it
+was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can
+be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the
+original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,
+even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the
+_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the
+original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to
+a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.
+Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,
+the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.
+
+It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of
+the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the
+composition and its object. We have met with three works of this
+description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have
+existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain
+that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the
+first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it
+was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of
+correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if
+such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style
+and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already
+current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in
+details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its
+authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of
+an arranger's name?
+
+An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of
+Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.
+
+    "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
+    anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence
+    to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of
+    such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the
+    canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
+    _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that
+    the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in
+    favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew
+    continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as
+    Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in
+    the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin
+    dress.
+
+    "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the
+    authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general
+    plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke
+    i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore,
+    at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius."
+    [153:1]
+
+How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as
+he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the
+words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
+still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
+"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
+&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
+the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
+_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
+Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
+Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
+discovered:--
+
+    "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
+    543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
+    without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
+    once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
+    already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
+    was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
+    generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
+    have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
+    better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
+    point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
+    fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
+    to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
+    passu_." [153:3]
+
+But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
+could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
+such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
+about the reading _Diapente_?
+
+I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing
+how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the
+Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not
+at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the
+recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,
+I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the
+assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or
+less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony"
+itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of
+any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information
+given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these
+works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the
+Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more
+credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some
+arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of
+the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]
+
+    "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an
+    objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all
+    the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
+    at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
+    supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early
+    Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with
+    notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more
+    recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of
+    Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which
+    ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.
+
+    "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is
+    the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this
+    might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances
+    it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.
+    But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent
+    reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which
+    had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice
+    from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (Sec.
+    9). But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.
+    The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.
+    This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human
+    utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr
+    like a sail swelled by the wind (Sec. 15). But this may be explained
+    as a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been
+    witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the
+    martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet
+    scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (Sec. 15); but
+    this phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the
+    fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In
+    another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions
+    at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are
+    told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, Sec. 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
+    stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet
+    odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had
+    been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hoste enious doxai
+    kai muro kosmiko kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no
+    burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must
+    have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican
+    martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more
+    startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.
+
+    "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the
+    _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
+    amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was
+    accomplished and will be accomplished' (Sec. 16). But the future tense,
+    'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
+    the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification
+    as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his
+    forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
+    of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
+    burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo
+    martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,
+    when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common
+    instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a
+    prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'
+    is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is
+    sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to
+    a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any
+    Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at
+    least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,
+    is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,
+    relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his
+    master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac
+    dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
+    postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1]
+
+I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written
+long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents
+Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity
+of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards
+freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of
+supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the
+authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with
+which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into
+naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without
+doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of
+miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and
+insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to
+explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which
+he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but
+very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the
+imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,
+I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.
+
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+CONCLUSIONS.
+
+
+We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
+conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we
+could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which
+are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested
+in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine.
+It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the
+specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of
+which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its
+doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be
+pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just
+and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
+announcements."
+
+On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine
+Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the
+supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would
+be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to
+one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are
+performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and
+are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive
+and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are
+beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
+human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a
+nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the
+Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of
+performing.
+
+The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is
+not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common
+also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or
+details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first
+promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for
+centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has
+flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed
+through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has
+entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and
+commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
+miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to
+convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The
+selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more
+characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power.
+
+The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that
+their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance
+and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or
+place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and
+ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There
+is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate
+the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so
+freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the
+witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of
+knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No
+miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent
+reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
+imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
+connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
+miraculous pretension.
+
+There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
+interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have
+sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a
+single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that,
+wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure
+occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely
+acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and
+'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as
+knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural
+interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles
+have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the
+present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and
+phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of
+natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken
+order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for
+ever annihilated them.
+
+To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite
+Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution
+of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is
+argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate
+causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this
+Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the
+Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably
+maintained.
+
+The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and
+unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can
+possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working
+miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order
+of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is
+further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is
+avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other
+spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to
+prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not
+with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of
+Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived
+from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise
+the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as
+arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine
+design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and
+opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any
+theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the
+human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of
+creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as
+inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed
+punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them
+are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
+inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.
+
+Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena
+must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute
+knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and
+it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of
+nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously
+greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On
+the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of
+the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only
+possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of
+phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
+especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and
+superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only
+reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the
+probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of
+miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the
+order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation
+and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the
+circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are
+examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which
+wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural.
+
+When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian
+miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising
+the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case
+turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere
+narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years
+ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force
+and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should
+be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable
+of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels,
+however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
+distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
+themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the
+writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are
+even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and
+third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor
+eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we
+are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding
+the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels.
+
+In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite
+principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the
+date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for
+information regarding the composition and character of these works and
+even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these
+could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the
+date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were
+guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based
+upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
+Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
+complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and
+character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition
+preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details
+of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second
+Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been
+composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever
+directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to
+whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no
+value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence
+from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With
+one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a
+half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous
+use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course,
+does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually
+in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere
+suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence
+shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to
+which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our
+third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the
+existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest
+information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against
+it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
+its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end
+anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not
+themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from
+the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the
+inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor
+contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to
+reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
+Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be
+pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by
+unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous
+occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They
+cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of
+Divine Revelation.
+
+Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar
+results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the
+third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear.
+There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character,
+but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with
+miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the
+narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for
+it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are
+compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with
+authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it
+becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been
+supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be
+regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends
+to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so
+suspiciously abound.
+
+The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate
+examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional
+testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief
+in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is
+unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles
+believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so
+supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic
+Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of
+four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders
+it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters
+attributed to him.
+
+The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church
+is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After
+elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating
+conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the
+unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with
+which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into
+supernatural occurrences.
+
+As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the
+cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of
+Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of
+these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict
+and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such
+stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the
+statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul,
+which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
+Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries
+of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient.
+His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the
+belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and
+undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the
+statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare
+fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he
+had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the
+risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal
+testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which
+we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
+Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of
+which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation
+in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in
+all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The
+testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to
+ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an
+earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active
+persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the
+case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the
+fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is
+not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the
+evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly
+inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must
+consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or
+even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
+the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
+accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in
+the case of any common question of property or title before a legal
+tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be
+established, the more complete must be the proof required.
+
+If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations,
+we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing
+original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation,
+and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed,
+or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished.
+There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst
+men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written
+books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There
+is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not
+substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single
+phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous
+conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and
+ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies.
+Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held
+an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The
+same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated
+precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had
+already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated
+by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality
+of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity
+has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds,
+and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could
+practically interest us now.
+
+There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which
+can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the
+salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a
+single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for
+whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost
+unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to
+be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the
+present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of
+salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a
+third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
+could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as
+Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical
+position. Sakya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to
+Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even
+now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries
+never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme
+Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human
+race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
+incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the
+cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be
+regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate
+for a system of elevated morality.
+
+We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher
+may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances
+have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to
+him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;
+but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by
+the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It
+is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we
+owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
+people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the
+doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus.
+The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had
+never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after
+it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the
+East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the
+development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most
+instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas
+were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents
+several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had
+passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
+who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life,
+piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and
+humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate
+structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of
+human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy,
+displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which
+commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of
+the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
+churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have
+naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate
+Conception and Papal Infallibility.
+
+It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such
+conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but
+remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before
+existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a
+substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or
+silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth
+cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by
+considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and
+suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be
+premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a
+humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality
+is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments,
+although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent,
+have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
+even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and
+civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far
+Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here
+venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that
+whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not
+to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic
+Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
+Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has
+been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of
+Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards
+enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema
+of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been
+tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind.
+"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not
+enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of
+Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of
+assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological
+resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
+enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to
+the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the
+world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher
+principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals
+sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating
+rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine
+institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than
+it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
+social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological
+question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have
+finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and
+modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will
+necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent
+on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed
+to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right
+principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost,
+for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation
+which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
+been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any
+degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the
+true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action,
+we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and
+punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as
+essential to Christianity.
+
+As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by
+such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any
+means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The
+Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an
+illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and
+its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the
+traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and
+green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool
+fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his
+wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank.
+Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the
+desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not
+vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other
+horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to
+ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search
+elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of
+the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make
+four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose
+fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is
+it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five
+than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who
+represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special
+illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a
+former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of
+existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we
+believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to
+repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at
+least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream.
+
+The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is
+necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation
+are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived
+from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing
+absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must
+our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the
+expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through
+natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
+as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we
+desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to
+complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To
+attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should
+be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be
+certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is
+as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires
+to know.
+
+We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human
+invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the
+incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine
+government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the
+place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic
+visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of
+unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered
+from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aionios], and our
+eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured
+in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of
+life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light
+of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable
+horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless
+victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
+representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation,"
+it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways
+of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the
+perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call
+wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now
+the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns
+to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang.
+
+As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be
+baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass
+away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although
+it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for
+so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can
+rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish
+between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from
+characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us.
+That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply
+an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which
+excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope.
+
+
+
+
+
+[ENDNOTES]
+
+
+[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875.
+
+[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65.
+
+[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2.
+
+[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the
+similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards
+referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this
+interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_."
+
+[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f.
+
+[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62.
+
+[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1.
+
+[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi.
+
+[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f.
+
+[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f.
+
+[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f.
+
+[5:6] _Zeitschr. fuer wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219,
+Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4.
+
+[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72.
+
+[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674.
+
+[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f.
+
+[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372.
+
+[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with
+such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part
+itself.
+
+[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition.
+
+[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._
+p. 4, n. 4.
+
+[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the
+example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he
+introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within
+brackets.
+
+[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f.
+
+[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7.
+
+[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff.
+
+[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f.
+
+[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as
+Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which
+is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is
+treated as a contemporary.
+
+[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff.
+
+[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation
+attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho
+logos edelou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase
+from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is
+surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that
+Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and
+Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from
+the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is
+[Greek: kata korrhes propelakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is
+rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The
+phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all'
+hostis se rhapisei epi ten dexian sou siagona, strepson auto kai ten
+allen], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata
+korrhes prospelakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tes kephales
+meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of
+the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to
+those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other
+side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after
+"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the
+sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised.
+Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage
+from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the
+uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which
+reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into
+the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and
+meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and
+their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say,
+the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian
+proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel
+of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the
+assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could
+have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores."
+
+[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition,
+as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
+exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
+I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting
+the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence
+of the words given above.
+
+[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my
+having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic
+might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument,
+but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Tauefer wie
+der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistes] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._
+p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beitraege_,
+p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread.
+
+[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f.
+
+[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above
+reference, but does not quote the passage.
+
+[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias.
+
+[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f.
+
+[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by
+Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius.
+
+[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f.
+
+[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, Sec. 106.
+
+[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255.
+
+[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22].
+
+[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not
+refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view.
+
+[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.]
+
+[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11].
+
+[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441.
+
+[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.]
+
+[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff.
+
+[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f.
+
+[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4].
+
+[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly
+suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer."
+
+[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13].
+
+[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that
+such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage
+Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the
+contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the
+allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even
+by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar"
+Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument
+regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.)
+sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers.
+
+[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16].
+
+[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14].
+
+[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402.
+
+[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406.
+
+[28:3] See Acts iv. 13.
+
+[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410.
+
+[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413.
+
+[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7.
+
+[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625.
+
+[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being
+silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the
+Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point
+out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c.,
+and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the
+doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it
+had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the
+composition of that work.
+
+[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421.
+
+[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.]
+
+[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more
+especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere
+Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit."
+
+[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f.
+
+[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938.
+
+[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f.
+
+[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84.
+
+[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to
+the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32).
+
+[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219.
+
+[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21.
+
+[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f.
+
+[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211.
+
+[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff.
+
+[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._
+viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1.
+
+[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107.
+
+[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f.
+
+[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f.
+
+[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f.
+
+[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1.
+
+[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92.
+
+[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the
+current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who
+deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf.
+Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with
+El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93,
+note 1.
+
+[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1.
+
+[34:2] _La Geographie du Tulmud_, p. 170.
+
+[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f.
+
+[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4.
+
+[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff.
+
+[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.]
+
+[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f.
+
+[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234.
+
+[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219.
+
+[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477.
+
+[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition.
+
+[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.)
+
+[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212.
+
+[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36].
+
+[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38].
+
+[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i.
+p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used
+the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and
+not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this
+edition I have made my meaning clear.
+
+[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c.
+
+[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14.
+
+[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8.
+
+[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25.
+
+[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48].
+
+[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv.
+Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5.
+
+[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181.
+
+[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24.
+
+[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23.
+
+[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11.
+
+[52:3] _Ibid._ 16.
+
+[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[52:5] _Ibid._ 32.
+
+[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8.
+
+[52:7] _Ibid._ 11.
+
+[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22.
+
+[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15.
+
+[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25.
+
+[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18.
+
+[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20.
+
+[54:3] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:4] _Ibid._ 20.
+
+[54:5] _Ibid._ 23.
+
+[54:6] _Ibid._ 24.
+
+[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to
+the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i.
+p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and
+the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements.
+
+[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39.
+
+[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59
+ff.]
+
+[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62].
+
+[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63].
+
+[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of
+reference.
+
+[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is
+explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2).
+Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing.
+
+[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64].
+
+[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1.
+
+[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have
+added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the
+text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii.
+vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this
+appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made.
+
+[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65].
+
+[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f.
+
+[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.]
+
+[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259.
+
+[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr.
+Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works,
+where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
+Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages
+further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the
+authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority
+of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66].
+
+[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii
+nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum
+impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr.
+Rel._ i. 13, Sec. 39).
+
+[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342.
+
+[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085.
+
+[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66].
+Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
+
+[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89).
+
+[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67].
+
+[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086.
+
+[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i.
+p. xxxviii.
+
+[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 Sec. 1, edit.
+Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii.
+
+[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.]
+
+[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322.
+
+[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.]
+
+[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1.
+
+[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69].
+
+[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233.
+
+[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51].
+
+[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71].
+
+[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff.
+
+[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1.
+
+[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx.
+
+[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in
+the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight
+lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.)
+
+[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff.
+
+[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264.
+
+[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72].
+
+[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74].
+
+[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265.
+
+[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.]
+Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The
+Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is
+embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection
+in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before
+the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles
+come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles
+in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are
+together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn,
+_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111."
+
+[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv.
+p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original.
+
+[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f.
+
+[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338.
+
+[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii.
+
+[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi.
+
+[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii.
+
+[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f.
+
+[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f.
+
+[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii;
+Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._,
+Amstel. 1646.
+
+[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi.
+
+[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the
+Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix.
+
+[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed.
+p. xix f.
+
+[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268.
+
+[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx.
+
+[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first
+quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second
+note, but accidentally left out of note 3.
+
+[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call
+attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note.
+
+[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an
+extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der
+ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is
+part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth
+century.
+
+[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference,
+but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to
+'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different
+object of the two notes.
+
+[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f.
+
+[97:1] P. 213.
+
+[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a
+note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display
+of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second
+edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might
+reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had
+reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which
+reference was necessary.
+
+[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv.
+
+[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._
+1631, p. 152.
+
+[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3.
+
+[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75].
+
+[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76].
+
+[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether
+inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879.
+
+[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11.
+
+[102:3] _Ibid._ 14.
+
+[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f.
+
+[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish.
+Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._,
+1873, p. 517 ff.
+
+[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77].
+
+[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4.
+
+[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the
+almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the
+Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of
+Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of
+Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103.
+
+[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171.
+
+[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm.
+
+[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f.
+
+[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352
+[_ibid._ p. 79].
+
+[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80].
+
+[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.].
+
+[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81].
+
+[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3.
+
+[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these
+relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards
+translated to Antioch.
+
+[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69.
+
+[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68.
+
+[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of
+the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December.
+(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.)
+
+[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2.
+
+[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in
+Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere
+allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"
+the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been
+celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is
+nothing else to establish it.
+
+[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note.
+Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88)
+
+[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in
+these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition.
+
+[117:1] i. p. 443 ff.
+
+[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"]
+
+[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163.
+
+[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f.
+
+[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169.
+
+[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170.
+
+[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170.
+
+[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152.
+
+[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f.
+
+[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171.
+
+[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f.
+
+[124:4] i. p. 463 f.
+
+[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173.
+
+[125:2] i. 236 ff.
+
+[125:3] Note.
+
+[125:4] Note.
+
+[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ Sec. 53, Sec. 45; ibid. 173 f.
+
+[130:1] I. p. 210 f.
+
+[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases.
+
+[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here.
+
+[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f.
+
+[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7.
+
+[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220.
+
+[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f.
+
+[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226.
+
+[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito,
+Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the
+following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except
+that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore,
+is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_,
+and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume
+that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have
+no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is
+unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If
+Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the
+press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable
+to those who have none.
+
+[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff.
+
+[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239.
+
+[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248.
+
+[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff.
+
+[140:2] _Ibid._ 255.
+
+[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200.
+
+[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f.
+
+[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257
+
+[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f.
+
+[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259.
+
+[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff.
+
+[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.)
+
+[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a
+note.
+
+[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278.
+
+[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f.
+
+[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3.
+
+[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv.
+
+[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279.
+
+[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii.
+p. 159 sq.
+
+[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f.
+
+[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx.
+
+[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by
+Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1).
+
+[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f.
+
+[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26.
+
+[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f.
+
+[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi.
+
+[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38.
+
+[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286.
+
+[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine.
+
+[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv.
+
+[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136.
+
+[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff.
+
+[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different
+religions is estimated as follows:
+
+   Parsees                          150,000
+   Sikhs                          1,200,000
+   Jews                           7,000,000, being about 1/2 per cent.
+                                                   of the whole.
+   Greek Catholics               75,000,000      "       6     "   "
+   Roman Catholics              152,000,000      "      12     "   "
+   Other Christians             100,000,000      "       8     "   "
+   Hindus                       160,000,000      "      13     "   "
+   Muhammedans                  155,000,000      "      12 1/2 "   "
+   Buddhists                    500,000,000      "      40     "   "
+   Not included in the above    100,000,000      "       8     "   "
+                                -----------
+                              1,250,350,000
+
+We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an
+excellent little work recently published by the Society for the
+Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6.
+
+
+
+
+
+INDEX.
+
+
+Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164
+Addai, Doctrine of, 147
+Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148
+Anger, 5
+Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f.
+Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia
+Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff.
+Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137
+Aristion, 55
+Ascension, evidence for, 165
+Aubertin, 65, 66
+Aucher, 145
+
+Baronius, 112 n. 3
+Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f.
+Basnage, 65, 66
+Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72
+Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79;
+     date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.;
+     on Peregrinus Proteus, 102
+Beausobre, 70, 71
+Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93
+Blondel, 65, 66
+Bochart, 65, 66
+Boehringer, 59, 62, 63, 80
+Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79
+
+Calvin, 64
+Campianus, 64
+Casaubon, 65, 67
+Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146
+Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64
+Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65
+Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f.
+Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f.
+Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f.
+Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f.
+Cleophas, 52
+Cook, 65, 66
+Criticism, attitude towards, 1
+Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f.
+Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f.
+
+Dallaeus, 62
+Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of
+     Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96
+Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32
+Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1
+Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff.
+Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff.
+Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's
+     commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and
+     Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.;
+     Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.;
+     Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the
+     genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed
+     in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify
+     it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated
+     from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151;
+     original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts
+     in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of
+     Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.;
+     case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace
+     says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154
+Dionysius of Corinth, 56
+Doctrine of Addai, 147
+Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150
+Dorner, 4
+Dressel, 79
+
+Ebrard, 7
+Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons
+     of Eusebius, 148
+Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.;
+     date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date
+     of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.;
+     Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154
+Epiphanius, 150
+Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence
+     of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.;
+     his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.;
+     on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus,
+     148 f., 152
+Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141
+
+Farrar, Dr., 34
+Francke, 97
+
+Gfroerer, 7, 75
+Glaucias, 15, 18, 19,
+Gobarus, Stephanus, 23
+Godet, 32
+Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2;
+     Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.;
+     Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.;
+     evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135;
+     alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137;
+     alleged evidence of Polycrates 137;
+     supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144;
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.;
+     insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.;
+     its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f.
+Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.;
+     object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels
+     circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not
+     necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.;
+     evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence
+     is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff.
+Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2
+Grove, 34
+Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93
+
+Hadrian, 12
+Hagenbach, 91, 93
+Harless, 75
+Hase, 76
+Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150
+Hefele, 80
+Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius,
+     52 ff.; on Simeon, 52
+Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_?
+     146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149;
+     its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153
+Hengstenberg, 31
+Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79;
+     place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and
+     Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142;
+     Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.
+Hippolytus, 17 f.
+Holtzmann, 135, 147
+Hug, 32
+Humfrey, 66
+
+Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of
+     his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.;
+     his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.;
+     compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to
+     martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.;
+     remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f.
+Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of
+     Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles,
+     67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as
+     evidence, 113 f.
+Irenaeus, 3 ff.
+
+Jacobson, 65
+Jerome, 110 f.
+John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.;
+     double use of name, 55 f.
+Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff.
+
+Keim, 135
+Kestner, 70, 71
+Kirchhofer, 7
+
+Lange, 32
+Lardner, 70, 136
+Lechler, 76 f.
+Lightfoot, 32, 33
+Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f.,
+     13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f.,
+     36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of
+     Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott
+     on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.;
+     on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on
+     Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations,
+     23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character
+     of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar,
+     30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.;
+     the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.;
+     silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on
+     Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements
+     regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian
+     Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey
+     and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's,
+     100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on
+     John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his
+     Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116;
+     on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on
+     Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of
+     Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the
+     Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can
+     Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument
+     of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of
+     Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on
+     Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on
+     Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias,"
+     140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference
+     to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's
+     mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine
+     of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius
+     Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of
+     Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.;
+     similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of
+     Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.;
+     Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens,
+     154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.;
+     practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156
+Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of
+     Polycarp, 135
+Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff.
+Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1
+Lucian, 12, 101 f.
+Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne
+     and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153
+Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of
+     Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff.
+
+Magdeburg Centuriators, 64
+Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff.
+Marcus Aurelius, 105 f.
+Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter
+     of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in
+     _Diatessaron_, 149
+Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in
+     Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_
+     of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f.
+Matthias, 16, 18
+Mayerhoff, 91, 93
+Melito of Sardis, 135 f.
+Merx, 78, 79
+Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82
+Mill, on miracles, 36 ff.
+Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f.
+Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150
+Mozley, on belief, 35 f.
+
+Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f.
+Neubauer, 30, 34
+Nicephorus, 111 n. 1
+
+Olshausen, 7, 32
+"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff.
+Origen, on Celsus, 10 f.
+
+Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of
+     his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of
+     the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had
+     nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.;
+     on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the
+     Gospels, 127 f.
+Parker, 65, 66
+Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius,
+     100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165;
+     his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.
+Pearson, 67
+Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff.
+Perpetua, Saturus and, 100
+Petau, 65, 67
+Petermann, 78 ff.
+Phillips, 147
+Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115
+Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with
+     the miraculous elements, 154 f.
+Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137
+Pressense, de, 60
+Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115
+
+"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons
+     of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of
+     Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with
+     Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically
+     justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.;
+     evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles
+     as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence
+     not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true
+     character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in
+     supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles,
+     159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of
+     Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.;
+     evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which
+     evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for
+     Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence
+     of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.;
+     results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of
+     Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.;
+     history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.;
+     census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was
+     misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.;
+     alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not
+     valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to
+     man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology
+     to be mere human inventions, 173 f.
+Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f.
+Reuss, 147
+Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32
+Ritschl, 62, 63
+Rivet, 64, 65, 67
+Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4
+Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112
+Rumpf, 60
+
+Sanday, 33
+Saumaise, 65, 66
+Schleimann, 75 f.
+Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147
+Schroeckh, 70, 71
+Schuerer, 135
+Shechem, 30 ff.
+Simeon, 52, 105 f.
+Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f.
+Socinus, 65
+Stephen, 142 f.
+Sychar, 30 ff.
+Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f.
+
+Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron
+Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81
+Thiersch, 7, 70
+Tholuck, 7
+Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.;
+     does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80;
+     "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142;
+     it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142
+Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff.
+Tregelles, 60, 82 f.
+
+Uhlhorn, 78, 79
+Ussher, 67
+
+Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of
+     Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of
+     evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155
+Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice
+     Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place
+     of martyrdom, 94 ff.
+Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f.
+
+Wace, Dr., 153
+Waddington, 115
+Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79
+Weissmann, 69 f.
+Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.;
+     on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion,"
+     44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly
+     acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147
+Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32
+Wieseler, 31, 32
+Wotton, 68, 69
+
+Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.
+Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1,
+     101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112;
+     did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages
+     regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged
+     Armenian version, 150
+Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays
+by Walter R. Cassels
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 13433.txt or 13433.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/1/3/4/3/13433/
+
+Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought
+Archives <freethought@despammed.com>
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/13433.zip b/old/13433.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b0a02e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/13433.zip