initial commit of ebook 18191HEADmain

1 files changed, 14483 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/18191.txt b/18191.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..093f558
--- /dev/null
+++ b/18191.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,14483 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Essays on "Supernatural Religion", by Joseph B. Lightfoot
+
+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: Essays on "Supernatural Religion"
+
+Author: Joseph B. Lightfoot
+
+Release Date: April 17, 2006 [EBook #18191]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the
+text, and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and
+footnote numbers.  Inconsistent hyphenations by the author (including
+co-extensive/coextensive, foot-notes/footnotes, hundred-fold/hundredfold,
+mis-statement/misstatement, re-written/rewritten, two-fold/twofold)
+have been retained as printed.]
+
+
+
+
+ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
+
+Reprinted from _The Contemporary Review_.
+
+BY
+
+J.B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.
+LATE BISHOP OF DURHAM.
+
+
+
+
+LONDON:
+MACMILLAN AND CO.
+AND NEW YORK.
+1893
+
+
+_First Edition_, 1889.
+_Second Edition_, 1893.
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+This republication of Essays which were written several years ago has
+no reference to any present controversies. Its justification is the
+fact that strangers and friends in England and America alike had urged
+me from time to time to gather them together, that they might be had in
+a more convenient form, believing that they contained some elements of
+permanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of
+a Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more accessible to
+students. I had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which
+I shall explain presently; but a few months ago, when I was prostrated
+by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became
+necessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me. This
+volume is the result. The kind offices of my chaplain the Rev. J.R.
+Harmer, who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references,
+correcting the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to
+attend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out sooner
+than I had hoped.
+
+When I first took up the book entitled 'Supernatural Religion,' I felt,
+whether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms were too loose and
+pretentious, and too full of errors, to produce any permanent effect;
+and for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the Divine
+Life are best left alone. But I found that a cruel and unjustifiable
+assault was made on a very dear friend to whom I was attached by the
+most sacred personal and theological ties; and that the book which
+contained this attack was from causes which need not be specified
+obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to break
+silence; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to see that, though
+undertaken to redress a personal injustice, it might be made subservient
+to the wider interests of the truth.
+
+Paper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to cover the
+whole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries
+to the New Testament Scriptures. But my time was not my own, as I was
+necessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which
+claimed the first place; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and
+more arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to postpone
+indefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the
+work.
+
+In republishing these papers then, the only course open to me, in
+justice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to reprint them in
+succession word for word as they appeared, correcting obvious misprints;
+though in many cases my argument might have been strengthened
+considerably. Recently discovered documents for instance have
+established the certainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's
+_Diatessaron_, to which the criticism of the available evidence had led
+me. Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully
+elsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had expressed
+indecision in these Essays. On the other hand on one or two minor
+questions I might have used less confident language.
+
+What shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or
+the divergence from my own views; though I cannot pretend to be
+indifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal
+Him, whom I believe to be not only the very Truth, but the very Life. I
+have often learnt very much even from extreme critics, and have freely
+acknowledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from
+his method) seemed to me, and not to me only [Footnote: See Salmon's
+_Introduction to the New Testament_ p. 9.], where it was a question of
+weighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical
+investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the
+least probable, which would enable him to score a point against his
+adversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any
+personal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct
+from the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor
+have I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know
+not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I
+am glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the
+responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.
+
+In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my
+criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent
+edition. In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this
+volume to his later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last
+word. He is welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial
+critics shall read my statements and his side by side, and judge between
+us. It is my sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found
+[Greek: sunergos te aletheia].
+
+BOURNEMOUTH,
+_May_ 2, 1889.
+
+
+
+
+      TABLE OF CONTENTS.
+
+                                                           PAGE
+   I. INTRODUCTION                                         1--31
+  II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS                             32--58
+ III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES                               59--88
+  IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA                                  89--141
+   V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I.                            142--177
+  VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II.                           178--216
+ VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN                        217--250
+VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL                               251--271
+  IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON                               272--288
+
+      DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES  291--302
+      INDICES                                            303--324
+
+
+
+
+SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
+
+
+I. INTRODUCTION.
+
+[DECEMBER, 1874]
+
+
+If the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by
+withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend
+the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in
+his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the
+pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was
+secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was
+promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears
+of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious.
+The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception)
+lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition
+was exhausted in a few months.
+
+No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this
+imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this
+anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to
+such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler
+alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his
+opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived
+in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath
+of suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities
+obliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years
+past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less
+than this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous
+author, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication
+of an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was
+preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining
+Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt
+any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men
+talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained
+great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the
+rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty
+of the basest fraud of which a man is capable.
+
+And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this
+identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics
+of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and
+cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of
+resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the
+theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch
+writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions
+of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a
+reputation is traduced on these grounds.
+
+I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural
+Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers
+have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of
+Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this
+assumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested,
+it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd.
+It is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual
+reviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be
+convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this
+identification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have
+read, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other
+four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same
+name and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics
+quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me.
+
+1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in
+attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order.
+'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has
+learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second,
+'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His
+scholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.'
+'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another
+place, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third
+reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the
+first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect,
+praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a
+fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute
+scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four
+different quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already
+mentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among
+his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic.
+
+Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are
+written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be
+assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an
+adequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom
+which will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the
+work itself, which will throw any light on this point.
+
+The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important
+passage of Irenaeus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier
+authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded
+only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:--
+
+     'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the
+     abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights
+     of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city;
+     for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see
+     Him shall be worthy.'
+
+Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by
+our author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear
+immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:--
+
+
+          WESTCOTT.            |      SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
+                               |
+'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this
+they taught, exists between    | distinction [4:4] of dwelling
+those who brought forth a      | ([Greek: einai de ten diastolen
+hundred-fold, and those who    | tauten tes oikeseos]) of those bearing
+brought forth sixty-fold, and  | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the
+those who brought forth        | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of
+twenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of
+                               | whom some indeed shall be taken up
+                               | into the heavens, some shall live
+And it was for this reason     | in Paradise, and some shall
+the Lord said that _in His     | inhabit the City, and for that
+Father's House_ ([Greek: en    | reason ([Greek: dia touto]--
+tois tou patros]) _are many    | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared
+mansions_ (John xiv. 2).'      | many mansions to be in the (heavens)
+[4:3]                          | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou
+                               | patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.'
+
+On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one
+who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes
+himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenaeus conducts his
+argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the
+phrase we are considering is introduced by Irenaeus himself, and is in
+no case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the
+relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks,
+which I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the
+other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel
+himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our
+author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite
+unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative,
+or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so
+he boldly translates [Greek: einai ten diastolen] as though it were
+[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: he diastole], and
+[Greek: eirekenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eireken ho
+Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to
+persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and
+between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our
+author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view
+by several other passages in which Irenaeus 'interweaves' his own
+remarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto],
+though in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is
+used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr
+Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],'
+because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to
+show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St
+John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of
+others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because
+I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral
+motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that
+our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would
+venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as
+more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an
+anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty
+against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least
+given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.
+It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this
+grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two
+later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the
+reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenaeus himself,
+and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at
+all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it
+will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which
+'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to
+find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of
+grammar [6:3].
+
+The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
+issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
+take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
+instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
+equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
+shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
+therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in
+the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this
+person had been long dead ([Greek: ede kai palai nekron]). In his first
+book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is
+disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have
+flourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close
+of the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him
+the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he
+writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as
+follows:--
+
+     'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise
+     after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise
+     to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight
+     books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and
+     finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may
+     answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]
+
+On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that
+Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been
+'considerably modified', and remarks that he now 'treats him as a
+contemporary'. Unfortunately however, the tenses, on which everything
+depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say,
+'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_' ([Greek:
+epangellomenon]), _i.e._ in the treatise before him, for Origen's
+knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And again, he does
+not say 'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write', but 'If he
+_did not write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: egrapsen
+huposchomenos]); nor 'if he _has commenced and finished_', but 'if he
+_commenced and finished_' ([Greek: arxamenos sunetelese]) [7:4]. Thus
+Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict
+accordance with the earlier passages in his work.
+
+These two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means
+the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an
+elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is
+curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek
+sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides
+(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.
+p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as
+[Greek; ho logos edelou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata
+korres propelakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from
+such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a
+translation of [Greek: ouden hemarte] in an important passage of Papias
+relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist,
+though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he
+did record.
+
+Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be
+inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt
+credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of
+believers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of
+believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is
+still better illustrated by the following example:--
+
+'Nam ex iis commentatoribus      | 'For of the Commentators
+quos habemus, Lucam videtur      | whom we possess, Marcion seems
+Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,
+Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2.     | which he mutilates.' _S.R._
+                                 | II. p. 99. [8:9]
+
+Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect
+subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same
+time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the
+Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
+of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Caesar
+[9:1].
+
+Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge
+which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to
+inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,
+which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating
+tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether
+again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and
+might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries
+ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and
+reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These
+qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my
+subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for
+forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to
+remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to
+contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.
+Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel
+at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:
+'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it
+was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards
+the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely
+forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the
+other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did
+originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted
+from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to
+make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why
+the disputed words must have formed part of the original text.
+
+It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the
+_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural
+Religion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias,
+an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of
+critical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot
+possibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he
+says that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and
+doings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one
+maintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our
+Second Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological
+sequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which
+is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able
+reviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical
+nineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that
+they must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic
+and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?
+
+2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to
+increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also,
+on which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the
+author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.'
+Our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with
+excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment
+must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony
+of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same
+direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer,
+'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The
+account given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a
+perfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no
+small prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an
+error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and
+scholarly criticism.'
+
+Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author
+does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of
+'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their
+weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him,
+though they often occur in the same books and even in the same contexts
+which he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly
+substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a
+few samples.
+
+Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism
+[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to
+be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is
+requested regarding him "and those who are with him."' Why then does he
+not notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of
+information, that when the Latin version (the Greek is wanting here) 'de
+his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original language, [Greek:
+tois sun auto], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again,
+when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias
+[11:3], why does he not even mention the view maintained by Dr Westcott
+and others (and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of
+Papias' own words), that this father's object in his 'Exposition' was
+not to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and
+illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written
+documents? [11:4] This view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of
+Papias to the written Gospels; and its discussion was a matter of
+essential importance to the main question at issue. Again, when he
+reproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of
+Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], and quotes the often-quoted passage
+from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of
+Hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen, etc.',
+why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical
+teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently
+'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as
+used by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according
+to the Tuebingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts
+everything else which we know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the
+view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's
+consideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin
+Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's
+careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most
+favourable specimen of his critical work, our author frequently refers
+to Dr Westcott's book to censure it, and many comparatively
+insignificant points are discussed at great length. Why then does he not
+once mention Dr Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin
+Martyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as throwing some light on
+the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
+Gospels? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the
+reviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took
+a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A
+reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ will have his
+eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind, when he turns to Dr
+Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, mis-names, and
+mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these
+are unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these
+omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.
+
+Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted,
+'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with
+special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and
+character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen
+and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had
+his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or
+he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear
+presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as
+explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the
+reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be
+candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any
+other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The
+arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this
+part of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such
+writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments
+remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth
+Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of
+Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and
+love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to
+such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of
+this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in
+the Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion
+is undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them
+that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
+stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
+to idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses
+this same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers
+and free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the
+scandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct
+antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on
+this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to
+deny, the Hebraic [14:3] character of the Fourth Gospel, does he wholly
+ignore the investigations of Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists'
+venture to think) show that the whole texture of the language in the
+Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness
+of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its
+authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the
+'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no
+difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the
+identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have
+been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments
+as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1];
+arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough
+naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle
+and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the
+local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on
+the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas,
+more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the
+like. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in
+the literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable
+probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which
+(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and
+uncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any
+evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of
+romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or
+the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he
+would at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when
+he is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth
+Gospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic
+writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to
+exist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3]
+without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these
+analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in
+these two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs
+more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel,
+but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the
+Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the
+Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not
+mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi.
+27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man
+knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
+the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me,
+all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This
+one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the
+Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our
+author says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the
+ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his
+preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career
+culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth
+Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,
+Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and
+refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then
+does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
+Matt. xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...
+_how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
+expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate other
+visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not recorded in
+the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested also that the
+twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St Luke, 'I do cures
+_to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall be perfected,' 'I must
+walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day following_,' points to the very
+duration of our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth Gospel
+[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does
+not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,
+was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought
+of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here,
+as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical
+difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the
+course of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their
+confidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3].
+
+Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second
+century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one
+occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not
+mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be
+absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian
+Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,
+commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it
+naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main
+dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the
+question whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th
+Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus,
+they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This
+view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the
+unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to
+end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan,
+as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the
+_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were
+certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]
+
+The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic'
+writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and
+geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he
+condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least
+likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of Sychar and
+Shechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
+rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
+One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring
+to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes
+this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a
+fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight
+knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound
+[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam
+signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin
+_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?
+and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark
+on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress
+(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not
+unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence
+transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate
+upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,
+ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases
+ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do
+not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn
+his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own
+armour is gaping at every joint.
+
+But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
+writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.
+
+Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth
+Gospel:--
+
+     'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests
+     principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other
+     Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and
+     also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the
+     appellation [Greek: ho baptistes], whilst he carefully
+     distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always
+     speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but
+     rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness
+     of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]
+
+Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes
+this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the
+other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be
+natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay
+great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because
+it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle
+indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a
+forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author
+considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,
+when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it
+is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to
+whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer
+stating that the Fourth Evangelist
+
+     'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from
+     the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein
+     einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistes].' [19:2]
+
+So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his
+German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error
+is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a
+commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set
+right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not
+construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the
+reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the
+subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of
+mistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the
+critics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of
+the original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead
+authority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual
+[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers]
+is sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1]
+
+3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third
+point. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are
+conducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union
+with a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our
+second reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this
+part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they
+leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had
+our _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He
+rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity
+of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.'
+
+Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which
+bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,'
+'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic
+truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for
+instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not
+savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of
+the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the
+highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who
+differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a
+righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself
+with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at
+another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will
+not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which
+we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is
+sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. Dr Westcott writes of
+Basilides as follows:--
+
+     'At the same time, he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
+     as well as St Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' [21:1]
+
+The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr Westcott's book.
+It need hardly be said that Dr Westcott is simply illustrating the
+statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St Peter by
+the similar statement of Papias and others that St Mark was an
+interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information,
+one would suppose. On this passage however our author remarks:--
+
+     'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
+     system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
+     in the introduction after 'Glaucias' of the words '_who as well as
+     St Mark was_ an interpreter of St Peter.' The words in italics are
+     the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
+     have been inserted for one of two purposes: (I) to assert the fact
+     that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
+     represented Mark to be; or (II) to insinuate to unlearned readers
+     that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
+     interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
+     the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
+     infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
+     of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
+     allusion to Mark, was [unconsciously, no doubt] too strong for the
+     apologist.' [21:2]
+
+Dr Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. It
+stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. I only
+call attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr Westcott's
+inverted commas [22:1], and then founded on the passage so manipulated a
+charge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their
+absence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of.
+I will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate
+falsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not
+believe that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this
+highly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the
+elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It
+illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a
+straightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper
+of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said,
+'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the
+processes of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would
+render life intolerable and history impossible [22:2].
+
+It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all
+this literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be
+constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as
+impossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by
+an 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything
+which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not
+the Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the
+works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles
+and Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its
+hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and
+who, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such
+abilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest
+place among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of
+dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him.
+
+There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an
+important part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in
+the notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the
+mode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author
+in the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and
+have found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions
+to which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances,
+these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is
+strange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of
+authority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on
+his readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a
+presumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on
+examination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen
+centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of
+men in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present
+themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit
+of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past
+times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the
+intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance,
+whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been
+altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of
+intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was
+setting strongly in one direction.
+
+This comparison is not without its use. Here were men eminently learned,
+painstaking, minute; eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense,
+eminently critical. In accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as
+lay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work,
+the rabbis of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis
+of neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles for a
+time; their work has not been without its fruits; many useful
+suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of
+later ages; but their characteristic teaching, which they themselves
+would have regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has long since
+been consigned to oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was
+conceived in a false vein; it was essentially unhistorical, and
+therefore it could not live. The modern negative school of criticism
+seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though in a different
+way; and therefore I anticipate for it the same fate.
+
+Mr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing
+tendencies written by an English scholar, and using M. Renan as his
+mouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort
+could never have come from Germany where there is a great force of
+critical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him
+straight.' [24:1] I confess that my experiences of the critical
+literature of Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult,
+I think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass of
+absurdities, which several intelligent and very learned German critics
+have conspired to heap upon two simple names in the Philippian Epistle,
+Euodia and Syntyche; first, Baur suggesting that the pivot of the
+Epistle, which has a conciliatory tendency, is the mention of Clement, a
+mythical or almost mythical person, who represents the union of the
+Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church [24:2]; then Schwegler,
+carrying the theory a step further, and declaring that the two names,
+Euodia and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the
+true yoke-fellow is St Peter himself [24:3]; then Volkmar, improving the
+occasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names,
+Euodia, or 'Rightway,' and Syntyche or 'Consort,' denoting respectively
+the orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other
+[24:4]; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the New Testament
+are not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the Old,
+and maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs
+Asher and Gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one
+language to another--and represent the Greek and Roman elements in the
+Church, while the Epistle to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from
+the Agricola of Tacitus [25:1]. When therefore I find our author
+supporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of
+'Hitzig, Volkmar and others,' or of 'Volkmar and others,' [25:2] I have
+my own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them
+[25:3].
+
+It is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so
+far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training, that I
+would rest the chief stress of my complaint. The whole tone and spirit
+of the school in its excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be
+fatal to the ends of true criticism. A reviewer of _Supernatural
+Religion_ compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts
+of certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to Sir G.C.
+Lewis's objections to Niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of
+early Roman history.' From one point of view this comparison is
+instructive. We have no means of testing the value of that eminent
+writer's negative criticisms of early Roman history. But where
+additional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as,
+for instance, respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic
+language, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. It seems
+to be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has its proper function
+in scientific inquiry (though even here its excesses will often impede
+progress), therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free
+from danger in the domain of criticism. A moment's reflection however
+will show that the cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to
+morals and history--in short, to human life in all its developments--
+where mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and where
+consequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial
+faculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as
+credulity.
+
+The author of _Supernatural Religion_ proposes to himself the task of
+demonstrating that the miraculous element in Christianity is a delusion.
+The work is divided into three parts. The first part undertakes to prove
+that miracles are not only highly improbable, but antecedently
+incredible, so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections
+to them. As a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of
+evidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we should be
+likely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought not to inspire
+confidence. The second and third parts are occupied in examining the
+actual witnesses themselves, that is, the four Gospels; the second being
+devoted to the Synoptists, and the third to St John. The main contention
+is that the four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to
+satisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momentous
+import of their contents. These portions of the work therefore are
+chiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the
+authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. In the case of St John the
+internal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination.
+
+Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first
+part, the second and third are altogether superfluous [27:1]. It is
+somewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole
+work should be devoted to this needless task. Impressed, as it would
+seem, by the elaboration of these portions, reviewers have singled them
+out for special praise, even when they have condemned the first as
+unsatisfactory. With this estimate of their value I find myself
+altogether unable to agree; and in the articles which will follow I hope
+to give my reasons for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the
+critical fallacies of the modern destructive school, _Supernatural
+Religion_ well deserves examination.
+
+For this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two
+latter portions of the work, and more especially with the external
+evidences of the Gospels; but there is one point, affecting the main
+question at issue, which it is impossible to pass over in silence.
+Anyone who, with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory,
+will turn to the final chapter, in which the author gives a confession
+of faith, must be struck with the startling dislocation between the
+principles from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it
+concludes. Our author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or
+supernatural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say to
+'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is meant the
+Christianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He will not even hear of a
+future life with its hopes and fears [27:1]. He will purge the Gospel of
+all 'dogmas,' and will present it as an ethical system alone. The
+extreme beauty, I might almost say the absolute perfection, of Christ's
+moral teaching [27:2] he not only allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,'
+he adds, 'was the essence of his system; theology was an after-thought.'
+[27:3] And yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two
+fundamental principles, Love to God and love to man.' He commends a
+'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of Divine
+Law, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man,' as 'the highest
+conceivable by humanity.' [27:4] He speaks of the 'purity of heart which
+alone "sees God.'" [27:5] He enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher
+conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being ... whose laws of
+wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation
+around us.' [28:1] All this is well said, but is it consistent? This
+universal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most
+comprehensive application? This 'Love to God' springing from the
+apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and the recognition of an
+'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,'--in short, this belief in a
+Heavenly Father, which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our
+Lord's teaching, and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article
+in his own creed,--what is it but a theological proposition of the most
+overwhelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into
+insignificance?
+
+And what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a dogma? In
+the first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define
+his position. He has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief
+in a universal Father or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God. If
+he had done so, he would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the
+reasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in
+Christianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to the ground
+when this proposition is assumed. His arguments prove nothing, because
+they prove too much: for they are equally efficacious, or equally
+inefficacious, against the doctrine of a Divine providence or of human
+responsibility, as they are against the resurrection of Christ. The
+truth is, that when our author closes his work, he cannot face the
+conclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are
+too startling for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked
+deformity; and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas'
+to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism.
+
+Mr J.S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, as holding
+up the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own narrow premisses this
+eminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless
+rigour. Our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis, and
+truly enough finds no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed
+there is none for any theory of a providential government. But at the
+conclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously assumes
+a much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, he himself would
+have been edged off his footing, and hurled down the precipice. A whole
+pack of 'pursuing wolves' [29:1] is upon him, far more ravenous than any
+which beset the path of the believers in revelation; and he has left
+himself no shelter. If he had commenced by defining what he meant by
+'Nature' and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency,
+though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed.
+As it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of Nature. Nature
+in the first part, where he is arguing against miracles, is the
+aggregate of external phenomena--the same Nature against which Mr Mill
+prefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice. But
+Nature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral Governor
+and a beneficent Father; and this idea can only be introduced by opening
+flood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when
+it is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author has
+ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers,' of whom
+Mr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has appealed, though he does not seem
+to be aware of it, to the inner consciousness of man, to the instincts
+and cravings of humanity, to interpret and supplement the teachings of
+external Nature; and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he
+has made to believers in revelation by so doing.
+
+Even though we should close our eyes to all other considerations, it is
+vain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this
+mode of reasoning; for they are becoming every day more apparent. The
+demand is made that we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which
+logically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential
+government of the world and in the moral responsibility of man. Young
+men are apt to be far more logical than their elders. Older persons are
+taught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses:
+consciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of
+their logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own
+heart. But generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His
+teacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. The teacher
+becomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, and speaks of 'an
+infinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but the pupil insolently points
+out how
+
+          Nature, red in tooth and claw,
+          With ravin, shrieks against his creed.
+
+The teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law
+is prospered and brought to perfection:' [30:1] and the pupil replies:
+'You have limited my horizon to this life, and in this life the facts do
+not verify your statement.' The teacher says, Believe that you--you
+personally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent
+immutable power for which nothing is too great, nothing too
+insignificant.' [30:2] The pupil says: 'My Christianity did show me how
+this was possible; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a
+delusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with the
+principles you have laid down for my guidance. I have done as you told
+me to do; I have "ratified the fiat which maintains the order of
+Nature," [30:3] and I find Nature wholly
+
+          Careless of the single life.
+
+I will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks of 'the
+purity which alone sees God;' and to him the expression has a real
+meaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has
+certainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy: but to the pupil it
+has lost its articulate utterance, and is no better than sounding brass
+or a tinkling cymbal. Hence the pupil, having thrown off his
+Christianity, too often follows out the principles of his teacher to
+their logical conclusions, and divests himself also of moral restraints,
+except so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to
+them. Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority
+of instances. The permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of
+teaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this
+new philosophy, and (we may add also) the voice of an inward witness
+whose authority is denied, but whose warnings nevertheless compel a
+hearing, all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their
+principles. The full moral consequences of the teaching would only then
+be seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether under
+its influences.
+
+
+
+
+II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS.
+
+[JANUARY, 1875.]
+
+
+'It is very important,' says the author of _Supernatural Religion_, when
+commencing his critical investigations, 'that the silence of early
+writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to
+the Gospels.' [32:1] In the present article I shall act upon this
+suggestion. In one province more especially, relating to the external
+evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place. This
+mysterious oracle will be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the
+response elicited will not be at all ambiguous.
+
+To EUSEBIUS we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost
+ecclesiastical literature of the second century. This literature was
+very considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in five books, and the
+Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, likewise in five books, must have
+been full of important matter bearing on our subject. The very numerous
+works of Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, of which Eusebius has
+preserved imperfect lists [32:2], ranged over the wide domain of
+theology, of morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical
+order; and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured
+on the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents
+of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century,
+however important they may be from other points of view, give a very
+inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the
+Canonical writings. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not
+from his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should
+expect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point.
+In works like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no
+authority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for whom the
+names of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he
+refers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve.
+On the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single
+instance) had been preserved, we should probably have been placed in a
+position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the
+Canonical writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature,
+the notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of
+primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly
+interpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on us not to assume
+that his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean. Eusebius made it
+his business to record notices throwing light on the history of the
+Canon. The first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with
+what aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his
+work.
+
+Now, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. His fundamental
+assumption is that where Eusebius does not mention a reference to or
+quotation from any Canonical book in any writer of whom he may be
+speaking, there the writer in question was himself silent. This indeed
+is only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken
+possession of our author's mind. The argument from silence is
+courageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is
+unnecessary to accumulate instances, where 'knows nothing' is
+substituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible terms;
+for such instances are countless. But in the case of Eusebius the
+application of the principle takes a wider sweep. Not only is it
+maintained that A knows nothing of B, because he says nothing of B; but
+it is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say
+that A says anything of B. This is obviously an assumption which men
+would not adopt in common life or in ordinary history; still less is it
+one to which a competent jury would listen for a moment: and therefore a
+prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it.
+
+With what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position, will
+appear from the following passages:--
+
+Of Hegesippus he writes [35:1]:--
+
+     'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the use
+     of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety
+     to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render his
+     silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct
+     utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.'
+
+And again [35:2]:--
+
+     'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the
+     testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,
+     regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have
+     neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,
+     for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with
+     any opportunity.'
+
+And again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any
+Canonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second
+volume he returns to the subject [35:3]:--
+
+     'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our
+     Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would
+     have been recorded by Eusebius.'
+
+Similarly he says of Papias[35:5]:--
+
+     'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New
+     Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that
+     Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.'
+
+And again, in a later passage [35:8]:--
+
+     'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth
+     Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this
+     silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the
+     Johannine Gospel.'
+
+And a little lower down [35:10]:--
+
+     'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
+     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
+     Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11]
+
+So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:--
+
+     'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New
+     Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still
+     extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the
+     Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not
+     have omitted to do had they contained any.'
+
+And lower down [36:1]:--
+
+     'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New
+     Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.'
+
+Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author
+has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It
+is with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall
+therefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the
+consequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge
+his trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism, where,
+from the nature of the case, no test can be applied. In the land of the
+unverifiable there are no efficient critical police. When a writer
+expatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal
+Gospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the present case,
+as it so happens, verification is possible, at least to a limited
+extent; and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity.
+
+In the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what method he
+intends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. After enumerating
+the writings bearing the name of St Peter, as follows;--(l) The First
+Epistle, which is received by all, and was quoted by the ancients as
+beyond dispute; (2) The Second Epistle, which tradition had not stamped
+in the same way as Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon], 'included in the
+Testament'), but which nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been
+studied ([Greek: espoudasthe]) with the other Scriptures; (3) The Acts,
+Gospel, Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects
+as altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues [37:1]:--
+
+     'But, as my history proceeds, I will take care ([Greek: prourgou
+     poiesomai]), along with the successions (of the bishops), to
+     indicate what Church writers (who flourished) from time to time
+     have made use of any of the disputed books ([Greek:
+     antilegomenon]), and what has been said by them concerning the
+     Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon]) and acknowledged Scriptures, and
+     anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong
+     to this class. Well, then, the books bearing the name of Peter, of
+     which I recognise ([Greek: egnon]) one Epistle only as genuine and
+     acknowledged among the elders of former days ([Greek: palai]), are
+     those just enumerated ([Greek: tosauta]). But the fourteen Epistles
+     of Paul are obvious and manifest ([Greek: prodeloi kai sapheis]).
+     Yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons
+     have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was
+     disputed by the Church of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I
+     will set before (my readers) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
+     kairon]) what has been said concerning this (Epistle) also by those
+     who lived before our time ([Greek: tois pro hemon]).'
+
+He then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he 'had not received as handed
+down among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had
+been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among
+the acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was
+used by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:--
+
+     'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ...
+     eirestho]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and
+     those which are not acknowledged among all.'
+
+This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is
+thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows
+an appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is
+essentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision
+of a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the
+unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in
+which our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not
+settled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the
+writings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question;
+but there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about
+which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore
+proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways.
+This is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he
+pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book
+belonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrentai]); 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. But in their case he nowhere leads us to
+expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and
+however precise [38:1].
+
+This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter
+and St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings.
+The Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as
+Eusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the
+Epistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the
+historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act.
+Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St
+John, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St
+John's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts
+at this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as
+follows [39:1]:--
+
+     'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning
+     these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly
+     ([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata
+     kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been
+     said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them.
+     Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera])
+     of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among
+     our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients,
+     while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse
+     opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day,
+     among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall
+     receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from
+     the testimonies of the ancients.'
+
+After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the
+results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage,
+important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.
+
+Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is
+observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes
+concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere
+references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford
+important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical
+authority.
+
+Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which
+our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question,
+after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he
+actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with
+the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means
+of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus
+and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping
+assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next
+to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us.
+But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to
+the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of
+Polycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and, as these writings are still
+extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a
+definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this
+test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not,
+then it is worthless.
+
+Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains
+several references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written,
+whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present
+to discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and
+martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself
+allows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ...
+makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than
+this; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the
+Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul
+and Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He
+simply remarks that Clement, by
+
+     'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the
+     (Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it
+     word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the
+     document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5]
+
+This is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and
+too close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the
+Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is.
+
+The IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of
+their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven
+letters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension,
+whether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read;
+and to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the
+writer Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius
+then presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels
+(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire),
+_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as
+a dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that
+receiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of
+St John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it
+goeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent
+Him,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of
+St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as
+'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in
+every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages
+which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet
+of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives
+respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this
+one sentence [41:9]:--
+
+     'Writing to the Smyrnaeans, he has employed expressions (taken) I
+     know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:--
+
+     "And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after
+     the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him
+     ([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold,
+     feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally,
+     'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asomaton]]; and immediately they
+     touched Him, and believed."'
+
+It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of
+this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the
+Hebrews [42:1].
+
+Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that
+we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our
+author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth.
+'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of
+the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He
+altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels,
+and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new
+confirmation of the Tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the
+Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic
+writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this
+result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be
+hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His
+Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares
+the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And
+he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is
+the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to
+conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts?
+
+From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the
+Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it
+is confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In
+Polycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our
+Gospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in
+the Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he
+is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious
+quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
+Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more
+doubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So
+far as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more
+than that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: delotheise]) writing
+([Greek: graphe]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek:
+pheromene]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the
+First (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a
+Judaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be
+partially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in
+an earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes
+from Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be
+mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is
+purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely
+ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language
+nevertheless this Epistle is saturated.
+
+When we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar.
+This Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of
+Evangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical
+Gospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without
+referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be
+detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these
+sayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of
+the Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called
+Gospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages
+recall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again
+Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New
+Testament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made
+mention ([Greek: memnetai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying
+that it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5]
+
+His mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more
+instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work
+addressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_
+[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work
+Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2
+Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention
+points of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly
+have been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the
+Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning
+of the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:--
+
+     'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek:
+     pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the
+     beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at
+     the first ([Greek: en protois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him.
+     Then he says, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him,
+     and without Him was not anything made."'
+
+This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious
+and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference
+[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one
+solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any
+book of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But
+of the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus)
+has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all
+the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of
+Theophilus to the Canon.
+
+One example more must suffice. IRENAEUS [44:6] in his extant work on
+heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St
+Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul,
+the exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he
+directly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the
+exception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons
+addressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of
+references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of
+three columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenaeus_. Yet of all this
+Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to
+have quoted a passage from Irenaeus, relating to the succession of the
+Roman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St
+Paul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the
+Canon contains no hint that Irenaeus recognised the existence of any one
+of St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the
+Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as
+illustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by
+referring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:--
+
+     'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a
+     promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities
+     the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in
+     which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached
+     them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathekon]) writings, and
+     Irenaeus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and
+     first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.'
+
+He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the
+circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two
+quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which
+Irenaeus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers
+to the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:--
+
+     'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the
+     Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle
+     of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise
+     also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows,
+     but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then
+     spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: he graphe]] 'which says,
+     "First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all
+     things;"' and so forth.'
+
+This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament
+which he adduces from the great work of Irenaeus. In a much later
+passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this
+Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he
+mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of
+Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.'
+
+From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel
+justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of
+Eusebius:--
+
+(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in
+forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture.
+
+(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references
+which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had
+never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct
+and by name, it had no value for him.
+
+(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii)
+the thirteen Epistles of St Paul.
+
+(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes
+which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they
+were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias,
+and of the Four Gospels in Irenaeus.
+
+(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the
+_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally
+acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for
+instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to
+the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was
+acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy
+an exceptional position.
+
+Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit
+in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent
+procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with
+tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the
+books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he
+mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias,
+Polycarp, and Irenaeus), though in the Church no doubt was ever
+entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought
+that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of
+silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John.
+
+(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be
+considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been,
+disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting
+either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in
+Clement of Rome and Irenaeus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in
+Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and
+Irenaeus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing
+the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only
+thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews
+with the rest.' [47:3]
+
+(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but
+which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier
+Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he
+mentions the one quotation in Irenaeus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he
+states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he
+records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of
+the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has
+commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of
+Peter [47:4].
+
+It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his
+treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication
+of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his
+contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected.
+The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the
+whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one
+isolated passage from Hermas in Irenaeus, though it is quoted
+anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul,
+though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited
+by name.
+
+It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but
+also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be
+depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the
+following rules for our guidance:--
+
+(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the
+books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits
+which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenaeus makes
+this point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author
+relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], he omits to mention others which
+contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the
+question, _e.g._ that St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors
+of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few
+lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were
+acquainted with St John [48:3], he omits the context, from which we find
+that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the
+Fourth Gospel, for it declared that Christ's ministry extended much
+beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the
+Fourth Gospel against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists.
+
+(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When
+Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a
+Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were
+direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may
+fairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or
+both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is
+the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the
+Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter
+in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a
+doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might
+fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for
+instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have
+passed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered
+them decisive.
+
+I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am
+unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows
+[49:2]:--
+
+     'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies
+     from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter."
+     As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we
+     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
+     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
+     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
+     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
+     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.'
+     [49:3]
+
+For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and
+I am not aware of any.
+
+The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.;
+Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.'
+
+I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of
+Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp
+'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of
+Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a
+reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by
+modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is
+true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a
+coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this
+one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are
+elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'
+whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.
+1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye
+rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.
+2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14);
+'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the
+dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for
+evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust
+warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our
+sins with His own body ([Greek: to idio somati]) on the tree,' from 1
+Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'
+from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.
+ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having
+your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good
+works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of
+in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am
+quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and
+close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author
+elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in
+Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence
+which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics,
+yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of
+passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has
+overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references
+to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to
+test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion,
+because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am
+not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].
+
+This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's
+sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he
+supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still
+more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of
+Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.
+
+_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on
+arbitrary _a priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must
+mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted
+him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him
+his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some
+errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main
+conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be
+obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I
+pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a
+subsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how
+large a part of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to
+pieces.
+
+Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively
+enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a
+powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its
+correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of
+this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have
+taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.
+Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
+
+I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had
+preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I
+mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The
+silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is
+an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been
+questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius
+was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was
+not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of
+Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes
+it to mean.
+
+If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other
+hypothesis, to answer the following questions:--
+
+(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the
+Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the
+universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2
+Corinthians, and Galatians?
+
+(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony
+in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a
+reference in this same author to the Apocalypse?
+
+And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by
+his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts
+relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.
+Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its
+authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic
+sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed
+even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The
+phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century
+are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a
+long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that
+the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the
+alternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18,
+and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of
+the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up
+respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in
+the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations,
+wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted
+it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that
+ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this
+epoch--Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria,
+Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?
+that they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the
+beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or
+Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first
+three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the
+paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the
+remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the
+obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the
+light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses
+altogether to discuss Irenaeus, though Irenaeus was a disciple of
+Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted
+that the opinion of Irenaeus, as an isolated individual, is not worth
+much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his
+whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment:
+and Irenaeus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of
+the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his
+ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with
+just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up
+overnight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its
+continuous growth.
+
+The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an
+early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his
+courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it
+in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed
+that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.
+But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the
+fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my
+criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.
+
+In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a
+charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of
+his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same
+for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct
+narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a
+reference to St John) was Irenaeus' own, whereas the grammar showed that
+Irenaeus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had
+wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their
+translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong
+to Irenaeus himself.
+
+I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old
+[54:1]:--
+
+          FOURTH EDITION.         |   EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                  |
+'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes
+in this place, in previous        | this passage in a note (_On the
+editions, has been understood as  | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates
+an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling,
+of deliberate falsification of    | they taught, exists" etc.
+the text of Irenaeus, we at once   | The introduction of "they taught"
+withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and
+that the expressions used could   | being inserted, without a word
+bear an interpretation so far     | of explanation or mark showing
+from our intention. _We desired   | its addition by the translator, in
+simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation
+of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,
+p. 61, note 2), without some      | and whose origin is in dispute, it
+indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the
+original text, that these words   | text. Dr Westcott neither gives
+were merely supplementary and     | the Greek nor the ancient Latin
+conjectural. The source _of the   | version for comparison.'
+indirect passage_ is, of course,  |
+matter of argument, and we make   |
+it so; but it seems to us that    |
+the introduction of specific      |
+words like these, without         |
+explanation of any kind, conveys  |
+to the general reader too         |
+positive a view of the case. We   |
+may perhaps be permitted to say   |
+that we fully recognise Dr        |
+Westcott's sincere love of truth, |
+and feel the most genuine respect |
+for his character.'               |
+
+Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might
+have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that
+he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew
+his own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that,
+having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenaeus' own, he
+had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the
+passage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right
+and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best
+to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the
+authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
+
+The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end,
+the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression
+that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr
+Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or
+have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a
+juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions.
+
+
+        FOURTH EDITION.            |      EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                   |
+'Now, in the quotation from        | 'Now in the quotation from
+Irenaeus given in this passage,     | Irenaeus given in this passage,
+_Tischendorf renders the oblique   | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies
+construction_ by inserting "say    | the text_ by inserting "say they;"
+they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the
+of Papias; and, as he does not     | original, the great majority of
+give the original, he should at    | readers could never detect how
+least have indicated that these    | he thus adroitly contrives to
+words are supplementary. We        | strengthen his argument. As
+shall endeavour' [55:2] etc.       | regards the whole statement of
+                                   | the case we must affirm that it
+                                   | misrepresents the facts. We
+                                   | shall endeavour' etc.
+
+Lower down he mentions how Irenaeus 'continues with a quotation from
+Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and
+it might just as well be affirmed that Irenaeus found the quotation from
+the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the
+reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under
+consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that
+the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the
+direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in
+the fourth edition.
+
+In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de ten diastolen] we
+notice this difference:--
+
+
+          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                    |
+But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this
+                                    | distinction.'
+
+The translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is
+followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--
+
+
+          FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                    |
+'Now it is impossible for anyone    | 'Now it is impossible for anyone
+who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole
+of this passage, and who makes      | of this passage, and who makes
+himself acquainted with the manner  | himself acquainted with the manner
+in which Irenaeus conducts his       | in which Irenaeus conducts his
+argument, and interweaves it _with  | argument, and interweaves it _with
+quotations, to assert that the      | texts of Scripture, to doubt that
+phrase we are considering_ must     | the phrase we are considering is
+have been taken from a book         | introduced by Irenaeus himself_,
+referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation
+and _was not introduced by Irenaeus  | from the work of Papias.'
+from some other source_.'           |
+
+Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few
+weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has
+substituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--
+
+
+          FOURTH EDITION.           |    EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                    |
+'In the passage from the            | 'The passage from the commencement
+commencement of the second          | of the second paragraph (Sec. 2) is
+paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon,    | an enlargement or comment on what
+and illustrates, what "the          | the Presbyters say regarding the
+Presbyters say" regarding the       | blessedness of the Saints, and
+blessedness of the Saints, _by      | Irenaeus illustrates the distinction
+quoting the view held_ as to the    | between those bearing fruit
+distinction between those bearing   | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one
+fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and  | hundred-fold, so often represented
+one hundred-fold, and _the          | in the Gospel, _by the saying_
+interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being
+regarding "many mansions."'         | prepared in Heaven.'
+
+After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of
+passages from Irenaeus to support his view that the words in question
+are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:
+dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive
+mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.
+
+     'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenaeus_,
+     as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is
+     introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is
+     further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the
+     fact that' etc.
+
+All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the
+sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_
+(Irenaeus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
+exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,
+and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and
+'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make
+room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine
+octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering
+sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without
+any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more
+distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by
+this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not
+anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted
+above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?
+
+I add one other passage for comparison:--
+
+
+           FOURTH EDITION.           |     EARLIER EDITIONS.
+                                     |
+'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his
+that the quotation being by "the     | alternative that the quotation,
+Presbyters" was more ancient even    | being by "the Presbyters," was
+than Papias, by showing that it      | more ancient even than Papias,
+_may be referred to Irenaeus himself  | by showing that it _must be
+quoting probably from                | attributed to Irenaeus himself_,
+contemporaries_, and that there is   | and that there is no ground for
+no ground for attributing it to the  | attributing it to the Presbyters
+Presbyters at all.' [58:1]           | at all.'
+
+Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in
+charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and
+deliberate evasion,' and the like.
+
+
+
+
+III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
+
+[FEBRUARY, 1875.]
+
+
+The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are
+immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he
+was passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their
+representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome
+to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The
+exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility
+are not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the
+later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are
+written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed
+more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter
+is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis
+that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his
+eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue
+him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time
+members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a
+pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic
+Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations,
+friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against
+heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in
+personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their
+delegates.
+
+Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down
+to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long
+Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin
+translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part
+of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it
+seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two
+others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it
+may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction;
+its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers
+of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth
+century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of
+the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.
+Only, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of
+our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in
+the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability
+of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this
+reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth,
+or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must
+not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian
+letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided
+by independent evidence.
+
+The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as
+follows:--
+
+(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him,
+and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians,
+Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp.
+It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them
+in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong
+to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is
+preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian
+versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from
+which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was
+translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in
+the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original,
+about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the
+Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the
+happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus
+superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious
+reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the
+_Vossian._
+
+(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of
+the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in
+a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the
+Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I
+shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.
+
+Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon
+fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is
+raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or
+the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the
+Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or
+whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and
+abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the
+prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.
+
+The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the
+case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light
+of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial
+prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the
+dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the
+investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of
+Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with
+equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are
+affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved
+have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and
+Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth
+century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the
+eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions,
+though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.
+
+In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian
+question as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the
+statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these
+papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to
+early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot
+be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to
+indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid
+testimony.
+
+The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student
+of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
+considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
+A writer therefore may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
+familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
+expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
+some diffidence.
+
+The author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject.
+'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of
+falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if
+the Epistle [to the Smyrnaeans] were genuine, which it is not, to base
+any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:--
+
+     'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the
+     Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the
+     end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they
+     possess any value at all.' [62:3]
+
+And immediately afterwards:--
+
+     'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
+     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
+     Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
+     to be spurious.' [63:1]
+
+The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such
+very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his
+subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the
+most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author
+with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It
+becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that
+accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching
+weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments.
+
+I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the
+Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The
+author writes as follows:--
+
+     'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which
+     space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics
+     to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the
+     letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of
+     those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the
+     Epistles.' [63:3]
+
+No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the
+Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than
+this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in
+one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided
+on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and
+Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and
+Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian.
+But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The
+misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to
+think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the
+Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the
+Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian
+Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case,
+for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3]
+and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like
+Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have
+observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention
+to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position
+was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters,
+in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tuebingen views of early
+Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life
+and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian
+Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be
+accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far
+back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness.
+Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen
+by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius,
+Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up
+the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from
+the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception
+by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of
+Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at
+one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
+letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his
+former opinion on both questions alike [64:8].
+
+But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his
+own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I
+have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very
+passages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light
+on this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the
+course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes
+as follows:--
+
+     'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest
+     scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be
+     the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not
+     admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius,
+     still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and
+     consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess
+     (^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest
+     doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the
+     Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first
+     attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious
+     (^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, 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).'
+
+The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:--
+
+     'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei aecht. u. d.
+     vier unaecht. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145;
+     Boehringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The
+     Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845;
+     _Vindiciae Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch.
+     d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d.
+     Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i.,
+     1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p.
+     7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk.
+     Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.'
+     [The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be
+     quoted.]
+
+These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more
+immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who
+do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine
+letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of
+seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the
+letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared
+to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters
+as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty,
+while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain
+the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2].
+
+As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered
+that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the
+discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were
+weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the
+Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The
+criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages
+which are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows
+contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion
+that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as
+authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many
+places to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3]
+
+The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:--
+
+     'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus,
+     Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau,
+     etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton,
+     _Vindiciae Ignatianae_, 1846, appendix.'
+
+Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it
+easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus,
+while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters.
+It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up
+together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian
+Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the
+Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose
+for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be
+interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of
+any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these
+[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account
+of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says
+nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them
+also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all.
+Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated,
+but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them
+'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624)
+denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does
+not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far
+from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some
+of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's
+objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of
+Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2].
+Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the
+opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and
+afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens
+et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius.
+
+The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:--
+
+     [Wotton, _Praef. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into
+     original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826,
+     vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p.
+     88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184;
+     Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre,
+     _Hist. Crit. de Manichee, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti,
+     _N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus
+     Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._,
+     1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492;
+     Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach,
+     _Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; 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. 357, anm. 1];
+     Baumgarten-Crusius. _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1832, p. 83, cf.
+     _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1840, p. 79; [_Niedner, Gesch. chr. K._,
+     p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit_, p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._,
+     i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch
+     ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p.
+     16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch 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. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200.
+
+The brackets are not the author's, but my own.
+
+This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made
+such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this
+note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the
+Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years'
+reading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these
+references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in
+the appendix to Cureton's _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?
+
+Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions
+directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance
+[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly,
+and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer
+the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and
+genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly'
+by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the
+main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of
+Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only
+doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to
+regard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as
+for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner,
+Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or
+uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2].
+
+The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as
+unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as
+belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian
+Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of
+these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite
+opinion. Gfroerer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven
+Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced
+interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long
+Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject
+with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the
+opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether
+spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands
+in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1].
+Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to
+recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either
+existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote
+before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase
+commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven
+Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their
+genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters
+are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of
+having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the
+Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I
+have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect
+that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are
+quoted by our author.
+
+I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I
+may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself
+responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.'
+[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the
+work, and their effect on its reception has been far from
+inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was
+therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I
+may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind.
+If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more
+irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer,
+might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in
+_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes,
+in works of any critical pretensions.
+
+In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost
+entirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which
+indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding
+the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already
+mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have
+exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One
+highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from
+first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version
+(so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key
+to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its
+publication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the
+Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration,
+for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This
+version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in
+which Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and
+therefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less
+prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially
+discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century.
+This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he
+cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to
+cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This
+Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together
+with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous
+Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by
+Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the
+_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2)
+This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian
+letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the
+Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this
+version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian
+letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of
+letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the
+latter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore a discussion which,
+while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this
+version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to
+give an account.
+
+I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own
+view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered
+inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has
+followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since
+studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question
+or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:--
+
+     'Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
+     equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
+     number were mentioned by Eusebius.' [72:1]
+
+And again:--
+
+     'It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned
+     by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These
+     Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient
+     Latin MSS with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to
+     be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
+     honour.' [72:2]
+
+with more to the same effect.
+
+This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with
+the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves
+to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing
+on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no
+knowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the
+use of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century
+at the earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in
+style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which
+interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed
+part of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in
+anachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of
+their composition. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles
+are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and
+Latin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come
+after the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts
+already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition,
+borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian
+letters.
+
+Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point
+without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or
+misleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:--
+
+     'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth
+     century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius,
+     exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.'
+     [73:2]
+
+In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author
+has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19,
+because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is
+given in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations
+in the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in
+the Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which
+Eusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words
+which appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as
+the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are
+characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important
+for the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only
+directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives
+a number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons
+named, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than
+many quotations.
+
+Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the
+main question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these
+corrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third
+centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian
+and in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in
+favour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of
+Eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them.
+
+Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the
+genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on
+his own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the
+Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares
+the whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and
+fraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which
+he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we
+find to be twofold.
+
+(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the
+Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:--
+
+     'The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as
+     follows:--"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by
+     sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten
+     leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even when good is
+     done to them render evil." Now if this account be in the least
+     degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could
+     have found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely
+     into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and
+     advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government?'
+
+And again:--
+
+     'It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation
+     above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts
+     for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at
+     every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for
+     which he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to
+     martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to
+     see his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of
+     various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and
+     devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without
+     hindrance from the "ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains,
+     and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare
+     themselves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole story is
+     absolutely incredible.'
+
+To this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a complete
+answer is afforded by what is known of Roman procedure in other cases
+[75:1]. As a matter of fact, Christian prisoners during the early
+centuries were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same
+laxity and indulgence which is here accorded to Ignatius. An excited
+populace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a
+Christian; a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to
+the majesty of the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman
+holiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even after
+condemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of harsh. St
+Paul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with almost as much effect
+through the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large.
+During his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers;
+when he arrives at Rome, he is still treated with great consideration.
+He writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates
+with churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain is on his
+wrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even at a much later
+date, when the growth of the Christian Church may have created an alarm
+among statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in
+the age of Ignatius, we see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is
+more important) the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions
+accorded to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African
+martyrs, who suffered under Severus [76:1] (apparently in the year 202
+or 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they record the
+extant history of their sufferings; and they too are visited in prison
+by Christian deacons, as well as by their own friends. They owed this
+liberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers; partly to
+gratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers [76:2]. Even after
+the lapse of another half-century, when Decius seriously contemplated
+the extermination of Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount
+of communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. The
+Cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs
+writing letters to their friends, visited by large numbers of people,
+even receiving the rites of the Church in their prisons at the hands of
+Christian priests.
+
+But the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a
+heathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen
+within the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). Thus it is not very
+far removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus
+is represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (A.D.
+165), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the
+satirist thus describes the prison scene [76:3]:--
+
+     'When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a great
+     calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him.
+     Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants
+     in every other respect with unremitting zeal ([Greek: ou parergos
+     alla sun spoude]). And from early dawn old women, widows, and
+     orphan children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the
+     prison; while their officers ([Greek: hoi en telei auton])
+     succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in passing the night inside with
+     him. Then various meals were brought in, and religious discourses
+     were held between them, and this excellent Peregrinus (for he still
+     bore this name) was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover,
+     there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the
+     Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man.
+     Indeed they show incredible despatch, when any matter of the kind
+     is undertaken as a public concern; for, in short, they spare
+     nothing. And so large sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time
+     from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he made no
+     inconsiderable revenue out of it.'
+
+The singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of
+Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression [77:1],
+have led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian
+history, if not with the Ignatian letters. For this view there is much
+to be said; and, if it be true, the bearing of the fact on the
+genuineness of the Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was
+born in Syria somewhere about A.D. 120, and lived much in Asia Minor. At
+all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that
+Christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these
+epistles. The reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence,
+which have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the
+Ignatian letters, appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's
+account of Peregrinus [77:2].
+
+In the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes quite
+intelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers.
+These ten men would relieve guard in turns, the prisoner being always
+bound to one or other of them day and night, according to the well-known
+Roman usage, as illustrated by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his
+guards fierce and intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts,
+he intimates, is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre;
+it has been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His
+friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but the
+soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme [78:1]. The more
+they receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep pace with his
+exigencies. All this is natural, and it fully explains the language here
+ascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally
+dwells on the dark side of the picture, without thinking how a critic,
+writing in his study centuries afterwards, will interpret his
+fragmentary and impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius
+as a man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, as
+critics would have them talk.
+
+(2) Having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible,' on
+the grounds which I have just considered, our author continues [78:2]:--
+
+     'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by
+     facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. It has
+     been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but
+     suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115
+     (^3), when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the
+     amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced
+     by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month (^4).'
+
+The two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive
+statement, though so much depends upon it; but the reader is there
+furnished with a number of references to modern critics. These
+references have been analysed by Dr Westcott [79:1], with results very
+similar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has
+yielded. In some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to
+that for which they are quoted; in others they incline to views
+irreconcilable with it; and in others they suspend judgment. When the
+references are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his
+assurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar [79:2], built upon a
+statement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to examine. The
+words of John Malalas are--
+
+     'The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when
+     the visitation of God (_i.e._ the earthquake) occurred. And at that
+     time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was
+     martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: emarturese]) before him
+     ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because
+     he reviled him.' [79:3]
+
+The earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 13th of
+December, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined with the fact that the
+day dedicated to St Ignatius at a later age was the 20th of December
+[79:4], Volkmar builds his theory. It will be observed that the cause of
+the martyr's death, as laid down by Volkmar, receives no countenance
+from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the
+irritating language used to the emperor.
+
+Now this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the
+sixth century, and possibly much later. His date therefore constitutes
+no claim to a hearing. His statement moreover is directly opposed to the
+concurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries, which,
+without a dissentient voice, declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome.
+This is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian
+letters, of whom the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics
+who deny their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of
+the second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies
+[80:1], which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr
+to Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who
+quote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom are
+Irenaeus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the case with
+Chrysostom, who, on the day of the martyr's festival, pronounces at
+Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see
+[80:2]. It is the case with several other writers also, whom I need not
+enumerate, all prior to Malalas.
+
+But John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did Chrysostom some
+two centuries at least before him. So did Evagrius, who, if the earliest
+date of Malalas be adopted, was his contemporary, and who, together with
+all preceding authorities, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If
+therefore the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this
+cloud of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as
+a sober and trustworthy writer.
+
+As a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian history are,
+almost without exception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous
+[80:3]. In the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted, he
+relates how Trajan had five Christian women burnt alive; the emperor
+then mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for
+the baths were cast; the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in
+consequence; the vessels were again melted up; and out of the same metal
+were erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's
+orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath to the present
+day. As if this were not enough, he goes on to relate how Trajan made a
+furnace and ordered any Christians, who desired, to throw themselves
+into it--an injunction which was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the
+domain of hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more
+trustworthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded his
+doctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still further
+disseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian [81:1]. An anachronism
+of a century or more is nothing to him.
+
+We have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our author's
+judgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is necessary for my
+purpose. But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is
+capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier
+authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words
+[Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of
+martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes
+of witnessing to the faith: the expression [Greek: epi 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 [81:2].
+
+The objections of our author have thus been met and answered; and
+difficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot, I venture to
+think, be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of
+external testimony in favour of the Epistles. The external testimony
+however is considerable in this case [81:3]. The Epistle of Polycarp,
+which purports to have been written so soon after this journey of
+Ignatius through Asia Minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death
+were not fully known there, speaks of his letters in language which is
+entirely applicable to the existing documents. Our author indeed
+declares this Epistle also to be spurious. But Irenaeus, the pupil of
+Polycarp, bears testimony to the existence of such an Epistle; and I
+pledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged
+against its genuineness by our author and others [82:1]. Besides this,
+Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180-190, quotes a characteristic and
+distinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not indeed
+mentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the quotation as the words
+of a member of the Christian brotherhood. And again, in the first half
+of the next century Origen cites two passages from these letters,
+ascribing them directly to Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more
+explicit references and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are
+in themselves. Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of
+testimony very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would
+hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds
+of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We Christians are
+constantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the
+same standards which are applied to other writings. This is exactly what
+we desire, and what we do not get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc
+which would ensue, if the critical principles of the Tuebingen school and
+their admirers were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and
+Rome.
+
+External testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour
+of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form or other; and
+before rejecting them entirely, we are bound to show that internal
+evidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their
+authenticity. It is not sufficient, for instance, to allege that the
+saint's desire for martyrdom, as exhibited in these Epistles, is
+extravagant, because we have ample testimony for believing that such
+extravagance (whether commendable or not) was highly characteristic of
+the faith and zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution.
+Nor again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought
+or language, because there is no _a priori_ reason why St Ignatius
+should not have indulged in such eccentricities.
+
+Unless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by
+all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all
+events the shortest form in which these Epistles are presented to us. In
+other words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as
+these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third
+centuries (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the
+fourth), perhaps not more is required by the external testimony. Against
+the genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced
+what he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits; and I
+have answered them. I am quite aware that other objections have been
+alleged by other critics; but it will be sufficient here to express a
+conviction that these have no real force against even the slightest
+external testimony, and to undertake to meet them if they are
+reproduced. Thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for
+instance, was bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the
+Romans could not have been written before the time of Constantine the
+Great, because 'leopards' are mentioned in it, and the word was not
+known until this late age. In reply to Bochart, Pearson and others
+showed conclusively, by appealing (among other documents) to the
+contemporary Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered
+when Geta was Caesar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called
+more than a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good
+reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I am able
+to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. The word
+occurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the middle of the
+second century), without any indication that it was then a new or
+unusual term. This passage, which (so far as I am aware) has been
+hitherto overlooked, carries the use back to within some forty years, or
+less, of the professed date of the Ignatian letters; and it must be
+regarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed
+in the scanty remains of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over
+the interval. Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient
+to say that its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have
+been the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large amount
+of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question, and by
+substituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of
+historical fact.
+
+On the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with an
+individuality of character which is a strong testimony to their
+genuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression
+seem to bespeak a real living man. On this point however it is
+impossible to dwell here; anyone who will take the pains to read these
+Epistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on
+this evidence of style, than if he had been plied with many arguments.
+
+But if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, what
+must we say of the Vossian? Were the additional portions, which are
+contained in the latter but wanting in the former, also written by the
+saint, or are they later interpolations and additions? This is a much
+more difficult question.
+
+As a first step towards answering this question, we may observe that
+there is one very strong reason for believing that the Vossian letters
+cannot have been written after the middle of the second century. The
+argument from silence has been so often abused, that one is almost
+afraid to employ it at all. Yet here it seems to have a real value. The
+writer of these letters, whoever he was, is evidently an orthodox
+Catholic Christian, and at the same time a strong controversialist. It
+is therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main
+controversies which agitated the Church, and more especially the Church
+of Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the second century.
+There is not a word about Montanism or about the Paschal controversy. It
+is difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of
+these 'burning' questions, if he had lived in the midst of them. Even
+though his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from
+language involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a
+distinct side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means.
+Again, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic heresies of
+this age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the Valentinians, even of
+the Basilideans (though Basilides flourished under Hadrian), are not
+touched. On the contrary, the writer several times uses language which
+an orthodox churchman, writing in the second half of the second century
+or later, would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expressions
+he salutes the Church of the Trallians 'in the _pleroma_'--an expression
+which could not escape the taint of heresy when once Valentinus had
+promulgated his system, of which the pleroma was the centre. Nor again,
+is it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions
+which, however innocent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to
+countenance the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for
+instance, where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving
+([Greek: philouelon]) fire (of passion),' [85:1] and the like. The
+bearing of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and
+yet it is highly important.
+
+Having regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see how it is
+reasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the middle of the second
+century. But still it does not follow that they are genuine; and
+elsewhere I had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who
+ascribed them to an interpolator writing about A.D. 140 [85:2]. Now
+however I am obliged to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts
+whether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius
+himself. The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1)
+Petermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned,
+respecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing
+Syriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian letters. When it is
+known that there existed a complete version of the Vossian letters in
+this language, the theory that the Curetonian letters are excerpts
+becomes at least highly plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters
+were certainly not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding
+Cureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abruptness of
+the Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. Subsequent
+writers, even while maintaining their genuineness, have recognised this
+difficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. It is far from easy, for
+instance, to conceive that the Ephesian letter could have ended as it is
+made to end in this recension. (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce
+many historical circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the
+condition of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited
+by him, no contradictions have yet been made out; but, on the contrary,
+the several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events
+shows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier. (4)
+All the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these
+Epistles fail on closer investigation. More especially stress has been
+laid on the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal
+Logos, not having proceeded from Silence;' [86:1] and objectors, have
+urged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the
+Valentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the
+Valentinians did not represent the Logos as an emanation from Silence,
+but from an intermediate AEon; and when the treatise of Hippolytus was
+discovered, an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence
+held a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians,
+and the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their
+teaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the Ignatian text,
+which Cureton and Petermann have placed in our hands, seem to show very
+clearly (though these editors have overlooked the importance of the
+facts) that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and
+'not' were wanting; so that the expression stood, 'Who is His Logos,
+having proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the Armenian version
+and in the passage as cited by Severus of Antioch [87:1]; while the
+paraphrase of the Long Recension seems to point in the same direction,
+though this is more doubtful. Severus more especially comments on the
+quotation, so that his reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination
+of early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission.
+Moreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, should
+have been omitted; whereas their insertion, if they were no part of the
+original text, is easily accounted for. In the middle of the fourth
+century, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his Sabellianism in almost
+identical language [87:2]; he spoke of Christ as the Logos issuing from
+Silence; and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save
+the reputation of St Ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions, and
+at the same time to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name.
+I call attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked,
+and because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to
+those who charge these Epistles with anachronisms.
+
+Of the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to say that the
+writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and
+teaching of St Ignatius. As regards the substance, they contain many
+extravagances of sentiment and teaching, more especially relating to the
+episcopal office, from which the Curetonian letters are free and which
+one would not willingly believe written by the saint himself. But it
+remains a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the
+arguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown that they
+exhibit any different type of doctrine, though the mode of
+representation may seem exaggerated. As regards style, the Curetonian
+letters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected
+excerpts, they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features
+prominently.
+
+For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the
+Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the
+Vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for
+the middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the
+latter will be waived. I fear that my indecision on this point will
+contrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the
+author of _Supernatural Religion_. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help
+it.
+
+
+
+
+IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
+
+[MAY, 1875.]
+
+
+Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person in the history
+of the Christian Church during the ages immediately succeeding the
+Apostles. In the eyes of his own and the next generations, Clement of
+Rome appears to have held a more prominent position, if we may judge
+from the legendary stories which have gathered about his name; but for
+ourselves the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This
+importance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any marked
+greatness or originality of character. Two long lives--those of St John
+and of Polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal
+ministry of our Lord and the great Christian teachers living at the
+close of the second century. Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and
+Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's
+teaching, if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as
+genuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenaeus, and of
+these we may say generally that on all the most important points they
+conform to the theological standard which has satisfied the Christian
+Church ever since. But of the intermediate period between the close of
+the first century and the close of the second, the notices are sparse,
+the literature is scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has
+busied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history
+during this interval. It has been maintained that the greater part of
+the writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of
+this period. It has been supposed that there was a complete
+discontinuity in the career of the Christian Church throughout the
+world. The person of Polycarp is a standing protest against any such
+surmises. Unless Irenaeus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of
+his master, unless the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether
+spurious, these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for
+the advocates of the Tuebingen theory respecting the origin of the
+Christian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both these
+positions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. My object in
+the following investigations is to show that neither position is
+tenable.
+
+Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first
+century, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of
+his birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70.
+At all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his
+martyrdom, which is now ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156
+[90:1], he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years [90:2];
+and, if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of
+his life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried back
+to the date which I have just given.
+
+Thus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which was fraught
+with momentous consequences to the Church at large, and which more
+especially made itself felt in the Christian congregations of his own
+country, proconsular Asia. The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn
+of the year 70. But at the final assault the Christians were no longer
+among the besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for
+their departure from the doomed city. The greater number had retired
+beyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies in Pella and the
+neighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the Church--the surviving
+Apostles and personal disciples of Christ--had sought a home elsewhere.
+From this time forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to
+proconsular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, that
+we must look for the continuance of the original type of Apostolic
+doctrine and practice. At the epoch of the catastrophe we find the
+Apostle John for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or
+constrained, it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of Patmos. Soon
+after this he takes up his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been
+his head-quarters during the remainder of his long life [91:1]. And John
+was not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More especially
+the companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this
+neighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and fellow-countrymen of
+Bethsaida this is distinctly recorded. Andrew, the brother of Simon
+Peter, appears in company with John in these later years, according to
+an account which seems at least so far trustworthy [91:2]. The presence
+of Philip, the special friend of Andrew [91:3], in these parts is
+recorded on still better authority [91:4]. Philip himself died at
+Hierapolis in Phrygia; but one of his three daughters was buried at
+Ephesus, where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other
+personal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who dwelt in
+these districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second John are mentioned,
+with whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, had conversed [91:5].
+
+Among these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own words, to which
+I have already alluded, seem to show that he was born of Christian
+parentage. At all events he must have been a believer from early
+childhood. If his parents were Christians, they probably received their
+first lessons in the Gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from
+St Paul who had planted the Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who
+appears to have watered them, [92:1] or from the immediate disciples of
+one or other of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth
+of Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. Irenaeus
+reports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his
+statement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan [92:2], who
+ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about
+thirty years old at the time of St John's death. When therefore Irenaeus
+relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 'by Apostles,' [92:3] the
+statement involves no chronological difficulty, even though we interpret
+the term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme
+for presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers say
+distinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by St John
+[92:4].
+
+At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the
+second century. When Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to
+martyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where he is received by Polycarp. At a
+later stage in his journey he writes to his friend. The tone of his
+letter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing
+to a younger, who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility,
+and had shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his
+thankfulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast
+faith, which was 'founded as on an immovable rock,' he proceeds:--
+
+     Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal
+     or in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing
+     is better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee.
+     Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to
+     unceasing prayer. Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch,
+     and preserve a wakeful spirit.... Be thou wise as the serpent in
+     all things, and harmless always as the dove.... The time requireth
+     thee, as pilots require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a
+     haven, so that it may find God.... Be sober, as God's athlete....
+     Stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a
+     great athlete to endure blows and to conquer.... Show thyself more
+     zealous than thou art.... Let nothing be done without thy consent,
+     neither do thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou
+     doest not [93:1].
+
+The close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnaeans, enforcing
+their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop.
+
+This letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles may be
+trusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was on the point of
+embarking for Neapolis [93:2]. The next stage of his journey would bring
+him to Philippi, where he halted. Thence he proceeded by the great
+Egnatian road across the continent to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome.
+
+Shortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the
+Philippians. He had been especially invited by his correspondents to
+write to them, but he had also a reason of his own for doing so. During
+this season of the year, when winter had closed the high seas for
+navigation, all news from Rome must travel through Macedonia to Asia
+Minor. At Smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of
+Ignatius; and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents,
+who were some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his
+friend had already suffered martyrdom [93:3].
+
+This was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons possesses
+the highest interest as a document of early Christian literature, though
+far from remarkable in itself.
+
+Its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the
+Apostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testament, strictly so called,
+it is not probable that Polycarp knew anything [93:4]. This idea was
+necessarily, as Dr Westcott has shown, the growth of time. But of the
+writings which are included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and
+an ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably be
+compared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there is good reason to
+believe, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a
+familiar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other
+hand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of
+Christian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest
+childhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society
+of Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself
+apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear
+indications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic
+Epistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament.
+Again and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at
+length. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has
+exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is
+concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains
+decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty
+passages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single
+exception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there
+is no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere
+indeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted
+from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows
+[95:1].
+
+Not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the New
+Testament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical references I shall
+have occasion to speak in a subsequent article. Besides these there is a
+strong coincidence with the Acts which can hardly be accidental [95:2];
+and there are passages or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic
+Epistles. Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer
+to those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit.
+It cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that Polycarp was
+acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and with the two Epistles
+to Timothy. Of the indisputable references to the First Epistle of St
+Peter I have already spoken in a former paper [95:3].
+
+But the most important fact, in its bearing on recent controversy, is
+the relation of the writer to St Paul. According to the hypothesis of
+the Tuebingen school, there was a personal antagonism between St Paul and
+St John, and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools. It
+is therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most
+eminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the
+Gentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent place in
+Polycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained by the fact that
+he is writing to a Church of St Paul's founding, but this explanation
+does not detract from its value. St Paul is the only Apostle who is
+mentioned by name; his writings are the only Apostolic writings which
+are referred to by name; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable
+references to as many as eleven [95:4]; there are direct appeals to his
+example and his teaching alike: there is even an apology on the writer's
+part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the
+Apostle by writing to a Church to whom he had addressed an Epistle
+[96:1]. Altogether the testimony to the respect in which St Paul is held
+by the writer is as complete as language can make it. If therefore the
+Epistle be accepted as genuine, the position of the Tuebingen school must
+be abandoned.
+
+From considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we pass by a
+natural transition to the second point which I proposed to investigate,
+the traditions of the author's teaching.
+
+Polycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was written. But he
+lived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age
+afterwards; and as the companion of Apostles and the depositary of the
+Apostolic tradition, his influence increased with his increasing years.
+Before he died, even unbelievers had come to regard him as the 'Father
+of the Christians.'
+
+Of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an
+eye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two youths,
+companions for the time, but destined to stand far apart in after life--
+
+     'Like cliffs that had been rent asunder;'
+
+the elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader;
+the younger, Irenaeus, who stood forward as the great champion of
+orthodoxy. The following is the remonstrance addressed by Irenaeus to
+his former associate after his defection:--
+
+     These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are
+     not of sound judgment; these opinions are not in harmony with the
+     Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety;
+     these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church
+     have never ventured to broach; these opinions the elders before us,
+     who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee.
+     For I saw thee, when I was still a boy ([Greek: pais on eti]), in
+     Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring
+     prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well
+     with him. For I distinctly remember ([Greek: diamnemoneuo]) the
+     incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for
+     the lessons received in childhood ([Greek: ek paidon]), growing
+     with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that I
+     can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to
+     sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and
+     his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses
+     which he held before the people, and how he would describe his
+     intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and
+     how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard
+     from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his
+     teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of
+     the life of the Word [97:1], would relate altogether in accordance
+     with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to listen at the
+     time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me,
+     noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace
+     of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully ([Greek:
+     gnesios]). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the
+     blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he
+     would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his
+     wont, 'O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should
+     endure such things?' and would even have fled from the place where
+     he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed,
+     this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the
+     neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the
+     brethren for their warning and exhortation [97:2].
+
+Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to
+enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with Polycarp, or
+of the letter to Florinus in which Irenaeus records it. In the year 155
+or 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenaeus became Bishop of Lyons.
+Putting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenaeus
+must have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135-150. The
+mention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of
+a more precise solution; but even if this notice be taken to imply the
+presence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia Minor, our
+information respecting the movements of Hadrian and his successors is
+too scanty to afford ground for any safe inference [98:1].
+
+Of the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was at one time
+a presbyter of the Roman Church; that he afterwards fell away, and
+taught his heresy in the metropolis; that in consequence Irenaeus
+addressed to him this letter from which I have given the extract, and
+which was also entitled 'On Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is no--the
+author of evil' ([Greek: poieten kakon])--this being the special heresy
+of Florinus; and that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed
+into Valentinianism, on which occasion Irenaeus wrote his treatise on
+the Ogdoad [98:2]. As the treatise of Irenaeus on the Ogdoad can hardly
+have been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in which
+Valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial
+treatment superfluous, and which dates from the episcopate of
+Eleutherius (A.D. 177-190), we are led to the conclusion that the letter
+to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this Father.
+
+Thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of
+Irenaeus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But beyond this
+uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired. All
+experience, if I mistake not, bears out his statement respecting the
+vividness of the memory during this period of life. In a recent trial,
+the most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to
+give any information respecting the games and studies, the companions,
+the familiar haunts, of the school and college days of the person with
+whom he identified himself. It is the penalty which mature age pays for
+clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the recollection
+of facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often an old man will
+relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early
+manhood, while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period.
+Those who have listened to a Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy
+years repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale, or
+describing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the
+battle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the
+stories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his
+intercourse with the last surviving Apostle--the memory of the narrator
+being quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified, in this
+case, by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts
+such as the world had never seen before.
+
+One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel. In
+the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he
+conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference
+was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice
+of St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for
+observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the
+day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact
+that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to
+the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the
+anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a
+Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the
+week. Neither convinced the other, but they parted good friends. This
+difference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality;
+and, as a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the
+Eucharist in his stead [100:1]. About forty years later, when the
+Paschal controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus,
+excommunicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenaeus, though himself an
+observer of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this
+harsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by
+Eusebius, in which these incidents respecting his old master are
+recorded [100:2]. Irenaeus insists strongly on the fact that "the
+harmony of the faith" has never been disturbed hitherto by any such
+diversities of usage.
+
+To this visit to Rome Irenaeus makes another reference in his extant
+work against Heresies. The perfect confidence with which he appeals to
+the continuity of the Apostolic tradition, and to the testimony of
+Polycarp as the principal link in the chain, gives a peculiar
+significance to this passage, and no apology is needed for quoting it at
+length. After speaking of the succession of the Roman bishops, through
+whom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation
+without interruption, he adds--
+
+     And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by
+     Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse ([Greek:
+     sunanastrapheis]) with many that had seen Christ, but also received
+     his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of
+     Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth ([Greek: en te prote
+     hemon helikia]) for he survived long, and departed this life at a
+     very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having
+     ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the
+     Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To
+     these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the
+     successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more
+     trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and
+     Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to
+     Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to the Church of God
+     from following the aforenamed heretics, by preaching that he had
+     received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was
+     handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who
+     have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he
+     went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed
+     away from the room without bathing, with the words, 'Let us flee,
+     lest the room should indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of
+     the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp himself also on one
+     occasion, when Marcion confronted him and said, 'Dost thou
+     recognize me?' answered, 'I recognize the firstborn of Satan.' Such
+     care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any
+     communication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the
+     truth, as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic after a first
+     and second admonition, avoid; knowing that such an one is perverted
+     and sinneth, being self-condemned.' Moreover, there is an Epistle
+     of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate
+     ([Greek: hikanotate]), and from which both his manner of life and
+     his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to
+     learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the
+     Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John
+     survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the
+     tradition of the Apostles [101:1].
+
+I have given these important extracts at length because they speak for
+themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many
+arguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenaeus, when he
+thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he
+holds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before
+him. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the
+present generation maintains that Irenaeus was mistaken from beginning
+to end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of
+the Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that St John, as an
+Apostle of the Circumcision, must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the
+doctrine and work of St Paul; and that Polycarp, as a disciple of St
+John, must have shared that aversion, and cannot therefore have
+recognized the authority of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
+
+It is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have
+seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or have
+attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this
+revolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape
+the notice of the next succeeding generations. I shall probably have
+occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the Church at this
+epoch. At present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal
+testimony of Irenaeus respecting Polycarp is by no means the only, or
+even the greatest, impediment to this theory. He constantly appeals to
+the Asiatic elders, the disciples and followers of the Apostles, in
+confirmation of his statement. Among the Christian teachers of
+proconsular Asia who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous
+names, Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They
+must already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyrdom. They
+were not merely practical workers, but voluminous writers also. The
+lists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of
+topics; they handle questions of Christian ethics, of Scriptural
+interpretation, of controversial divinity, of ecclesiastical order, of
+theological metaphysics. Was there then any possibility of a mistake
+here? To us the history of the Church during the second century is
+obscure, because all this voluminous literature, except a few meagre
+fragments, has been blotted out. But to the contemporaries and
+successors of Irenaeus it was legible enough. 'Who does not know,'
+exclaims his own pupil Hippolytus, 'the books of Irenaeus and Melito and
+the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man?' [102:1]
+
+This mission of peace to Rome must have been one of the latest acts of
+the old man's life. The accession of Anicetus to the see of Rome is
+variously dated; but the earliest year is about A.D. 150, and an eminent
+recent critic, who has paid special attention to the subject, places it
+between A.D. 154 and A.D. 156 [103:1]. In the year 155, or 156 at the
+latest, Polycarp fell a martyr.
+
+The details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary document,
+which takes the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, addressed
+more immediately to the Church of Philomelium but challenging at the
+same time a wider circulation [103:2]. The simplicity with which the
+narrators record omens and occurrences easily explicable in themselves,
+but invested by their surcharged feelings with a miraculous character,
+is highly natural. The whole narrative is eminently touching and
+instructive; but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate
+purpose. It is sufficient to say that Polycarp had retired into the
+country to escape persecution; that the populace, not satisfied with the
+victims already sacrificed to their fury, demanded the life of Polycarp,
+as the 'father of the Christians;' that his hiding-place was betrayed by
+a boy in his service, under the influence of torture; that the
+magistrates urged him to save his life by submitting to the usual tests,
+by pronouncing the formula, 'Caesar is Lord,' or offering sacrifice, or
+swearing by the fortune of the Emperor, or reviling Christ; that he
+declared himself unable to blaspheme a Master whom he had served for
+eighty-six years, and from whom he had received no wrong; and that
+consequently he was burnt at the stake, Jews and Heathens vying with
+each other in feeding the flames. The games were already past; otherwise
+he would have been condemned to the wild beasts--the usual punishment
+for such contumacy.
+
+Polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus. The
+commonly received date of his death is A.D. 166 or 167, as given in the
+Chronicon of Eusebius. Quite recently however, M. Waddington has
+subjected the proconsular _fasti_ of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous
+scrutiny [103:3]. This Statius Quadratus is mentioned by the orator
+Aristides; and by an investigation of the chronology of Aristides' life,
+with the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at
+the result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155; and, as Polycarp
+was martyred in the early months of the year, his martyrdom must be
+dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan [104:1], and
+substantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius [104:2], who however (for
+reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here) postpones the
+martyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments
+seem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some
+stumbling-blocks. The relations between St John and Polycarp for
+instance, as reported by Irenaeus and others, no longer present any
+difficulty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap
+each other is thus extended. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ very
+excusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, being
+unaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations.
+
+In this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness of the
+Epistle ascribed to him; but the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has
+taken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious, and I am
+therefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence.
+
+So far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed that the
+Epistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional
+value. The instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can
+claim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is
+ascribed. The statement of Irenaeus respecting the authorship of this
+Epistle is explicit; and indeed, as the reference is not denied either
+by the author of _Supernatural Religion_ or by other critics, like
+Lipsius and Hilgenfeld, who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as
+spurious, I am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our
+author indeed is content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of
+Irenaeus is not ... entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse
+with Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme
+youth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent
+communication with him.' [105:1] I do not see how the notice of Irenaeus
+justifies the statement that the period was short; but the passage has
+been given above, and the reader may judge for himself. Nor does it seem
+probable, considering that the communications between Asia Minor and
+southern Gaul were close and frequent, that the pupil should altogether
+have lost sight of the master whom he revered, when he migrated to his
+new and distant home in the west. But, even though all this be granted,
+the fact still remains, that the testimony is exceptionally good and
+would in ordinary cases be regarded as quite decisive. I do not say that
+it is impossible Irenaeus could have been mistaken; there is always risk
+of error in human testimony; but I maintain that, unless we are required
+to apply a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is
+held satisfactory in other cases, we approach this Epistle with a very
+strong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be invalidated by
+solid and convincing proofs, and against which hypothetical combinations
+and ingenious surmises are powerless [105:2]. Whether the objections
+adduced by the impugners of this Epistle are of this character, the
+reader will see presently.
+
+From the external we turn to the internal evidence. We are asked to
+believe that this letter was forged on the confines of the age of
+Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. But can anything be more unlike the
+ecclesiastical literature of this later generation, whether we regard
+the use of the New Testament, or the notices of ecclesiastical order, or
+the statements of theological doctrine? The Evangelical quotations are
+still given (as in Clement of Rome) with the formula, 'The Lord said;'
+the passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still, for the most part,
+indirect and anonymous. Though two or three chapters are devoted to
+injunctions respecting the ministry of the Church, there is not an
+allusion to episcopacy from beginning to end. Though the writer's ideas
+of the Person of Christ practically leave nothing to be desired, yet
+these ideas are still held in solution, and have not yet crystallized
+into the dogmatic forms which characterize the later generation. And
+from first to last this Epistle is silent upon those questions which
+interested the Church in the second half of the second century. Of
+Montanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the developed Gnostic heresies
+of this period, it says nothing. A supposed reference to Marcion I shall
+have to discuss presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that
+an allusion so vague and pointless as this would be must certainly have
+missed its aim.
+
+But this argument from internal evidence gains strength when considered
+from another point of view. The only intelligible theory--indeed, so far
+as I remember, the only attempt at a theory--offered to account for this
+Epistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity, connects it
+closely with the Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged by the same
+hand which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles; if interpolated, it was
+interpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine Epistles into
+the seven. According to either hypothesis, the object was to recommend
+the Ignatian forgery on the authority of a great Dame; the motive
+betrays itself in the thirteenth chapter, where Polycarp is represented
+as sending several of the Ignatian Epistles to the Philippians along
+with his own letter. This theory is at all events intelligible; and, so
+far as I can see, it is the only rational theory of which the case
+admits.
+
+Let us ask then, whether there is any improbability in the
+circumstances, as here represented. Ignatius had stayed at Philippi on
+his way to martyrdom; the Philippians had been deeply impressed by their
+intercourse with him; writing to Polycarp afterwards, they had requested
+him to send them a copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him; he
+complies with the request, and appends also copies of other letters
+written by Ignatius, which he happened to have in his possession. Is
+this at all unnatural? Suppose on the other hand, that the letter of
+Polycarp had contained no such reference to Ignatius and his Epistles,
+would it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance,
+that, writing to the Philippians so soon after Ignatius had visited both
+Churches, Polycarp should have said nothing about so remarkable a man?
+When I see how this argument from silence is worked in other cases, I
+cannot doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable
+objection either to the truth of the Ignatian story, or to the
+genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, or to both. My conclusion is that
+this notice proves nothing either way, when it stands alone. If the
+other contents of the Polycarpian Epistle are questionable, then it
+enforces our misgivings. If not, then this use of the notice is only
+another illustration of the over-suspicious temperament of modern
+criticism, which, as I ventured to suggest in an earlier paper, must be
+as fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early Christian
+history, as it is manifestly in matters of common life. The question
+therefore is narrowed to this issue, whether the Epistle of Polycarp
+bears evidence in its style and diction or in its modes of thought or in
+any other way, that it was written by the same hand which penned the
+Ignatian letters.
+
+And here I venture to say that, however we test these documents, the
+contrast is very striking; more striking in fact than we should have
+expected to find between two Christian writers who wrote about the same
+time and were personally acquainted with each other. I will apply some
+of these tests.
+
+1. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of
+ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy, is well
+known. Indeed it is often supposed that the Ignatian Letters were
+written for this express purpose. In Polycarp's Epistle on the other
+hand, as I have already said, there is no mention of episcopacy. He
+speaks at length about the duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of
+the widows, and others, but the bishop is entirely ignored. More
+especially he directs the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters
+and deacons, as to God and Christ,' but nothing is said about obedience
+to the bishop [108:1]. At a later point he has occasion to speak of an
+offence committed by one Valens, a presbyter, but here again there is
+the same silence. All this is quite intelligible, if the letter is
+genuine, on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the
+Philippian bishopric at this time, or, as seems more probable, that the
+ecclesiastical organization there was not yet fully developed; but it
+is, so far as I can see, quite inconceivable that a forger whose object
+was to recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so
+damaging to his main purpose. The supposed forger indeed shows himself
+throughout quite indifferent on this subject. There is every reason for
+believing that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at this time; yet in the
+heading of the letter he does not assert his title, but writes merely,
+'Polycarp and the presbyters with him.'
+
+2. If we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal statement,
+the contrast still remains. We meet with no such strong expressions as
+are found in the Ignatian letters; Polycarp, never speaks of 'the blood
+of God,' 'the passion of my God,' 'Jesus Christ our God,' and the like.
+Even in the commoner modes of designating our Lord, a difference is
+perceptible. Thus the favourite mode of expression with Ignatius is
+'Jesus Christ' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred times; whereas in
+Polycarp it is only found twice (one passage being a quotation). On the
+other hand, the usual expression in Polycarp is 'Our Lord Jesus Christ,'
+which apparently occurs only twice in the Ignatian Epistles, and in both
+instances with various readings. Again the combination 'God and Christ,'
+occurring three times in Polycarp, does not appear once in the Ignatian
+letters [108:2].
+
+3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is
+still more remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are together at
+least five times as long as the Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from
+the Apostolic Epistles in the latter are many times more numerous, as
+well as more precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are
+made up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius they are
+very rare, being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated
+coincidences of language or thought. Nor indeed is their range
+coextensive. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former
+article [109:1], is pervaded with the language of St Peter's First
+Epistle, but in the Ignatian letters there is no trace of its use
+[109:2].
+
+4. But this divergence only forms part of a still broader and more
+decisive contrast. The profuseness of quotation in Polycarp's Epistle
+arises from a want of originality. The writer reproduces the thoughts
+and words of others, because his mind is essentially receptive and not
+creative. He is altogether wanting in independence of thought. On the
+other hand, the Ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality.
+Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect.
+They are full of idiomatic expressions, quaint images, unexpected turns
+of thought and language. They exhibit their characteristic ideas, which
+obviously have a high value for the writer, for he recurs to them again
+and again, but which the reader often finds it extremely difficult to
+grasp, owing to their singularity. I venture to think that any one who
+will carefully consider these contrasts--more especially the last, as
+extending over the whole field--must be struck with the impossibility of
+the theory which makes this letter part of the assumed Ignatian
+forgeries. This hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical
+age produced a literary fiction, which, for subtlety and naturalness of
+execution, leaves the most skilful forgeries of the nineteenth century
+far behind.
+
+And the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with difficulties of
+the same kind, and hardly less considerable. This hypothesis was shaped
+and developed by Ritschl [110:1], whose theory has been accepted by some
+later writers. He supposes that the greater part of the Epistle is the
+genuine production of the person whose name it bears, written however,
+not immediately after the death of Ignatius, but in the later years of
+Polycarp's long life. The three passages which relate to Ignatius,
+together with other parts which he defines, he supposes to have been
+interpolated by the same forger who amplified the three genuine letters
+of the martyr of Antioch into the seven of the Vossian collection. But
+if any one will take the passages which Ritschl has struck out as
+interpolated, he will find that the general style is the same; that
+individual expressions, more especially theological expressions, are the
+same; that the quotations are from the same range of books, as in the
+other parts, extending even to coincidences of expression with the
+Epistle of Clement of Rome; and that altogether there is nothing to
+separate one part from another, except the _a priori_ assumption that
+the references to Ignatius must be unhistorical. I do not know whether
+these facts have been pointed out before, and I cannot do more here than
+hint at lines of investigation which any one may follow up for himself.
+But when the phenomena are fully recognized, I venture to think that the
+difficulties in Ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times greater
+than those which it is framed to remove.
+
+Of the general character of the Epistle, as affecting the question of
+its genuineness, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has said nothing.
+But he has reproduced special objections which have been urged by
+previous writers; and to these I wish to call attention, because they
+are very good, and not unfavourable, illustrations of the style of
+criticism which is in vogue with the negative school.
+
+1. Our author writes in the first place:--
+
+     We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is,
+     for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the
+     epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held
+     to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers
+     to the martyr-journey (c. ix), but to the Ignatian Epistles which
+     are inauthentic (c. xiii), and the manifest inference is that it
+     also is spurious.
+
+Of the fabulous character of the martyr-journey I have already disposed
+in my previous article on the Ignatian letters [111:1]. For the present
+I reserve what I have to say concerning the assumed reference to the
+'inauthentic' Epistles, as this objection will reappear again.
+
+2. Our author on a later page urges that--
+
+     In the Epistle itself, there are many anachronisms. In ch. ix the
+     'blessed Ignatius' is referred to as already a considerable time
+     dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul
+     and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience: men who have
+     not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii he is
+     spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him,
+     'and those who are with him.'
+
+To this objection I had already supplied the answer [111:2] which has
+been given many times before, and which, as it seemed to me, the author
+ought in fairness to have noticed. I had pointed out that we have only
+the Latin version here, and that the present tense is obviously due to
+the translator. The original would naturally be [Greek: ton sun auto],
+which the translator, being obliged to supply a substantive verb, has
+carelessly rendered 'his qui cum eo _sunt_.' If any one will consider
+what has been just said about the general character of the Epistle, he
+will see that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact,
+whether we regard the work as genuine or not. If it is not genuine, the
+forger has executed his task with consummate skill and appreciation; and
+yet here he is charged with a piece of bungling which a schoolboy would
+have avoided. It is not merely an anachronism, but a self-contradiction
+of the most patent kind. The writer, on this hypothesis, has not made up
+his mind whether Ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time,
+and he represents the fact differently in two different parts [112:1].
+
+But our author apparently is quite unaware that [Greek: hoi sun auto]
+might mean equally well, 'those who _were_ with him,' and those who
+_are_ with him.' At least I cannot attach any other meaning to his
+reply, in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere, and
+speaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar.'
+[112:2] If so, I can only refer him to Thucydides or any Greek
+historian, where he will find scores of similar instances. I need hardly
+say that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning
+nothing more than 'his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied
+according to the context or the known circumstances of the case. But I
+am not sorry that our author has fallen into this error, for it has led
+me to investigate the usage of Polycarp and his translator, and has thus
+elicited the following facts:--(1) Unless he departed from his ordinary
+usage, Polycarp would have employed the short expression [Greek: hoi sun
+auto] or [Greek: hoi met' autou] in such a case. Thus he has [Greek: ou
+sun auto] in the opening paragraph, and [Greek: tois ex humon] in c. 9,
+with other similar distances. (2) The translator, if he had the words
+[Greek: tois sun auto] before him, would almost certainly supply the
+substantive verb, as he has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo _sunt_
+presbyteri;' in c. 3, 'illis qui tunc _erant_ hominibus,' and 'quae
+_est_ in Deo;' in c. 9, 'qui ex vobis _sunt_;' and probably also in c.
+12, 'qui _sunt_ sub coelo' (the Greek is wanting in this last passage).
+(3) The translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give
+the wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle where
+it was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point;
+he has translated [Greek: hen kai eidete ... en allois tois ex humon]
+mechanically by a present tense, 'quam et vidistis ... in aliis qui ex
+vobis _sunt_,' though the persons are mentioned in connection with St
+Ignatius and St Paul, and though it is distinctly stated immediately
+afterwards that they _all_ were dead, having, as we may infer from the
+context, ended their life by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very
+same blunder which I ascribe to him here.
+
+This objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the notices
+which I have been considering suggest another reflection. Is the
+historical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like
+the invention of a forger? Would he have thought of placing himself at
+the moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred, but
+when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna? If he
+had chosen this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of
+leaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are
+scattered through the Epistle--notices moreover, which, though entirely
+consistent with each other, are so far from obvious that his translator
+has been led astray by them, and that modern critics have woven out of
+them these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel?
+
+3. But our author proceeds:--
+
+     Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already
+     knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written
+     by him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference
+     here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the
+     Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles
+     which are not included in the Syriac version.
+
+I have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive; but, if he
+had been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not have known of his
+Epistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian letters four claim to have
+been written from Smyrna, when the saint was in some sense Polycarp's
+guest, and two to have been written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven
+Epistles, supposing them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost
+necessarily have been acquainted with six.
+
+By the 'other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Polycarp is
+supposed to recognize, I presume that our author means the four of the
+Vossian collection, which have no place in the Syriac. If so, I would
+reply that, supposing the three Syriac Epistles to represent the only
+genuine letters _extant_, these Epistles themselves bear testimony to
+the fact that Ignatius wrote several others besides; for in one passage
+in these Syriac Epistles (_Rom._ 4) the martyr says, 'I write to _all
+the Churches_ and charge _all men_.' And again, when Polycarp writes,
+[Greek: tas epistolas Ignatious tas pemphtheisas hemin hup' autou] it is
+sufficient to advert to the fact that, like the Latin _epistolae_, the
+plural [Greek: epistolai] is frequently used convertibly with the
+singular [Greek: epistole] for a single letter [114:1], and indeed
+appears to be so used in an earlier passage by Polycarp himself of
+St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [114:2]; so that the notice is
+satisfied by the single Epistle to Polycarp which is included in the
+Syriac letters, and does not necessarily imply also the Epistle to the
+Smyrnaeans which has no place there. But of this passage generally I
+would say, that though it may be a question whether the language does
+not favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the
+Curetonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle
+of Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, by Irenaeus, and
+exhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of genuineness in itself.
+
+4. Our author then continues:--
+
+     Dallaeus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts
+     the conclusion of the Epistle.
+
+In what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is
+difficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which would naturally be
+assigned to such personal matters; for it follows upon the main purport
+of the letter, while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the
+bearer and the final salutation. On the same showing the conclusion of
+the greater number of St Paul's Epistles is 'abruptly interrupted.'
+
+5. The next argument is of another kind:--
+
+     The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the
+     Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not
+     exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he
+     refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in
+     speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenaeus
+     to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in
+     Rome about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion 'the
+     first-born of Satan,' ([Greek: prototokos tou Satana]), and the
+     same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to every one who
+     holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies,
+     therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at
+     earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is
+     further confirmed by other circumstances.
+
+I will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting however
+one or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investigations, to which I
+have already alluded [115:1], oblige us to place Polycarp's visit to
+Rome some few years before 160, since his death is fixed at A.D. 155 or
+156. Again, Irenaeus does not state that the interview between Polycarp
+and Marcion took place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it
+may have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region
+Marcion was a native [115:2]. These however are not very important
+matters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about A.D.
+140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied the
+expression 'first-born of Satan' to Marcion, while in the Epistle,
+purporting to have been written many years before, he appears as using
+this same expression of other Gnostic teachers. This argument is a good
+illustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like Lipsius and
+Hilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial mind, I imagine, this coincidence,
+so far as it goes, would appear to point to Polycarp as the author of
+the Epistle; for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the
+one from oral tradition through Irenaeus, the other in a written
+document older than Irenaeus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the
+other, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is
+much more probable. Irenaeus, as he tells us in the context, was
+acquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating
+the story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently imported
+into it the expression which he had read in the Epistle. But the
+independence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do repeat
+the same expressions again and again, and this throughout long periods
+of their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies,
+and so become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, and
+in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he
+had a habit of repeating favourite expressions. Irenaeus, in a passage
+already quoted, mentions his exclamation, 'O good God,' as one of these
+[116:1].
+
+Our author however declares that the passage in the Epistle which
+contains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and his followers;
+and, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before
+A.D. 130-140 at the earliest, this fact, if it be a fact, condemns as
+spurious a work which professes to have been written some years before.
+But is there anything really characteristic of Marcion in the
+description? Our author does not explain himself, nor can I find
+anything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom I
+am referred in his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves--
+
+     For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in
+     the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the
+     testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth
+     the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that
+     there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a
+     first-born of Satan [116:2].
+
+To illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite
+doctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by a
+Nonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned with the
+truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the doctrines of
+episcopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptismal regeneration,
+and the like. It is wholly silent about claims to Papal domination,
+about infallibility, about purgatory and indulgences, about the worship
+of the Virgin or of the Saints. Am I justified in concluding that the
+writer is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome,
+because the Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches,
+holds the doctrines attacked? Would not any reasonable man draw the very
+opposite inference, and conclude that the writer cannot mean the Church
+of Rome, because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets
+of that Church?
+
+So it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic sects, held
+some views which are here attacked. But Marcion had also doctrines of
+his own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. Marcion taught that the God of
+the New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he
+identified with the God of Nature; that these two Gods were not only
+distinct but antagonistic; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine
+feud between them; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to
+rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This was the head and
+front of his offending; and consequently a common charge against him
+with orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes God.' [117:1] Of this there
+is not a hint in Polycarp's denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the
+authority of the Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he
+confined his Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again,
+Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married
+persons. On these points also Polycarp is silent.
+
+But indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would
+appear from the illustration which I have used. Not only is there
+nothing specially characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies
+denounced by Polycarp, not only were the doctrines condemned held by
+divers other teachers besides, but some of the charges are quite
+inapplicable to him. The passage in question denounces three forms of
+heretical teaching, which may or may not have been combined in one sect.
+Of these the first, 'Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has
+come in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It way refer,
+for instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the
+spiritual Being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism, and
+left Him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ
+remained impassible [118:1]; or it may describe the pure docetism, which
+maintained that our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His
+birth and life and death alike were only apparent, and not real [118:2];
+or it may have some reference different from either. I cannot myself
+doubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle of St John,
+and there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the contemporary of the
+Apostle [118:3]; but Polycarp may have used it with a much wider
+reference. Under any circumstances, though it would no doubt apply to
+Marcion, who held strong docetic views, it would apply to almost every
+sect of Gnostics besides. The same may be said of the second position
+attacked, 'Whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross,' which
+might include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well.
+But the case is wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth
+the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there
+is neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this type of error, and this
+only, the description 'first-born of Satan' is applied in the text, and
+of this I venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to Marcion.
+No doubt Marcion, like every other heretical teacher of the second
+century, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord'
+by his tortuous interpretations; but he did not pervert them 'to his own
+lusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is
+recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century; the worst
+charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an
+ascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but
+regard it as a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this
+denunciation on Marcion, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the
+Lord,' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts,'
+though these contain the very sting of the accusation [119:1]. Obviously
+the allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early Gnostic
+teachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel.
+We find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the
+professed date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which
+St Paul rebukes at Corinth [119:2]. We have still clearer indications of
+it in the Pastoral Epistles; and when we reach the epoch of the
+Apocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in the year 68 or
+69, the evil is almost full blown [119:3]. This interpretation becomes
+more evident when we consider the expression in the light of the
+accompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying that
+there was 'no resurrection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything
+else than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so
+broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences.
+Here again, they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators
+belonging to the Christian community at Corinth who maintained that
+'there is no resurrection of the dead,' [120:1] and whose Epicurean
+lives were a logical consequence of their Epicurean doctrine. And here,
+too, the Pastoral Epistles supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at
+a loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of
+'the oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel
+case of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who taught that 'the resurrection had
+already taken place,' [120:2] or in other words, that all such terms
+must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual
+change, the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present
+world'. Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching is altogether
+foreign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh,
+and the future body of the redeemed [120:4]. This was a necessary tenet
+of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this
+sense only he denied a resurrection; and he did not deny a judgment at
+all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or
+punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged
+to recognize a judgment in some form or other. His Supreme God indeed,
+whom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an
+avenger, but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging
+and punishing to the Demiurge [120:5]. To revert to my illustration,
+this is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge of
+Erastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom he was
+attacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the
+Church of Rome.
+
+6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind:--
+
+     The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which
+     Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life,
+     and of which we first have evidence about A.D. 160, when he was
+     deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion.
+
+This argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any power, when they
+remember that the ablest and most powerful Prime Minister whom
+constitutional England has seen assumed the reins of government at the
+early age of twenty-four. But Polycarp was not a young man at this time.
+M. Waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we
+take the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp was now in
+his fortieth year at least; if the later date, he was close upon fifty.
+He had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged
+Apostle St John. He was specially commended by Ignatius, who doubtless
+had spoken of him to the Philippians. History does not point to any
+person after the death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high
+among his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from
+silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church. What wonder
+then that the Philippians should have asked him to write to them? To
+this request, I suppose, our author refers when he speaks of the writer
+'assuming a position in the Church;' for there is nothing else to
+justify it. On his own part Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He
+associates his presbyters with himself in the opening address; he says
+that he should not have ventured to write as he does, if he had not
+received a request from the Philippians; he even deprecates any
+assumption of superiority [121:1].
+
+7. But our author continues:--
+
+     And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization of
+     that period.
+
+This argument must, I think, strike any one who has read the Epistle as
+surprising. There is, as I have said already, no reference to episcopacy
+from beginning to end [122:1]; and in this respect it presents the
+strongest contrast to writings of the age of Irenaeus, to which it is
+here supposed to belong. Irenaeus and his contemporaries are so familiar
+with episcopacy as a traditional institution, that they are not aware of
+any period when it was not universal; and more especially when they are
+dealing with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary
+of the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and
+practice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle is a
+strong testimony to its early date.
+
+8. Lastly, another argument is alleged:--
+
+     Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in
+     the injunction 'Pray for the kings' (Orate pro regibus), which, in
+     1 Peter ii. 17, is 'Honour the king' ([Greek: ton basilea timate]),
+     which accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated
+     Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or better still,
+     with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his
+     colleague, A.D. 161.
+
+Here we have only to ask why _Orate pro regibus_ should be translated
+'Pray for _the_ kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and the ghost of a
+divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. There is no reason
+whatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a
+general reference. Even if the words had stood in the original [Greek:
+huper ton basileon] and not [Greek: huper basileon], the presence of the
+article would not, according to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit
+the reference to any particular sovereigns. But there is very good
+reason for believing that the definite article had no place in the
+original. The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with
+the First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (Sec. 4), he combines two
+passages which occur in close proximity in that Epistle; 'The love of
+money is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. vi. 10): knowing therefore
+that we brought nothing into the world, neither are we able to carry
+anything out (1 Tim. vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes
+highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same
+Epistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers,
+intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings, and for
+all that are in authority' (ii. 2) [123:1], where it is [Greek: huper
+basileon]. After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other
+expressions that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings
+(Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest
+possible range to his injunction; 'Pray for all the saints; pray also
+for kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute and
+hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc.' We may therefore bid
+farewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
+
+Our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the
+authenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but who
+certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt
+to refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over in silence all
+answers which have been given to the objections alleged by him.
+Doubtless he considered them unworthy of notice. I have endeavoured to
+supply this lacuna in his work; and the reader will judge for himself on
+which side the weight of argument lies.
+
+The author of _Supernatural Religion_ in his Reply, which appeared in
+the January number of the _Fortnightly Review_, pointed out two
+inaccuracies in my first article. In adverting to his silence respecting
+the occurrence of the Logos in the Apocalypse [123:2], I ought to have
+confined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting
+the doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the Apocalypse, where
+especially some mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere
+alluded, as his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the
+Apocalypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he charges
+Dr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be
+true respecting Basilides. While commenting on his omission of Dr
+Westcott's inverted commas in the extract which I gave [124:1], I
+overlooked the fact that he had just before quoted Dr Westcott's text
+correctly, as it stands in Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still
+more difficult to understand how he could have brought this most
+unwarrantable charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was
+distinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of an
+oversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I shall not
+attempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, which he
+throws back upon me.
+
+For the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of my
+criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply.
+
+I cannot, for instance, take any blame to myself for not foreseeing the
+misprints which our author pleads, because they must have baffled far
+higher powers of divination than mine. Thus I found [124:2] the author
+stating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once distinguishes John the
+Baptist by the appellation [Greek: ho baptistes],' [124:3] whereas, as a
+matter of fact, he never does so; and comparing the whole sentence with
+a passage in Credner [124:4], to which the author refers in his
+footnote, I found that it presented a close parallel, as the reader will
+see:--
+
+Waehrend der Verfasser die           | He [the author] _only once_
+beiden Apostel gleiches Namens,     | distinguishes John the Baptist
+Judas, sorgfaeltig unterscheidet     | by the appellation [Greek: ho
+(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas     | baptistes], whilst he carefully
+naeher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24;   | distinguishes the two disciples
+21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus,      | of the name of Judas, and always
+nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus,      | speaks of the Apostle Peter as
+nie Simon allein nennt (s. Sec. 96,    | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but
+Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht fuer noethig | rarely as 'Simon' only.
+gefunden, den Taeufer Johannes       |
+von dem gleichnamigen Apostel       |
+Johannes _auch nur ein einziges     |
+Mal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho    |
+baptistes] zu unterscheiden         |
+(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.).           |
+
+Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to
+the other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had
+traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two
+particular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have
+stumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than
+once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New
+Testament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last
+and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels,
+though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant
+variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember
+'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have
+himself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his
+exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This
+explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably
+evident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_
+once,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all
+the four editions.
+
+But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further
+removed from the possibility of detection. I had called attention
+[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author
+had written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3,
+4)--
+
+     This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel,
+     and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1].
+
+whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the
+passage was genuine; and I had pointed out that the last words stood
+'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the
+passage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been
+suffered to remain.
+
+In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:--
+
+     The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol.
+     i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, 'and it is argued
+     that it was probably a later interpolation [126:2].'
+
+To this the following note is appended:--
+
+     I altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition, as Dr
+     Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of
+     exaggeration, but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that
+     I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness,
+     reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive
+     the absence of the words given above.
+
+This omission runs through four editions.
+
+But more perplexing still is the author's use of language.
+
+The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenaeus,
+where this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer
+to the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my
+first article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction
+between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct
+narrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might
+very well be Irenaeus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out
+that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in
+the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found
+out his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in
+its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives
+in his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his
+language. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1)
+That there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all,
+or that Irenaeus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp.
+326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no
+ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of
+Papias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned
+myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when
+I shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first
+point alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in his
+reply that his meaning was the same throughout, that he knew all the
+while Irenaeus must be quoting from some one else, and that he 'did what
+was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction.'
+[127:2] Why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were
+direct? Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in
+Irenaeus containing quotations, did he add, 'These are all direct
+quotations by Irenaeus, as is most certainly that which we are now
+considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way?' [127:3] Why
+in his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recognition of the
+oblique construction, did he withdraw all these supposed parallels,
+which, if his opinion was unchanged, still remained as good for his
+purpose (whatever that purpose might be) as they had ever been? Further
+discussion on this point would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any
+reader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and
+more especially to compare the fourth [128:1] with the earlier editions,
+that he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, except
+that which I and others besides myself [128:2] have put upon his words,
+was natural. The author has declared his meaning, but I could only judge
+by his language.
+
+I now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's
+reply; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order
+adopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder.
+
+1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I spoke
+disparagingly of his scholarship [128:3]; and in reply he says that the
+criticism in which I have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction
+of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.' [128:4] I cannot help
+thinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view; but let
+that pass. If the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my
+article, he will find that, so far from occupying the main part of it on
+points of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under
+discussion, as the author seems to hint, I have taken up about
+two-thirds of a page only [128:5] with such matters. In the other
+instances which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument
+for the time being at some vital point. It would have been possible to
+multiply examples, if examples had been needed. I might have quoted, for
+instance, such renderings as [Greek: katabas peripateito] 'come down let
+him walk about [129:1];' or [Greek: Iousta tis en hemin esti
+Surophoinikissa, to genos Chananitis, hes to Thugatrion k.t.l.] 'Justa,
+who is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose
+daughter' etc. [129:2] Both these renderings survive to the fourth
+edition.
+
+I must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes,
+though only a few words will be necessary. I do not see that he has
+gained anything by sheltering himself behind others, when he is
+obviously in the wrong. Not a legion of Tischendorfs, for instance, can
+make [Greek: epangellomenon] signify 'has promised,' [129:3] though it
+is due to Tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation
+he has seen through the meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened
+an error upon himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done.
+And in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the
+responsibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant
+than the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a scholar,
+having translated _quem caederet_ [129:4], 'whom he mutilates,' could
+have brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' [129:5]. I am not at
+all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with
+having unduly depreciated his scholarship.
+
+But our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth
+establishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel sure that, if he
+had been dealing with some indifferent matter, as for instance some
+question of classical literature, he would not have received any more
+lenient treatment from independent reviewers; and I do not see why the
+greater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for
+immunity from critical examination. It does not seem to me to be a light
+matter that an author assuming, as the author of _Supernatural Religion_
+does, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, should
+betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. But in the present
+case there was an additional reason why attention should be called to
+these defects. It was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of
+the author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the
+public, and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not
+entitled.
+
+2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality
+with which the work entitled _Supernatural Religion_ had been credited.
+And here I would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's
+reviewers than with the author himself. I can understand how he should
+omit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity.
+It appeared from the book itself, and it has become still more plain
+from the author's Reply, that he regards 'apologists' as persons from
+whom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments therefore he need
+not for the most part concern himself. But the fact remains that the
+reader has had an _ex parte_ statement presented to him, while he has
+been assured that the whole case is laid before him.
+
+Of this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. To these
+our author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, I believe that the
+present article has entirely justified my allegation. Of Papias,
+Hegesippus, and Justin, I shall have occasion to speak in subsequent
+articles. At present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to
+what Dr Westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer, and ask
+readers to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case
+impartially before them.
+
+Several of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St. John. Of these
+our author has taken exception more especially to three.
+
+As regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because he has quoted
+my own words, and I am well content that they should tell their own
+tale. If our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself, and
+irrelevant to the direct purpose of the work,' [131:1] I venture to
+think that discerning readers will take a different view. I had directed
+attention [131:2] to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.
+xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34) as implying other visits to Jerusalem which
+these Gospels do not themselves record, and therefore as refuting the
+hypothesis that our Lord's ministry was only of a single year's
+duration, and was exercised wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood
+until the closing visit to Jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on
+the arbitrary assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete
+and continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative on
+this fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the Synoptists
+give no continuous chronology in the history of our Lord's ministry
+between the baptism and the passion; the incidents were selected in the
+first instance (we may suppose) for purposes of catechetical
+instruction, and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject,
+sometimes (though incidentally) by sequence of time. In St. John, on the
+other hand, the successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebrae of
+the chronological backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account
+of Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure even
+here that the vertebrae are absolutely continuous; many festivals may
+have been omitted; the ministry of Christ may have extended over a much
+longer period, as indeed Irenaeus asserts that it did [131:3]; but the
+three passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three
+years at the least.
+
+The second point has reference to the diction of the fourth Gospel, as
+compared with the Apocalypse [131:4]. Here I am glad to find that there
+is less difference of opinion between us than I had imagined. If our
+author does not greatly differ from Luthardt's estimate of the language,
+neither do I [132:1]. On the other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as
+I am aware) nobody has denied, that there is a marked difference between
+the Apocalypse and the Gospel, in respect of diction; only it is
+contended that two very potent influences must be taken into account
+which will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of
+the two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of the one
+book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong
+Hebraic colouring, which we should not expect to find in a historical
+narrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time separates the two works.
+The Apocalypse was written, according to the view which our author
+represents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics,' about
+A.D. 68, 69 [132:2]. It marks the close of what we may call the
+_Hebraic_ period of St John's life--_i.e._, the period which (so far as
+we can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history) he
+had spent chiefly in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The
+Gospel on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the
+last years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or
+more probably dictated) at the end of the _Hellenic_ period, after an
+interval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had lived at
+Ephesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our author appears to be
+astonished that Luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the Apocalypse
+as not arising out of ignorance, but as 'intentional emancipations from
+the rules of grammar.' Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must
+be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's
+reflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho on,
+k.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that
+[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of
+writing any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book,
+after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable
+command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a
+familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this
+language.
+
+On the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four
+pages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the
+manner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth
+Gospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its
+identification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable
+solutions. To this remark I had appended the following note:
+
+     Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar
+     with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not
+     mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that
+     there was no such place [as Sychar [Greek: Suchar]], and apologetic
+     ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is
+     altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages
+     in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or
+     Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. Our
+     author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f.
+     Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article,
+     for these Talmudic references are its main purport._
+
+Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as
+they are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish
+especially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds
+that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary
+Review_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,'
+to which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2].
+
+I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the
+obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the
+historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will
+most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself
+first. I am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person
+who penned certain sentences in _Supernatural Religion_. I am not a
+little perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he
+would lay down; for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt
+language, of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others
+with 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation
+upon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsification,'
+with 'disingenuousness' [134:1] and other grave moral offences of the
+same kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that offences of
+this class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or
+the grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore obliged to ask whether he is
+not imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe
+himself, when he objects to what I have said. Nevertheless I will
+apologize; but I cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to
+withdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of
+proceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it
+another which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I saw in his
+text the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no such
+place,' [134:2] and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a
+reference to an article by an eminent Hebraist devoted to showing that
+such a place is mentioned several times in the Talmud, I could draw no
+other conclusion than that he had not read the article in question, or
+(as I might have added), having read it, had forgotten its contents. The
+manner in which references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have
+shown in my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this
+inference. His own explanation however is quite different.--
+
+     My statement is, that it is admitted that there was no such place
+     as Sychar--I ought to have added, 'except by apologists, who never
+     admit anything'--but I thought that in saying, 'and apologetic
+     ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty,' I had
+     sufficiently excepted apologists, and indicated that many
+     assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose.
+
+Certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added; for no reader
+could have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be
+understood with this all-important reservation. Unfortunately however
+this explanation is not confined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it
+is adopted by M. Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position)
+would altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who
+nevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, without
+considering whether it will or will not tend to establish the
+credibility of the Evangelist.
+
+But after all, the really important question for the reader is not what
+this or that person thinks on this question, but what are the facts. And
+here I venture to say that, when our author speaks of 'assertions and
+conjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's article, such language is quite
+misleading. The points which the Talmudical passages quoted by him
+establish are these:--
+
+(1) A place called 'Suchar,' or 'Sychar,' is mentioned in the Talmud.
+Our author speaks of 'some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat
+similar, but not identical, name.' But the fact is, that the word
+[Greek: Suchar], if written in Hebrew letters, would naturally take one
+or other of the two forms which we find in the Talmud, [Hebrew: Sukh'r]
+(Suchar) or [Hebrew: Sykh'r] (Sychar). In other words, the
+transliteration is as exact as it could be. It would no doubt be
+possible to read the former word 'Socher,' and the latter 'Sicher,'
+because the vowels are indeterminate within these limits. But so far as
+identity was possible, we have it here.
+
+(2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of 'Sychar,' but of
+'Ayin-Sychar,' _i.e._, 'the Well of Sychar.'
+
+(3) The 'Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing
+country. This is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of
+the place in the two principal Talmudical passages where it appears,
+_Baba Kamma_ 82b, _Menachoth_ 64b. It is there stated that on one
+occasion, when the lands in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid
+waste by war, and no one knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal
+offering, the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they
+were obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the Well of
+Sychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the interview with the
+Samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn,
+unbroken by boundary or hedge'[136:1]--as it is described by a modern
+traveller; and indeed the prospect before Him suggests to our Lord, as
+we may well suppose, the image which occurs in the conversation with the
+disciples immediately following--'Lift up your eyes, and look on the
+fields; for they are white already to harvest.' [136:2] It is true that
+the Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin-Sychar;'
+but all the circumstances agree. It was just from such a country as this
+(neither too near nor too far distant for the notices) that the
+Pentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency.
+
+The reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge for himself
+whether the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no
+such place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. He will form his own
+opinion whether a writer, who deliberately ignores these facts, because
+they are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything,' is
+likely to form an impartial judgment.
+
+The identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent opinion has
+been tending, is a question of less importance. Notwithstanding the
+difficulty respecting the initial _Ain_ in the latter word, an
+identification which has commended itself to Oriental scholars like
+Ewald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible. I
+venture to suggest that the initial Ain of 'Askar' may be explained by
+supposing the word to be a contraction for _Ayin-Sychar_, the 'Well of
+Sychar.' This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic word
+would furnish another example of a process which is common where one
+language is superposed upon another, _e.g._, Charter-house for
+Chartreuse.
+
+3. The third point to which I called attention [137:1] was the author's
+practice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty. This
+seemed to me to be a very grave offence, which deserved to be condemned
+by all men alike, whatever their opinions might be. And in the present
+instance I considered that the author was especially bound to abstain
+from such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as he
+was otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. Moreover, the
+offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had
+especially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his
+moderation of tone, and for his generous appreciation of the position
+and arguments of his adversaries.
+
+This is our author's reply--
+
+     Dr Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that 'Dr Westcott's honour may
+     safely be left to take care of itself.' It would have been much
+     better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble
+     it by such advocacy. If anything could check just or generous
+     expression, it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot; but
+     nevertheless, I again say, in the most unreserved manner, that
+     neither in this instance, nor in any other, have I had the most
+     distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like Dr
+     Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose
+     earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at
+     any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is
+     by orthodox views in general, and on the Canon in particular, he
+     sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
+     unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements
+     which should be more impartially made [137:2].
+
+I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this
+explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it
+redressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's
+meaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine
+respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet
+reserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,'
+of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,'
+of 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very
+passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with
+yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and
+'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting
+Basilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling
+matter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his
+rebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which
+could only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so
+grievously misrepresented his true meaning.
+
+I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he
+has brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I
+certainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he
+deserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came
+forward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with
+attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have
+been no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed
+with him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant
+'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary readers would
+imagine, that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty. I
+am content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an
+unconscious bias.
+
+In our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument,
+there is one point which seems to call for observation. Of all my
+remarks, the one sentence which I should least have expected to incur
+his displeasure, is the following:--
+
+     Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the
+     first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous
+     [138:2].
+
+I fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own opinion
+into other words. I imagined that he himself wished the second and third
+parts to be regarded as a work of supererogation. Was I altogether
+without ground for this belief? I turn to the concluding paragraph of
+the first part, and I find these words:--
+
+     Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of
+     testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the
+     reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which
+     is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize
+     that, _even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels
+     could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds_, the
+     testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their
+     contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--_would be
+     utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles_ [139:1].
+
+What does this mean, except that even though it should be necessary to
+concede every point against which the author is contending in the second
+and third parts, still the belief in the Gospel miracles is irrational?
+Is the language which I have used at all stronger than our author's own
+on this point? But I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of
+opinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the
+first part [139:2].
+
+For some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely thank the
+author, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with either the
+tone or the substance of the preceding reply. I trust that I have
+already relieved him from the apprehension that I should confine myself
+to 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped that some of the topics in my first
+article might have been laid aside for ever, but his reply has compelled
+me to revert to them. He does me no more than justice when he credits me
+with earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. But it
+seems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more
+intense in my case than in his; for (to say nothing else), as I read
+history, the morality of the coming generations of Englishmen is very
+largely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at
+issue between us. As he has withheld his name, he has deprived me of the
+pleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect. Thus he
+has placed me at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and
+can speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that one who
+has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far
+entitled to every consideration. And, if this had been all, I should
+have entertained and expressed the highest respect for him, however
+faulty his processes might appear to me, and however dangerous his
+results. But, when I observed that the author, not content with ignoring
+the facts and reasonings, went on to impugn the honesty of his
+opponents; when I noticed that again and again the arguments on one side
+of the question were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other
+side were altogether omitted; when I perceived that he denied the
+authenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of every
+reference, which made against him; when in short I saw that, however
+sincere the writer's personal convictions might be, the critical portion
+of the work was stamped throughout with the character of an
+advocate's _ex parte_ statement, I felt that he had forfeited any claim
+to special forbearance. For the rest, I do not wish to be unjust to the
+book, and I am sorry if, while attempting to correct an exceedingly
+false estimate, I have seemed to any one to be so; but I do not see any
+good in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the
+heart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of
+the highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think that so much
+energetic work had been thrown away. If the publication of this book
+shall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most
+momentous subjects, it will have achieved an important result. But I
+would wish to add one caution. No good will ever come from merely
+working on the lines of modern theorists. Perhaps the reader will
+forgive me if I add a few words of explanation, for I do not wish to be
+misunderstood. I should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German
+writers, I used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any
+recent theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it is
+the German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to men of this stamp.
+All diligent students of early Christian history must have derived the
+greatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research,
+and frequently also from the acute analysis, even of writers of the most
+extreme school. But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating
+speculations should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to
+exercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will take the
+pains to read Irenaeus through carefully, endeavouring to enter into his
+historical position in all its bearings, striving to realize what he and
+his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New
+Testament and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all,
+resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines,
+will be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early
+history of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which
+have issued from the German press during the last half century.
+
+
+
+
+V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.
+
+[AUGUST, 1875.]
+
+
+Two names stand out prominently in the Churches of proconsular Asia
+during the age immediately succeeding the Apostles--Polycarp of Smyrna,
+and Papias of Hierapolis. Having given an account of Polycarp in my last
+article, I purpose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These
+two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition.
+Papias, writes Irenaeus, was 'a hearer of John and a companion of
+Polycarp.' [142:1] On the latter point we may frankly accept the
+evidence of Irenaeus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely
+to be misinformed here. But to the former part of the statement
+objections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike; and it
+will be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into
+its credibility. Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St
+John, still his age and country place him in more or less close
+connection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact
+which gives importance to his position and teaching.
+
+Papias wrote a work entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' in
+five books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved,
+chiefly by Irenaeus and Eusebius. The object and contents of this work
+will be discussed hereafter; but it is necessary to quote at once an
+extract which Eusebius has preserved from the preface, since our
+estimate of the date and position of Papias will depend largely on the
+interpretation of its meaning.
+
+Papias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to whom the
+work was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as follows [143:1]:--
+
+     But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my
+     interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and
+     remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing
+     their truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those
+     who have so very much to say ([Greek: tois ta polla legosin]), but
+     in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign
+     commandments, but in those [who record] such as were given from the
+     Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And
+     again, on any occasion when a person came [in my way] who had been
+     a follower of the elders ([Greek: ei de pou kai parekolouthekos tis
+     tois presbuterois elthoi]), I would inquire about the discourses of
+     the elders--what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or
+     by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the
+     Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the
+     disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so
+     much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a
+     living and abiding voice ([Greek: ou gar ta ek ton Biblion tosouton
+     me ophelein hupelambanon, hoson ta para zoses phones kai
+     menouses]).
+
+This passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, though
+Irenaeus calls Papias a hearer of John,
+
+     Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly
+     does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of
+     the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses,
+     that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their
+     friends.
+
+Then follows the extract which I have given; after which Eusebius
+resumes:--
+
+     Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the name of
+     John. The former of these he puts in the same list with Peter and
+     James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly intending
+     the Evangelist; but the second John he mentions after an interval
+     ([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside
+     the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he
+     distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account
+     of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in
+     Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus,
+     each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.
+
+Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the
+author of the Apocalypse, he continues:--
+
+     Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from
+     those who had been their followers ([Greek: ton autois
+     parekolouthekoton]), but says that he himself was an immediate
+     hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them
+     many times in his writings, and records their traditions.
+
+The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers,
+who maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both
+passages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his
+interpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed
+with the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that
+John is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence
+the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,'
+this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper
+name. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle
+and John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from
+inconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion.
+
+But it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenaeus was
+incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support
+to the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of
+Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenaeus does
+not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed
+from any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp
+while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he
+had other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor
+indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that
+he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias
+himself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this
+confusion which Eusebius lays to his charge; and the value of his
+testimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby.
+
+It will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias professes to
+derive the traditions of 'the elders,' with which he illustrated his
+expositions, from two different sources. He refers _first_, to those
+sayings which he had heard from their own lips, and _secondly_, to those
+which he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers.
+What class of persons he intends to include under the designation of
+'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would
+include not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal
+disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other
+words, the term with him is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in
+the first generation. This meaning is entirely accordant with the usage
+of the same title elsewhere. Thus Irenaeus employs it to describe the
+generation to which Papias himself belonged [145:1]. Thus again, in the
+next age, Irenaeus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus [145:2]. And,
+when we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using the term so as to
+include even writers later than Irenaeus, who nevertheless, from their
+comparative antiquity, were to him and his generation authorities as
+regards the traditions and usages of the Church [145:3]. Nor indeed did
+Papias himself invent this usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for
+instance, we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' [145:4];
+where the meaning is defined by the list which follows, including Old
+Testament worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this
+sense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very nearly to
+our own usage of 'fathers,' when we speak of the Fathers of the Church,
+the Fathers of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Fathers, and the like.
+
+Thus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not
+office, but authority and antiquity [146:1]. It is equivalent to 'the
+ancient' or 'primitive worthies' [146:2]. But at its last occurrence in
+the extract of Papias, where it is applied to the second John, this is
+apparently not the case. Here it seems to be an official title,
+designating a member of the order of the presbyterate. Though modern
+critics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word [Greek:
+presbuteros] in the same context, it would create no difficulty to the
+contemporaries of Papias, to whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a
+common mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,'
+and to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself.
+Instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two
+senses, official and non-official, in the same passage [146:3].
+
+Of the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, we can only
+name with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter John; but as regards
+these Eusebius is explicit. To them the Apostle John may perhaps be
+added, as we have seen, on the authority of Irenaeus. Beyond these three
+names we have no authority for extending the list, though there is a
+possibility that in very early life he may have met with others, more
+especially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in these
+parts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from the words of
+his preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal
+disciples of the Lord had not been great. It was probably confined to
+the earlier part of his life, before he had any thought of writing his
+book; and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and
+fragmentary. When he set himself to collect traditions for this special
+purpose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the information
+collected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders.
+
+We are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias; but, as a
+preliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say something
+about the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in
+connection with him. In my article on Polycarp, I pointed out that
+recent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom
+several years farther back, and that some chronological difficulties
+attaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed [147:1]. A
+similar difficulty meets us in the case of Papias; and it disappears in
+like manner, as I hope to show, before the light of criticism. The
+_Chronicon Paschale_, which was compiled in the first half of the
+seventh century [147:2], represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about
+the same time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in
+the year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date his
+birth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to a very
+advanced age. But there is a certain difficulty [147:3] in supposing
+that one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted
+with so many personal disciples of our Lord. No earlier writer however
+mentions the date, or even the fact, of the martyrdom--not even
+Eusebius, who has much to say both about Papias and about the
+martyrologies of this epoch; and this absence of confirmation renders
+the statement highly suspicious. I believe that I have traced the error
+to its source, which indeed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition
+of the passage in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the
+History of Eusebius [148:1], will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale.
+
+
+        CHRONICON PASCHALE.           |        EUSEBIUS.
+                                      |
+In the 133rd year of the Ascension    | At this time _very severe
+of the Lord _very severe persecutions | persecutions having disturbed_
+having dismayed_ ([Greek:             | ([Greek: anathorubesanton])
+anasobesanton]) _Asia_, many were     | _Asia, Polycarp_ is perfected by
+_martyred_, among whom _Polycarp_.... | _martyrdom_ ... and in the same
+                                      | writing concerning him were
+                                      | attached other martyrdoms ...
+  *       *       *       *       *   | and next in order ([Greek: hexes])
+                                      | memoirs of _others_ ([Greek:
+                                      | allon]) also, who were martyred
+and in _Pergamum others_ ([Greek:     | _in Pergamum_, a city of Asia,
+heteroi]), among whom was PAPIAS and  | _are extant_ ([Greek: pheretai]),
+many others ([Greek: alloi]), whose   | Carpus and PAPYLUS and a woman
+martyrdoms _are extant_ ([Greek:      | Agathonice....
+pherontai]) also in writing....       |
+                                      |
+  *       *       *       *       *   |  *       *       *       *       *
+                                      |
+_Justin_, a philosopher of the        | And at the same time with these
+word received among us ([Greek: tou   | ([Greek: kata toutous]) _Justin_,
+kath' hemas logou]), _having          | also who was mentioned shortly
+presented a second book in defence of | before by us, _having presented
+the doctrines received among us_ to   | a second book in defence of the
+Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus,  | doctrines received among us_ to
+the emperors, _is decorated_ not      | the aforementioned rulers, _is
+long after _with the divine_ crown of | decorated with divine martyrdom_,
+_martyrdom, Crescens_ accusing (?)    | a philosopher _Crescens_ ...
+him.                                  | having hatched the plot against
+                                      | him, etc.
+
+The sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual phrases,
+alike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived his information
+from the History of Eusebius [148:2]. But either he or his transcriber
+has substituted a well known name, _Papias_, for a more obscure name,
+_Papylus_. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in
+his copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change.
+It is only necessary to write the two names in uncials, [Greek: PAPIAS
+PAPYLOS], to judge of its likelihood [149:1]. This explanation indeed is
+so obvious, when the passages are placed side by side, that one can only
+feel surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the
+martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they
+are), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the
+author of _Supernatural Religion_, that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom
+under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of
+the Apostles' [149:2].
+
+Thus we are left to infer the date of Papias entirely from the notices
+of his friends and contemporaries; but these will assist us to a very
+fair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at least two personal
+disciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter John. If we suppose that
+they were among the youngest disciples of our Lord, and lived to old
+age, we shall be doing no violence to probability. Obviously there were
+in their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with
+them possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or later,
+and have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their intercourse
+with Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85-95, or thereabouts. (2)
+He was acquainted with the daughters of Philip, who dwelt with their
+father at Hierapolis, where they died in old age. Whether this Philip
+was the Apostle, as the earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as
+others suppose [149:3], is a question of little moment for my immediate
+purpose--the date of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be
+the same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to
+Jerusalem, A.D. 58, apparently as already grown up to womanhood [149:4].
+On the former supposition they would belong to the same generation, and
+probably would be about the same age. As a very rough approximation, we
+may place their birth about A.D. 30, and their death about A.D. 100-110.
+(3) Papias is called by Irenaeus a 'companion' of Polycarp, whose life
+(as we saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 [150:1]. The word admits a
+certain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something
+approaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices affecting
+his relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of
+the two. At all events Eusebius discusses him immediately after Ignatius
+and Quadratus and Clement, _i.e._ in connection with the fathers who
+flourished in the reign of Trajan or before; while the notice of
+Polycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history, where it
+occurs in close proximity with Justin Martyr [150:2]. This arrangement
+indicates at all events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having
+been martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his surviving
+to so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have inserted his
+account of him in this place. If it is necessary to put the result of
+these incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias
+was probably born about A.D. 60-70.
+
+But his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of
+his personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing of the remote past
+[150:3]. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical
+records had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be
+wrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or
+even later. Our author places it at least as late as the middle of the
+second century [150:4].
+
+The opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at this early
+date, and had conversed with these first disciples, are not without
+importance, even though his own mental calibre may have been small. But
+the speculations of the Tuebingen school have invested them with a
+fictitious interest. Was he, or was he not, as these critics affirm, a
+Judaic Christian of strongly Ebionite tendencies? The arguments which
+have been urged in defence of this position are as follows:--
+
+1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian. The
+Chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with
+Eusebius, who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the
+Apostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense. This tendency
+appears also in the one passage which Irenaeus quotes from Papias. But
+the answer to this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception,
+with the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears
+combined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found in Justin
+Martyr, in Irenaeus, in Tertullian [151:1]. It is found even in the
+unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas [151:2],
+which is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism
+to everything Judaic.
+
+2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius does not mention
+his quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline writings of the Canon. I
+have already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the
+'Silence of Eusebius' [151:3]. I have shown that Papias might have
+quoted St Paul many times, and by name, while nevertheless Eusebius
+would not have recorded the fact, because it was not required by his
+principles or consistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that
+this interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where we
+are able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly
+wrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it would most certainly
+conduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the Ignatian Epistles
+was an Ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts
+of the case [152:1].
+
+3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because he quoted
+the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first place, however, the
+premiss is highly questionable. Eusebius does not say, as in other
+cases, that Papias 'uses' this Gospel, or that he 'sets down facts from'
+it [152:2], but he writes that Papias relates 'a story about a woman
+accused of many sins before the Lord' (doubtless the same which is found
+in our copies of St John's Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), and he adds 'which
+the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' [152:3]. This does not
+imply that Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it
+there. Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which
+Eusebius alludes, 'from oral tradition'([Greek: ek paradoseos
+agraphou]). But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion
+does not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is
+quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, though these two
+fathers accepted our four Gospels alone as canonical [152:4]. It may
+even be quoted, as Jerome asserts that it is, and as the author himself
+believes [152:5], by the writer of the Ignatian letters, a most
+determined anti-Ebionite. If Papias had cited the Gospel according to
+the Hebrews only once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because
+he made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena; whereas
+he would have passed over any number of quotations from the Canonical
+Gospels in silence.
+
+As all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have failed, we are
+led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other
+quarters.
+
+And here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias was bishop of
+Hierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. At all events he
+seems to have lived there from youth; for his acquaintance with the
+daughters of Philip, who resided in this city, must have belonged to the
+earlier period of his life. Now Papias was a designation of the
+Hierapolitan Zeus [153:1]; and owing to its association with this god,
+it appears to have been a favourite name with the people of Hierapolis
+and the neighbourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions
+belonging to this city and district [153:2]. In one instance we read of
+a 'Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name 'Zeus-begotten' being
+apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the Phrygian word [153:3].
+We find mention also in Galen of a physician belonging to the
+neighbouring city of Laodicea, who bore this name [153:4]. Altogether it
+points to a heathen rather than a Jewish origin.
+
+But more important than his name, from which the inference, though
+probable, is still precarious [153:5], are his friendships and
+associations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of Polycarp [153:6].
+The opinions of Polycarp have been considered in it previous article
+[153:7]; and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of Ebionite
+leanings in his case is not only unsupported, but cannot be maintained
+except by an entire disregard of the evidence, which is of different
+kinds, and all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias
+therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence,
+that his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his
+friend's. Moreover, the five books of Papias were read by Irenaeus and
+by Eusebius, as well as by later writers; and, being occupied in
+interpretation, they must have contained ample evidence of the author's
+opinions on the main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the
+Catholic--the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle Paul,
+the conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore important to
+observe that Irenaeus quotes him with the highest respect, as an
+orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of Apostolic tradition.
+Eusebius again, though he is repelled by his millennarianism, calling
+him 'a man of very mean capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage
+him in every way, has yet no charge to bring against him on these most
+important points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last.
+Anastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half of the
+sixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox, according
+to the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five General
+Councils, had the work of Papias in his hands. He mentions the author by
+name twice; and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the
+highest admiration. Papias is to him 'the great,' 'the illustrious'
+[154:1].
+
+But indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of
+Papias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that Papias 'employed
+testimonies from the First Epistle of John.' How far this involves a
+recognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall have to consider hereafter. At
+present it is sufficient to say that this Epistle belongs to the class
+of writings in our Canon which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism.
+
+It may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. But
+unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one
+form of Christian belief--or unbelief either.
+
+The work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of
+the Lord,' or (more strictly), 'of Dominical Oracles' [155:1]. But what
+was its nature and purport? Shall we understand the word 'exposition' to
+mean 'enarration,' or 'explanation'? Was the author's main object to
+construct a new Evangelical narrative, or to interpret and explain one
+or more already in circulation? This is a vital point in its bearing on
+the relation of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring
+what Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly assumes
+the former alternative without attempting to discuss the question. Yet,
+if this assumption is wrong, a very substantial part of his argument is
+gone.
+
+The following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_ towards this question:--
+
+     This work was less based on written records of the teaching of
+     Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from
+     tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his
+     contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any
+     written works with which he was acquainted [155:2].
+
+I venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his information
+that Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with
+which he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of
+this writer which have been hitherto published.
+
+After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been
+given above, our author resumes:--
+
+     It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels,
+     he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely
+     nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was
+     evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the
+     discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously
+     existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated
+     by his own words, and by the title of his work, [Greek: Logion
+     kuriakon exegesis] [156:1].
+
+'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to
+believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is
+made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has
+appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar he shall go.
+
+What then is the natural interpretation of the title 'Exposition of
+Oracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a
+preconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else
+but explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the
+original word [Greek: exegesis] might, in other connections, be used in
+reference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same
+which it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words,
+it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has
+an exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when,
+speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces
+into his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine
+Scriptures' ([Greek: graphon theion exegeseis]), or when he says that
+Irenaeus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions
+of Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is
+used more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as
+we shall see presently, by Irenaeus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of
+Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his
+context shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1].
+
+'The title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the
+kind which our author assumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not
+suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of
+an existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more
+strongly, when from the title we turn to the words of the preface;
+'_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along with my
+interpretations_ ([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermeneiais]) to all that I
+learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.'
+Here the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the
+unambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important
+point. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something.
+Of what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the
+interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned
+subsequently, being introduced to illustrate the interpretations. The
+words which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,'
+which (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The
+expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one
+meaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the
+passage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following
+sequence.--(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the
+preceding passage, for it is assumed in the extract itself. (2) The
+interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object
+of the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows,
+were subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a
+slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong
+attraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and
+illustrate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of
+language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations
+[158:1].
+
+A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his
+preface is accidentally preserved by Irenaeus [158:2]. This father is
+discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the
+saying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of
+the fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
+my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally,
+and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of
+flesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by
+appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels--the
+one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those
+who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke
+xiv. 13, 14); the other the assurance that those who have forsaken
+houses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now _in
+this present time_ (Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30)
+[158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by
+an earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises
+to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they
+have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of
+the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance.
+
+     As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that
+     they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those
+     times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow,
+     each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand
+     branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each
+     twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand
+     grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty
+     measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold
+     of one of their clusters, another shall cry, "I am a better
+     cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain
+     of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things
+     Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an
+     ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books,
+     for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying,
+     'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when
+     Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such
+     growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord
+     said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].'
+
+I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in
+this story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, as it passed
+through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my
+purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the
+preface of Papias would lead us to expect: _first_, the saying or
+sayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels: _secondly_, the
+interpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial;
+_thirdly_, the illustrative story, derived from oral tradition, which
+relates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along
+with his interpretation' [159:1].
+
+So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the
+disparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently asserted by our
+author and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly
+explained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a
+different aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works
+commenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and
+written Gospels, but between oral and written _aids to interpretation_.
+Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or
+John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to
+their authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than
+the capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his
+critical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have
+been highly important.
+
+The leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute a correct
+narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false
+exegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The
+opening passage of Irenaeus supplies the answer. This father describes
+the Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek:
+ta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said'
+([Greek: exegetai kakoi ton kalos eiremenon ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we
+have the very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenaeus
+after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism.
+If, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the
+Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic
+doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended
+in the same way as Irenaeus, though probably to a greater degree. The
+Gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were
+almost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenaeus and
+Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as
+recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians,
+Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same
+way. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic
+literature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent
+the work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very
+appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when
+he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the
+Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years.
+Basilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1]
+(A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion
+in Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla
+legousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching
+foreign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing
+this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus,
+as from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false
+interpretations of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from
+several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general
+character of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria
+quotes it under the title of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible
+too, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias
+wrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his
+school. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism
+was rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent.
+
+This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from
+the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And
+it alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that
+Eusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for
+otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without
+expostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies
+these 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges
+him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand
+report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the
+account of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set
+down in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value
+outside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation
+repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same
+events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the
+language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about
+which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's
+record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his
+one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any
+false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book
+to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]
+
+But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,'
+can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere
+supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives
+written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the
+obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for
+his work.
+
+An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been
+maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not
+our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the
+author of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will
+be necessary in refutation of it.
+
+The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by
+St Mark, is as follows:--
+
+     And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter
+     of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,
+     without however recording in order what was either said or done by
+     Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;
+     but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted His
+     instructions to the needs [of his hearers] but had no design of
+     giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [_or_ discourses]
+     ([Greek: all' ouch 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.
+
+Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark,
+the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is
+apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately
+before.
+
+Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that
+Papias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the
+Evangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena
+in it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place,
+it is not a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are
+not recorded in _strict chronological order_. These two phenomena are
+explained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were
+necessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St
+Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary
+and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher
+having no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could
+not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge
+for an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before
+him some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings
+or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those
+which he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he
+desires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel,
+as I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the
+author of the Muratorian Canon.
+
+This is the plain and simple inference from the passage; and we have
+only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of
+our St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied.
+As regards _completeness_, it is sufficient to call attention to the
+fact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and
+above all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards
+_order_ again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a
+'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events
+exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be
+strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the
+narrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our
+Lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by
+notices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if
+the author had derived his information in the way reported by the
+Presbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any
+important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it
+'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement'
+[165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but
+if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of
+Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant
+transpositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to
+bring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how
+far this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no
+doubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person
+obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself
+describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall
+not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of
+'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which
+refers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not
+require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed
+however, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the
+other two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in
+view was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the
+Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another
+Synoptic narrative, but _from St John_? I shall return to this question
+at a later point in these investigations.
+
+Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present
+Gospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by
+the Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias
+becomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The
+novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the
+assumption.
+
+Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that
+he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which
+the work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the
+present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it' [166:1]. But
+others are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with
+this difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They
+will venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest,
+indication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the
+remains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date
+which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenaeus was already grown
+up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that
+Irenaeus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of
+Papias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to
+Christian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of Papias.
+They will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and
+holding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the
+conviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the
+title-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven
+and earth for analogies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry
+their investigations further, and discover that Irenaeus not only
+possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present
+ending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part
+of the original work. They will then pass on to the Muratorian author,
+who probably wrote some years before Irenaeus, and, remembering that
+Irenaeus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they
+will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of
+the Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with
+Irenaeus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the
+traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is
+mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two
+Evangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously
+questioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria
+and Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also
+possessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of
+testimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a
+loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing
+in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently
+substituted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and
+consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was
+received by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt
+against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite
+commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.'
+
+Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale
+denunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of
+his own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question
+of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of
+the _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian
+Fathers] _ever_ indulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same
+time to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent
+criticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of
+Irenaeus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2].
+They will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in
+Dionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' anticipates by nearly
+sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the
+differences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse
+[167:3].
+
+From St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of
+this Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a
+case of mistaken identity.
+
+After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:--
+
+     But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made [by
+     Papias]: 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the
+     Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he
+     could.'
+
+The assumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the
+authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in
+which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded
+as highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been
+wide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove
+conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just
+as the [Greek: hos ephen] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that
+it was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence
+of a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged
+edge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind
+in any criticisms which the passages suggest.
+
+In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each
+man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no
+authoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be
+correct. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the
+time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his
+book, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but
+'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the
+tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything
+depends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He
+does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by
+others:--
+
+     Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past
+     tense, [Greek: hermeneuse], as contrasting the time when it was
+     necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period
+     when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no
+     longer necessary for them to do so [169:1].
+
+Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as
+follows:--
+
+     The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is
+     at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was
+     requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no
+     recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse.
+     There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion
+     that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version,
+     although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of
+     some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,
+     imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2].
+
+Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard
+pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous
+use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are
+perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without
+alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether
+obscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact
+is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes
+'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the
+necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it
+implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias
+wrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no
+respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not
+from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only
+infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past
+tense.
+
+But, if a Greek St Matthew existed in the time of Papias, we are
+forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose
+that it was any other than our St Matthew. As in the case of St Mark, so
+here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of
+improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem
+verbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a
+mistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the
+improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of
+the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would
+be.
+
+The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as
+regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does
+not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not
+have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know
+exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this
+fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact
+relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to
+the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our
+First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been
+translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more
+than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous
+Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been
+nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may
+have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.
+Or on the other hand he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the
+mistake which some later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel
+according to the Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the
+absence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile
+we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to
+the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself.
+
+Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias
+speaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's
+life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is
+urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek:
+xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this
+explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked
+upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement,
+of the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how
+or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give
+this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This
+hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has
+found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have
+been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by
+disengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond
+to this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without
+its attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but
+hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its
+acceptance.
+
+Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases
+largely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our
+actual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same
+sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely
+influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language
+is only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection
+of discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who
+apparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at
+all. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias
+expresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have
+expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our
+New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents
+were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided
+too is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be
+swayed by any bias in this direction.
+
+Indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties. In
+the first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such
+'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers
+from Pantaenus and Irenaeus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of
+St Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in
+Hebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it
+is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so
+as to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and
+as our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the
+more important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew
+St Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of
+discourses.
+
+Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis.
+Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on
+grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that
+Papias mentions only the _sayings_ of Christ, not because St Matthew
+recorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with
+these, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the
+great storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however
+think that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek:
+logoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia]
+('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are
+expressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of
+Antioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the
+Oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of
+the Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which
+occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the
+Gospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges
+that 'however much the signification [of the expression 'the oracles,'
+[Greek: ta logia]] became afterwards extended, it was not then at all
+applied to doings as well as sayings'; and again, that 'there is no
+linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period,
+to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which were
+oracular or divine [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must
+involve one or both of these two assumptions; _first_, that books which
+were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called
+oracles, unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings;
+_secondly_, that the Gospel of St Matthew in particular could not at
+this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike are
+contradicted by facts.
+
+The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St Paul, for
+instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews, that they
+had the keeping of the 'oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we suppose
+that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this
+expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis,
+of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them
+as professed to give the direct sayings of God? Would he, or would he
+not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1
+Cor. xi. 8 sq), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq), of
+Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 sq)? Does not the main part of his argument
+in the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend much more on the narrative of
+God's dealings than of His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle
+to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God'
+(v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the
+divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct
+precepts of the Old Testament. But, if the language of the New Testament
+writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their
+contemporary Philo. In one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9,
+'The Lord God is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in
+another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in
+Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him
+should kill him' [174:1]. From this and other passages it is clear that
+with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly
+Clement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have
+studied the oracles of God,' [174:2] and immediately he recalls to their
+mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of which the
+point is not any divine precept or prediction, but _the example of
+Moses_. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who
+'pervert the oracles of the Lord.' [174:3] How much he included under
+this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not
+write [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta
+logia] 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in
+Papias--but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,'
+which form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker.
+Again Irenaeus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current
+among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta
+kuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning,
+yet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as
+the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a
+saying, but an incident in the Gospels--the healing of the ruler's
+daughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to
+sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find
+that the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,'
+while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the
+'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly
+Origen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the
+oracles of God' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two
+passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is
+contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St
+Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,'
+[175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages
+might be largely extended.
+
+This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully
+substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But
+our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias
+himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If
+Papias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather
+'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include
+narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from
+the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the
+contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely
+with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in
+other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the
+sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the
+corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its
+use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father,
+as we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order
+the things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou
+Christou e lechthenta e prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within
+the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our
+Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who
+consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of
+giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch
+hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]). Here the obvious
+inference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is
+equivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou e lechthenta e prachthenta]
+the first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause
+corresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however,
+following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the
+oracles,' explains it differently [176:1].
+
+     There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: e lechthenta
+     e prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses,
+     but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly
+     distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of
+     what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a
+     collection of his discourses [176:2].
+
+This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the
+extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same
+context; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the
+extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested
+by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading
+idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St
+Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in
+question is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek:
+taxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If
+our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a
+contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work
+relating sayings only; and [Greek: logion], as bringing out this idea,
+would demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hosper ton logion
+suntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely
+subordinated to other words in the clause.
+
+The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia])
+can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai])
+in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles'
+([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical
+Scriptures' (_Dominicae Scripturae_, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])--an
+expression occurring in Irenaeus and in Dionysius of Corinth
+[177:1]--or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any
+difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the _second_ of the two
+assumptions which I mentioned above--namely, that no Evangelical record
+could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the
+use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture.
+This assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew
+is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the
+quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural
+reference--'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author
+puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt
+to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the
+proper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the
+only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two
+quotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew
+could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words,
+it is a _petitio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on
+any showing, was written before the date which our author himself
+assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70,
+or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the
+later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century.
+If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it
+could _a fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.
+
+
+
+
+VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.
+
+_Continued._
+
+[OCTOBER, 1875.]
+
+
+It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone
+survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew
+and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different.
+Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our
+author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer.
+I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1],
+that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that
+the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles
+which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2],
+while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes
+a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a
+test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only
+pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give,
+traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is
+not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer
+to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by
+name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of
+times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel
+not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would
+not have cared to record the fact.
+
+All this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is
+unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he
+does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am
+quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it
+is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction
+which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between
+_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_
+the Gospels on the other?
+
+At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He
+quotes a passage from my article, in which it is directly stated
+[179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances
+where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical
+Scriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes
+anonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not
+mention the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts--
+
+     That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the
+     Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by
+     Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations,
+     might be set down as much to oversight as intention [179:3].
+
+Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own
+argument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the
+single direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New
+Testament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is
+the single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus.
+What would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat
+for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the
+Alps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without
+having noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could
+have overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked
+anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any
+omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any
+fairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care,
+by his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed
+quotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other
+supposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous
+and direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven
+Epistles of St Paul in Irenaeus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a
+word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence
+can be placed on the author's use of language.
+
+But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for
+discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment,
+but I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he
+finds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary
+sense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him,
+that under certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a
+particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever
+we are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances, he acts
+in precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes,
+but systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and
+the Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and
+however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he
+adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of
+these books.
+
+But our author asks [180:2],
+
+     Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias
+     known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he
+     would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded
+     their information? And is it either possible or permissible to
+     suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information
+     regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius
+     would have omitted to quote it?
+
+To the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible
+to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only
+possible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite
+alternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the
+motive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any
+preference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for
+supposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St
+Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they
+were connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an
+exhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted. On
+the contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we
+take the passage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference
+is that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage
+where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another
+authority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which
+he found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of
+the presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the
+divergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring
+from the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or
+might not, have been able to communicate information respecting it,
+beyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared
+to repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or
+might not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him
+to repeat his information, assuming he had received any from them.
+
+As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed
+surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius
+as he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and
+impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself
+have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this
+matter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of
+the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had
+reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I
+should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an
+illustration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John
+the disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root
+out that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and
+long before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that
+effect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it;
+because Irenaeus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and
+Eusebius does not allude to the fact.
+
+But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his
+knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it'
+[182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have
+cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should
+have arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing
+altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed
+by Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have
+said, as Irenaeus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay
+upon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia'
+[182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were
+to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the
+French who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the
+genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been
+altogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the
+Gospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later
+generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have
+communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not,
+there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage.
+
+So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I
+drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But
+elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he
+boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:--
+
+     The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of
+     Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both
+     from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When
+     any ancient writer 'has something to _tell about_' the Gospels,
+     'any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record
+     it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this
+     work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1].
+
+What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have
+quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the
+Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing
+on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of
+that Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting
+its composition?
+
+So again a few pages later, he writes--
+
+     Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were
+     used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these
+     was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however,
+     record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the
+     legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is
+     that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2].
+
+Yes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording
+any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of
+times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares
+to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words
+would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference
+which will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores
+another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and
+practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets
+down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but,
+as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our
+four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his
+procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note
+every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he
+deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical
+Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single
+instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenaeus, he
+singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas
+[184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very
+considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?
+
+But the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the
+unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two
+meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several
+instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last
+edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying
+the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he
+writes of Dionysius [184:3]--
+
+        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION [184:4].
+                                    |
+It is certain that, had Dionysius   | It is certain that had Dionysius
+_mentioned_ books of the New        | _said anything about_ books
+Testament, Eusebius would, as       | of the New Testament, Eusebius
+usual, have stated the fact.        | would, as usual, have stated the
+                                    | fact.
+
+And again of Papias [184:5]--
+
+        EARLIER EDITIONS.           |      LAST EDITION.
+                                    |
+Eusebius, who never fails to        | Eusebius, who never fails to
+_enumerate the works of the New     | _state what the Fathers say about
+Testament to which the Fathers      | the works of_ the New Testament,
+refer_, does not pretend that       | does not mention that Papias
+Papias knew either the Third or     | knew either the Third or Fourth
+Fourth Gospels.                     | Gospels.
+
+These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression,
+'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by
+the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.
+
+Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly
+ignored. Thus he still writes--
+
+     The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not
+     mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth
+     Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].
+
+I have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on
+this side.
+
+Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus--
+
+     It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say
+     particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by
+     Eusebius [185:2].
+
+I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is
+all the other way.
+
+I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may
+indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or
+even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the
+writer himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of
+Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel
+confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others,
+they must be ultimately accepted in the main.
+
+The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the
+use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one
+way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.
+
+Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have
+been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into
+less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to
+five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we
+find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.
+
+As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate.
+They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they
+will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and
+Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in
+the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's
+record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the
+author of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not
+warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the
+purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the
+overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears
+to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least
+there is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently
+be referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It
+must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been
+unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of
+Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at
+this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent
+document [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence
+derivable from Papias himself.
+
+The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have
+a combination of circumstantial evidence, which is greater than we had
+any right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a
+very high degree of probability.
+
+1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 'has employed
+testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from
+that of Peter.' The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily
+carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship
+in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree
+of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged
+facts.
+
+But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is
+not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection
+between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a
+preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a
+commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the
+two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written
+or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of
+disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and
+circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of
+correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the
+Evangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden
+transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and
+looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--'He that saw, it hath
+borne record ... that _ye_ might believe.' 'These things are written that
+_ye_ might believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we
+may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the
+Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could
+guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of
+the last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders--'This
+is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
+things, and _we know_ that his testimony is true.' After the narrative
+is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First
+Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with
+the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles
+proper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle's name. It
+begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this
+hypothesis) has preceded--'That which was from the beginning, which we
+have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our
+hands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard
+declare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of
+the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by
+associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the
+authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he
+changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name--'I write.' The
+opening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is
+explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the
+Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the
+main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of
+Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the
+Epistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is
+illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came
+forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so
+much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this
+point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would
+attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power.
+
+This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the
+Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is
+strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved.
+The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written
+about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more
+than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage
+relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.
+
+     The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage
+     describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins
+     with the closing sentence in the description of the Second
+     Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: 'At which however he
+     was present, and so he set them down.'
+
+     'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.'
+     The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the
+     Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he
+     compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither did
+     _he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down
+     incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his
+     narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues--
+
+     'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal)
+     disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his
+     fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for
+     three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been
+     revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of
+     the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own
+     name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes
+     suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various
+     elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the
+     Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer,
+     since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit,
+     concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His
+     intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in
+     despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the
+     magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder
+     then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle
+     ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we
+     have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have
+     handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows
+     himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a
+     recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.'
+
+     After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous
+     writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_
+     Epistles of St John as received in the Church.
+
+I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with
+Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the
+account which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel
+[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account;
+the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have
+been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the
+results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be
+regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to
+ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical
+insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.
+But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.
+The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and
+Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some
+earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript
+in which it occupied this position.
+
+But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius
+respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his
+earlier editions:--
+
+     As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we
+     must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
+     some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
+     these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
+     a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
+     so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds
+     [191:1].
+
+In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to
+produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and
+I emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can
+test gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not
+proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.
+In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my
+article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.
+
+Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he
+has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted
+above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I
+offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion
+here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.;
+Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:--
+
+     The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note
+     relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the
+     First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which
+     he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_,
+     which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by
+     Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch
+     unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But
+     no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and
+     unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author
+     speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations
+     from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.
+
+I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St
+Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal;
+almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the
+resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies
+in his preface:--
+
+     I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p.
+     483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I
+     used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of
+     Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I
+     trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].
+
+Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the
+words:--
+
+     Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the
+     Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more
+     definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions
+     [192:2].
+
+But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as
+elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he
+leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to
+c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately
+ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and
+very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was
+quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were
+meant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to
+the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The
+charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which
+no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own
+explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he
+regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled
+me to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted
+in these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by
+early writers.
+
+2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius
+supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.
+The extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are
+all the more important because they are incidental. In the words, 'What
+was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or
+by John or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in
+which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this
+order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural
+order, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these
+four hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold
+in the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic
+Evangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said
+indeed that the position assigned to the name of John by Papias in his
+enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote
+a Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so
+important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this
+argument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account
+can be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 'in
+order of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and
+John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James
+here mentioned is the Lord's brother) at all events next but one. This
+would have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any
+Judaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is
+imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it
+is a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and
+associated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom
+alone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of
+John and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis,
+it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition.
+
+Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our
+Lord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any
+intermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as
+'coming from the Truth's self' [193:1] ([Greek: ap' autes tes
+aletheias]). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is confined
+to the Fourth Gospel.
+
+3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenaeus, we meet with other evidence
+pointing to the same result. I refer to a passage with which the readers
+of these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to
+it more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its
+connection with Papias. Irenaeus writes [194:2]:--
+
+     As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed
+     worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy
+     the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the
+     brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be
+     seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say]
+     moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of
+     them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth
+     sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the
+     first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall
+     dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that
+     therefore our Lord has said, 'In my Father's abode are many
+     mansions' ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for
+     all things are of God, who giveth to all their appropriate
+     dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto
+     all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy.
+     And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who
+     are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The
+     presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the
+     arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they
+     advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son,
+     and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His
+     work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 'for He must
+     reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc. [194:3]
+
+I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this
+passage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are
+mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference
+to our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel are attributed to the elders
+who are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that 'it
+is unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of
+Papias,' He urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of
+presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of
+Irenaeus may with equal right be ascribed' [195:1]; in another, that
+'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
+exegesis of his own day' [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient
+to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists
+whom Irenaeus recognized; to the other, that when Irenaeus wrote there
+were no 'disciples of the Apostles' living, so that he could have used
+the present tense in speaking of them.
+
+This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance.
+Critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the
+presbyters in Irenaeus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter
+may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into
+the account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence
+the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This
+caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without
+limitation. The reports in Irenaeus are of two kinds. In some cases he
+repeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives
+his information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is
+prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall
+generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though
+there may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenaeus is
+most commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions
+of the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral
+teaching; for he writes, 'The presbyter used to say,' 'The presbyter
+would entertain us with his discourse,' 'The old man, the disciple of
+the Apostles, used to dispute' [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the
+passage before us he employs the present tense, 'As the elders say,'
+'The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say,' he is clearly
+referring to some _document_. No one would write, 'Coleridge maintains,'
+or 'Pitt declares,' unless he had in view some work or speech or
+biographical notice of the person thus quoted.
+
+We may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us Irenaeus
+is citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at
+issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether
+this book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the
+supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to
+my position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of
+the same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons
+combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to
+Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he
+himself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural passages are
+interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the
+interpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his
+Expositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological
+topics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are
+limited by the language, which confines our search to written documents.
+So far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenaeus, no Christian
+work which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at
+the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, 'The elders,
+the disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The connection with a previous
+passage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the
+thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenaeus gives the
+direct reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in
+the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are
+now concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these
+two passages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us
+in answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction.
+(i) The subject of the two passages is the same. They both treat of the
+future kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view
+as a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the
+authorities in the two passages are described in similar terms. In the
+first passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw
+John, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told that
+'Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not
+clear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or
+the class to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he
+represents. Since Irenaeus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John,
+this latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable
+as the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question
+at issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in the
+opening as 'the elders' simply, and at the close as 'the elders, the
+disciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second
+passage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description, as
+if they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the
+persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The
+subject is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it
+extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion
+starts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about drinking the fruit
+of the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders,
+recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal
+interpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the
+believers. Irenaeus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell
+the reign of peace on God's Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This
+leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of
+Israel and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are
+interpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth.
+Creation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be
+inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah
+lxvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains the
+interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying concerning the
+many mansions in His Father's house. A few lines lower down Irenaeus
+refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he
+had started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends.
+
+These seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to
+Papias. And probably the two passages which I have been considering do
+not stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenaeus
+writes [198:2]:--
+
+     Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is
+     written 'And God planted a paradise....;' and he was cast out
+     thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also
+     the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were
+     translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for
+     righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was
+     carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the
+     end of all things ([Greek: heos sunteleias]), preluding immortality.
+
+On this passage our author remarks:--
+
+     It seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of
+     the Apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters
+     the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v.
+     36. Sec.Sec. 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1].
+
+With this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is nothing
+whatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am obliged to join issue.
+It seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there
+is the description of the authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the
+Apostles,' which exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own
+preface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This
+latter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which
+strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenaeus.
+The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a
+terrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world,
+to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenaeus
+says, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom
+these two respectively are types; their translation preludes the
+immortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second passage where
+paradise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the
+'many mansions' in the Father's house. But it is clear from this latter
+passage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted
+must have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position
+there assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom
+does not explain itself, and must have required some previous
+discussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy
+himself with this subject?
+
+The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we
+have seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his
+'Hexaemeron' [200:2] that 'the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated
+the sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the
+Church of Christ.' They 'said that there was a certain _spiritual_
+paradise' [200:3]. Among these 'more ancient interpreters,' of whom he
+gives a list, he names 'the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of
+John the Evangelist, and Irenaeus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated
+together as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of
+the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to
+these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is
+impossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression 'the
+delight of the paradise,' in the saying of the elders reported by
+Irenaeus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the
+Prince of Tyre is addressed, 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise
+of God;' and that Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom
+he had previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their
+views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 'where
+God seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from
+heaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the 'stones
+of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards
+quotes in illustration our Lord's words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan
+as lightning fall from heaven' [201:1]. 'See,' he concludes, 'we have
+heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of
+delight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii.
+16)'
+
+From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the
+Apocalypse, bearing the names of Oecumenius and Arethas, which was
+published by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On
+Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of
+St Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there
+was a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man,
+the other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds--
+
+     Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly
+     hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago
+     cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as
+     Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst
+     of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because
+     'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the
+     coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more
+     completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers,
+     especially of Papias ([Greek: kai pateron paradosis kai Papiou]), a
+     successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse
+     with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning
+     the war in these express words: 'It so befell that their array,'
+     that is, their warlike enterprise, 'came to nought; for the great
+     dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil,
+     was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his
+     angels' [201:3].
+
+I turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that 'the above-mentioned
+interpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the
+teaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the
+Ophites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the
+ground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the
+woman, the whole race of mankind had been born' [202:1]. This notice
+again confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of
+Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus
+everything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of
+ancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it
+has at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings
+of the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenaeus, must be
+attributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenaeus cites by name in
+the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add
+my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of
+Irenaeus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the
+exegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the
+eyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially
+Irenaeus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony
+to the debt of Irenaeus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by
+early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to
+concern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the
+obligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they
+had all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work,
+tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for
+word, from Irenaeus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not
+acknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which
+Hippolytus takes with his master Irenaeus, might well have been taken by
+Irenaeus himself with his predecessor Papias.
+
+4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story concerning
+a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and he adds that it is
+'contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'
+
+The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken
+in adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel,
+vii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope,
+the _Codex Bezae_, the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in
+sin.' In the _Apostolic Constitutions_ [203:1], where this incident is
+briefly related, the woman is described as 'having sinned.' And again
+Rufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of
+the Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an
+adulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of
+Eusebius.
+
+But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where
+it stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is
+wanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally
+absent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it
+is not referred to, as part of St John's Gospel, before the latter half
+of the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is
+expressed in language quite foreign to St John's style, and it
+interrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating
+Christ's discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast' of
+Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the
+ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and
+the illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple
+area. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own
+person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows
+directly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living
+water_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks 'again' ([Greek: palin]),
+and declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But
+the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative,
+introducing a change of time, of scene, of subject.
+
+On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced
+here, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above
+anything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and
+followers, 'whose character and idiosyncrasies,' as Mr Mill says, 'were
+of a totally different sort' [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to
+imagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the
+loftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in
+its moral tendencies.
+
+But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John's
+Gospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was
+originally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript, to
+illustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 'Ye judge after the
+flesh; I judge no man.' This hint he has not followed up, but it seems
+to me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most
+authorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands
+after vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel.
+This is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the
+first instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on
+a page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a
+place somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the
+narrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to
+the end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it
+at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate
+position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an
+independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on
+critical grounds, it is not easy to say.
+
+But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have
+we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which Papias derived
+from the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give
+a place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its
+introduction as an illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus
+be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29,
+as described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or
+transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his
+margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews;
+and hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezae_, the oldest Greek
+manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is
+remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides
+this pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom
+He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work
+of Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some
+strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters
+more or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikotera]),' which Papias derived from
+oral tradition.
+
+5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark
+in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the
+Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing
+alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher
+importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of
+Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same
+motive.
+
+The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has
+been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting
+for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is
+mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First
+Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the
+Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen
+posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as
+dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information
+respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from
+having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If
+the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up
+by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke,
+he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but
+_neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the
+flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the
+other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a
+personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of
+other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there
+must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the
+faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main
+points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At
+the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the
+record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for
+himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has
+written what he himself had seen and heard.
+
+Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the
+coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it
+stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The
+Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's
+account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First
+Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what
+object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at
+least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the
+Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions
+Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the
+First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together
+in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is
+quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations
+existing between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which
+gives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a
+preceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.'
+Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the
+reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son
+saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's
+notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably
+have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the
+resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was
+acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast
+between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St
+John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly
+natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder
+respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as
+we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its
+relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two
+drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could
+not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be
+strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other
+evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_
+and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield
+many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few
+years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the
+Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian
+writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius
+Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps
+immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the
+showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one
+another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the
+Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.
+
+It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St
+Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect
+much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did
+Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We
+may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the
+secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call
+attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but
+a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this
+father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this
+very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii.
+1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the
+evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbaton]), whereas
+St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week
+[Greek: te mia ton sabbaton]; and among other explanations which he
+offers is the following:--
+
+     The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the
+     translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published
+     [Greek: paredoke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person
+     who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the
+     hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbaton] [208:1].
+
+He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might
+arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day
+of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was
+yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have
+borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from
+him.
+
+But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must
+have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius
+must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have
+had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and
+none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed
+circumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter
+of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a
+fragment from a passage in Irenaeus which intimately affects the
+relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the
+middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate
+purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I
+can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenaeus, he says,
+'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than
+to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not
+indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius.
+Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it
+baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the
+difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly
+before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a
+topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once
+started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover
+it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice
+over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits
+which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his
+readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has
+passed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further
+information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his
+notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we
+may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material
+which this father afforded for such extracts.
+
+6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late
+anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would
+be decisive on the point at issue.
+
+In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is
+assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:--
+
+     The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the
+     Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in
+     corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a
+     beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in
+     his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque
+     libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John,
+     correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But
+     Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him,
+     because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat),
+     was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him
+     from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].
+
+No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains
+such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of
+Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the
+endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to
+dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When
+attention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf,
+Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a
+spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged
+five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had
+gathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them
+'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he
+assigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name
+of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it
+had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been
+recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric'
+books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this
+source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a
+notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius
+Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].
+
+This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or
+trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover
+these titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five
+genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books
+'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in
+error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of
+Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin
+lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as
+Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who
+will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and
+which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again
+does the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this
+theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the
+twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katexiotai]),
+continues:--
+
+     For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of
+     him, says in the second book [Greek: logo] of the 'Oracles of the
+     Lord' ([Greek: ton kuriakon logion]) that he was slain by the Jews,
+     having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the
+     prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]
+
+Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is
+attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting
+directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of
+John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the
+ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly
+quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias'
+book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it
+by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most
+easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom
+Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or
+two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in
+the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti
+Ioannes [men hupo tou Rhomaion basileos katedikasthe marturon eis
+Patmon, Iakobos de] hupo Ioudaion anerethe], 'Papias says that John [was
+condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness
+(to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].
+
+The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and
+we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS.
+This passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different
+sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an
+anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a
+confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that
+between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenaeus in the same
+context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best
+explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather
+than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be
+read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth
+century, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for
+EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which
+should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the
+false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to
+Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having
+reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on
+somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own
+Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body'
+[Greek: eti en to somati kathestotos]. In this contrast between the
+story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips
+during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc
+in corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.
+The word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have
+been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel
+had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have
+repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other
+hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can
+hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was
+derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would
+be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may
+have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_
+wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos
+autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek:
+apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias
+himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is
+suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also.
+Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius
+would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made
+thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the
+whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence.
+Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I
+considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its
+companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so
+flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not,
+like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding
+centuries.
+
+But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which
+he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias
+recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--
+
+     Andrew of Caesarea, in the preface to his commentary on the
+     Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'
+     ([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its
+     Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the
+     book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show
+     that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the
+     author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a
+     witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].
+
+This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics
+of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works
+cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether
+they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second.
+In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single
+writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the
+authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or
+two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the
+Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this
+negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference
+arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown
+[215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and
+references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the
+authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church
+writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in
+the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been
+entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely
+what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the
+Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The
+inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the
+direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or
+section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the
+second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the
+Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and
+(what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a
+contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel
+in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of
+the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other
+hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far
+as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The
+most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the
+Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the
+use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented
+on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show
+hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike
+are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike
+are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by
+Irenaeus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the
+third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them
+on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first
+distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books
+appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle
+or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues
+entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend
+to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he
+questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the
+Apocalypse.
+
+
+
+
+VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN.
+
+[FEBRUARY, 1876.]
+
+
+It has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a
+remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive
+disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony
+Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is
+reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a
+century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial
+throne A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the
+earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted
+disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of
+a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly
+rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian
+society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal
+influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly
+missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct,
+more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the
+other Apostles.
+
+Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St
+John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the
+veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author
+of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as
+writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but
+also of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose
+teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very
+school [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the
+neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways
+for the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenaeus,
+who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate
+disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as
+preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic
+doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the
+elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord'
+[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying
+more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the
+Apostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to
+face' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord'
+[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also
+were pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have
+their succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders,
+disciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere.
+The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of
+Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the
+middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years
+before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of
+Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third
+quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of
+whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man,
+when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged
+him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church.
+
+Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of
+Christendom in literary activity, during the second century. This
+pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already
+mentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and
+primitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the
+Asiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the
+pressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the
+arena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main
+subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have
+involved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with
+its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem,
+would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the
+Apocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal
+controversy courted investigation into the relations between the
+narratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism,
+resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's
+Epistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to
+preserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a
+less degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with
+Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics,
+could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of
+Irenaeus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of
+written documents--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of
+authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our
+New Testament Canon. To men like Irenaeus or Eusebius, who had this
+extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church
+generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging
+to it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its
+orthodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or by studied panegyric, is
+a fact of real moment.
+
+Over and above this relation to the books of the New Testament
+generally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention,
+and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the
+writers belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what
+indications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they
+recognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be
+learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they
+accorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles.
+
+Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1].
+In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel
+has been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of
+the latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the
+testimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be;
+while, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in
+themselves warrant any inference on this point.
+
+The next extant document in chronological order is the account of
+Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D.
+155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of
+Pontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter
+the brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their
+martyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested by some
+remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the
+outset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pass that the Lord might
+exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for
+Polycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord'
+[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type
+of hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and
+imaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and
+mediaeval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal
+conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document.
+Some of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the
+parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate
+is Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The
+time of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath,' as it is
+here called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from
+information elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his
+employ. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly
+compared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our
+Lord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When
+apprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back to the city
+[221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal
+entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as
+against a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will
+of God be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time
+that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a
+valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much
+violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7].
+
+Most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of
+the Passion, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists alone or in common
+with St John. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in
+which the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where
+the writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their
+mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice
+came from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp'
+[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice
+those of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the
+voice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as
+imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in
+consequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2],
+though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild
+beasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates
+this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the
+manner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel
+Jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die'
+[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time,
+for His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of
+punishment; but by an accidental turn of circumstances He was
+transferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled
+[222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the
+body of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to
+him and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are
+told, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood' [222:6]. The
+parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the
+crucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress
+on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these
+hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We
+saw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we
+have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8].
+And lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was
+accomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of
+Polycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been
+and shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added
+that the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the
+phraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true
+God' [223:2].
+
+MELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second
+century. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able
+to assign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,'
+he himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of
+Asia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the
+fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate
+should probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are
+informed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180)
+[223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the
+colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of
+prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his
+brother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of
+the year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology
+to the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their
+statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of
+Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from
+internal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the
+latest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works
+comprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must
+have extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall
+probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as
+an author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon
+after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century
+Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to
+their rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be
+inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous
+contemporaries, but died a natural death.
+
+These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early
+part of the second century, within a very few years after the death of
+St John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have
+been a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at
+an advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had
+conversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have
+survived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications
+between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other,
+were easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on
+one occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure
+to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if
+circumstances did not throw him directly in their way.
+
+Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the
+same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the
+succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders,
+whose authority Irenaeus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a
+prominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom
+Clement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is
+quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the
+generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by
+Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by
+Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome.
+
+I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius
+gives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be
+complete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the
+contents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together
+at Caesarea. The titles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal
+Festival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On
+the Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_,
+_On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body
+[and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of
+Christ_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and
+on the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to
+Antonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides
+these works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted
+elsewhere under the titles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the
+Passion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these
+may perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under
+other names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal,
+exegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have
+furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for
+determining his exact theological position. To them it must have been
+clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St
+John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write
+on the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth
+Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a
+controversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself
+respecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which
+have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances,
+from which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in
+the twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday.
+
+Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_,
+which is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised passages
+from the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the
+Christian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Soteros kai pases tes
+pisteos hemon]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been
+accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical
+import of the several passages, as Melito understood them. In the
+preface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work
+had been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East
+and visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself
+respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list.
+The language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes
+that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_
+books' ([Greek: mathein ten ton palaion biblion eboulethes akribeian]).
+He adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate
+information respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribos
+mathon ta tes palaias diathekes biblia]).' From these expressions Dr
+Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a
+corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of
+the New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what
+nobody denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,'
+did not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so
+refer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire
+misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The
+contention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself
+signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another
+collection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and
+reiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to
+the existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the
+force of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this
+implied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to
+read the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without
+throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have
+therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for
+the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in
+maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New
+Testament literature.
+
+And if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis, it
+alone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a
+century, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle
+bearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a passage found in St
+Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is
+a fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter
+which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic
+Epistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before
+Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical
+Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as
+being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious
+services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the
+subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact
+that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual
+practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia
+Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating
+the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It
+is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of
+certain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical
+Scriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a
+fact that Irenaeus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor,
+writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito,
+quotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of
+the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more
+especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the
+Churches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with
+the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations
+of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do
+not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the
+New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the
+banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this
+state of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the
+Syriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made careful
+inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the
+very land where those Scriptures had their birth.
+
+The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered
+[228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence
+of the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate
+his general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken.
+The genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously
+questioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve
+every consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be
+set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all
+those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of
+_Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he
+evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On
+the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such
+interpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of
+'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either
+suspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in
+circulation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments
+have been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish
+interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second
+century. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may
+confidently assume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree
+with me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr,
+in Irenaeus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
+Only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than
+redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt
+on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were
+certainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some
+mediaeval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to
+anonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Passing away of the
+Blessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Passion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's
+reflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered
+quite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great
+majority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the
+most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do
+not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take
+the fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and
+I refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this
+ancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection.
+
+We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next
+age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been
+in circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the
+former point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke
+of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the
+latter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with
+Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and
+Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man' [230:1].
+The fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully
+with both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their
+superior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of
+the same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version.
+They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed
+antithesis.
+
+Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted
+by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of
+Christ [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:--
+
+     The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the
+     miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and
+     assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at
+     the same time, He assured us of His two essences ([Greek:
+     ousias])--of His Godhead by miracles in the three years after His
+     baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek:
+     chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his
+     immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata
+     sarka]), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, although He was
+     true God from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alethes proaionios
+     huparchon]).
+
+The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the
+general considerations which have been already discussed, partly on
+special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must
+here be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of
+Melito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation.
+It has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment,
+since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age;
+but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if
+so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word
+([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that
+there may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But
+the work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by
+Anastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism
+attacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick
+of the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On
+the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part
+of the fourth century, was one of the principal figures in the Arian
+controversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions
+of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so
+comparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no
+instance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion
+between the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the
+Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of
+Melito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of
+Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted,
+is a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if
+their genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed
+later than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal
+statements.
+
+But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author
+of _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to
+postulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply
+the facts thus assumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited
+cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will
+find themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty
+years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar
+passage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration
+of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned by St
+John.
+
+Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not
+only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but
+because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical
+history and doctrine [232:1].
+
+     We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
+     those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
+     that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the
+     Word of God: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator
+     together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all
+     things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the
+     law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings
+     Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel,
+     and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the
+     Father the Son, in God God, the King for ever and ever. For this is
+     He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with
+     Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who
+     was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with
+     Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and
+     the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at
+     Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who
+     was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was
+     worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered
+     together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the
+     maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who
+     appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who
+     was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was
+     condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was
+     hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the
+     dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who
+     sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those
+     that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light
+     of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are
+     captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of
+     the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the
+     Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, God who is of God, the Son who
+     is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen.
+
+This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to
+evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of
+doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments
+ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these
+fragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two
+exceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in
+Greek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness.
+But the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into
+a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of
+Melito rested.
+
+And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are
+derived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some
+unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as
+wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized
+our four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And,
+when they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most)
+Irenaeus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate
+relations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again
+and again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the
+traditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that
+the Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning,
+it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the
+solution is so very obvious.
+
+But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment
+taken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports
+to be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are
+mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be
+pronounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are.
+
+1. He writes first:
+
+     They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac
+     translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless.
+
+The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, classical
+and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely
+dependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has
+shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is
+accepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is
+found to be satisfactory, and _a priori_ probabilities are very strongly
+against the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth
+exception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion
+has its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other
+principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to
+believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour
+thieves and liars.
+
+2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions,
+and here he tells us that--
+
+     The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything
+     else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of
+     theological development.
+
+It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on
+this point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style
+of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus
+and Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially
+true of the passage under consideration. What the 'later stage of
+theological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the
+contrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all
+theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all
+the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though
+it lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic
+of the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon;
+but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a
+quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the
+conception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin.
+Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God
+before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord,
+sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word,
+while sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek:
+archistrategos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun
+([Greek: to tou Naue Iesou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ
+is 'King and Priest and God and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain
+and Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the
+Scriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third passage he says that the same
+Person, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, went
+forth from the Father before all created things through His power and
+counsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and
+Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in
+another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man
+through the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these passages stand alone. This
+same conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through
+it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained.
+
+Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite
+statement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is
+introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he
+has mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at
+which Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the passage before us the
+only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin'
+(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the
+same kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the
+statements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the
+Virgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he
+will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1].
+
+3. But our author states also:
+
+     In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of
+     the same passage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the
+     extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly
+     ascribed to Irenaeus.
+
+This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed
+attention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate
+in his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the
+shorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same
+as our passage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences,
+'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
+those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc.,
+as quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenaeus, runs thus:
+'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ
+was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised
+from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth
+for ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of God,' etc.
+[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that
+in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the passage in its original
+setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenaeus, it has been
+altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently.
+The reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted,
+while the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the
+Prophets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know,
+did make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as
+is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and
+the correspondence of language in this opening passage with the
+dedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is
+sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and
+external alike, requires us to ascribe the passage. But, if so, how came
+the name of Irenaeus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I
+think not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenaeus should
+introduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either
+anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already
+had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of
+their predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In
+this particular case, Irenaeus may or may not have acknowledged his
+obligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double
+ascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention
+another fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, 'The
+saying of Irenaeus' [237:2]. I turn to the passage, and I find that it
+contains not the words of Irenaeus himself, but of Papias quoted by
+Irenaeus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has
+entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenaeus directly mentions
+Papias as his authority.
+
+The attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears
+clearly enough from the title of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of
+Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and
+also from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the
+form of a servant' [237:4].
+
+CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of
+Melito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years.
+His date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an
+Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and
+as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering
+Legion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written
+before that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons,
+though not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much
+later [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close
+of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and
+judging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been
+very recent [238:3].
+
+Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the
+titles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned),
+_Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books),
+_Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings
+_Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tes Phrugon haireseos], which he
+places later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list
+comprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were
+extant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three
+works only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On Godliness_, is
+not in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author
+also are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them'
+[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from
+a treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and
+Theodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encratites
+[238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his
+works, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material
+for a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings
+against the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his
+relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is
+attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates,
+and by Photius [239:1], from different points of view.
+
+Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves
+the name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these
+voluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal
+Festival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal
+Chronicle_.
+
+The first runs as follows:--
+
+     There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions,
+     acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper
+     subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the
+     fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His
+     disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened
+     bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they
+     interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the
+     law ([Greek: asumphonos nomo]), and on their showing the Gospels
+     seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei
+     kat' autous ta euangelia]).
+
+The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the
+same context.
+
+     The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great
+     sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that
+     was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being
+     judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands
+     of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns
+     of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same
+     that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and
+     blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the
+     passover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre.
+
+If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on
+the same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about
+A.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious.
+In the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of
+reconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with
+the narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he asserts that the date
+fixed for the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can
+only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two
+accounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are
+reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in
+harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the
+14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the antitype, must have been
+crucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question
+whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed
+is that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at
+least St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received
+documents to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this
+respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or
+in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty
+in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears
+out the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the
+blood is taken from the Fourth Gospel; but a theological interpretation
+is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist.
+Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the
+subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike
+suggest that the Fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when
+they were written.
+
+But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ meets the inference by denying
+the genuineness of the extracts. I hardly think, however, that he can
+have seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement. He
+elsewhere asserts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that
+the Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the 14th Nisan
+was the day of the Last Supper or the day of the Crucifixion, the
+Quartodecimans maintaining the former [240:1]. In other words, he
+believes that it was the anniversary, not of the Passion, but of the
+Last Supper, which the Quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the 14th,
+and that therefore, as they pleaded the authority of St John for their
+practice, the Fourth Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle,
+since it represents the Passion as taking place on the 14th. As I have
+before intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me to be
+altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. But it depends,
+for such force or plausibility as it has, almost solely on these
+fragments from ancient writers quoted in the _Paschal Chronicle_, of
+which the extracts from Apollinaris are the most important. If therefore
+he refuses to accept the testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_ to their
+authorship, he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests.
+
+On this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The authorship of these
+extracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers [241:1], but on
+entirely mistaken grounds; and at the present time the consensus among
+critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. 'On the
+genuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now
+no more dispute, writes Scholten [242:1]. Our author however is far too
+persistent to let them pass. Their veracity has once been questioned,
+and therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the
+witness-box.
+
+It may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their
+genuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest, and I will
+therefore consider his objections. They are twofold.
+
+1. He urges that the external testimony to their authorship is
+defective. His reasoning is as follows [242:2]:--
+
+     Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passion, and
+     quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and
+     antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this
+     fragment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of
+     his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome,
+     Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works; nor
+     is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, nor
+     by any of those who took part in the great controversy.
+
+Here is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions. In the first place, it is
+a _petitio principii_, as will be seen presently, that Apollinaris was
+an antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, there is not the
+smallest evidence, nor any probability, that Apollinaris would have
+written before Melito, so that the latter could have quoted him. How,
+again, has our author learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having
+composed such a work'? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not seen
+the work when he composed his list of the writings of Apollinaris; but
+it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence. The very
+language in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list
+seems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers,
+which he had not read or seen himself. Theodoret does not 'enumerate
+other of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to
+the reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing the sects of
+the Severians and Montanists respectively, that Apollinaris had written
+against them [243:1]. There is not the smallest reason why he should
+have gone out of his way in either passage to speak of the work on the
+Paschal Festival, supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where
+else does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be made to
+yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise? Nor
+again does Jerome, in the passage to which our author refers in his note
+[243:2], allude to a single work by this writer, but simply mentions him
+by name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature.
+Elsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings
+[243:3], but there he simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius
+again, the statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether
+misleading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, which he
+read during his embassy, but he does not profess to give a list; and he
+says distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author
+which he had not seen. Who the 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate
+other of his works,' I am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last
+sentence, 'Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria,
+Irenaeus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of the
+treatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short fragments are
+preserved. He does not mention any person in these, nor could he have
+done so without going out of his way. For the rest, Clement is reported
+by Eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it
+by Melito's treatise on the same subject [243:4]. Eusebius is there
+discussing Melito, and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite
+out of place. What ground is there then for the assumption that Clement
+did not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius has not recorded the fact?
+When at a later point Eusebius comes to speak of Clement, he says of
+this father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions
+Melito and Irenaeus and _certain others_, whose explanations also he has
+given' [244:1]. Why may not Apollinaris have been included among these
+'certain others' whom Clement quoted? The same fallacy underlies our
+author's reference to Irenaeus. The work of Irenaeus is lost. Eusebius,
+it is true, preserves some very meagre fragments [244:2]; but in these
+not a single writer on either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is
+mentioned, not even Melito. Irenaeus may have quoted Apollinaris by name
+in this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name in his extant
+work on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius does not care to record
+the fact. All this assumed silence of writers whose works are lost is
+absolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the
+_Paschal Chronicle_.
+
+2. But secondly; our author considers that the contents of these
+fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to Apollinaris. His
+argument is instructive [244:3].
+
+     It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the
+     most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and his
+     own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on the
+     14th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the
+     country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this
+     fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert
+     to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so vast
+     and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised
+     contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic Churches
+     at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, and in
+     doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates
+     represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their
+     fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John
+     himself?
+
+with more to the same effect.
+
+I will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views
+on the point at issue in the Quartodeciman controversy. Certainly I
+cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is
+here put. But what, if the writer of these fragments was not an
+'isolated convert to the views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself?
+What, if the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of
+the last Supper, but of the Passion, so that Melito himself would have
+heartily assented to the criticisms in these fragments? [245:1] This is
+the obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in
+Eusebius, and in Irenaeus as quoted by Eusebius; and it gains
+confirmation from these fragments of Apollinaris. It seems to me highly
+improbable that Apollinaris should have been an exception to the
+practice of the Asiatic Churches. So far I agree with our author. But
+this is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the
+Quartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the genuineness of
+the fragments attributed to Apollinaris.
+
+After this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief
+representatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth while
+to call attention to a statement of Irenaeus in which he professes to
+record the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting
+the credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the chronology of our Lord's life
+and ministry [245:2].
+
+The Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, sought for
+analogies to the thirty aeons of their pleroma, or supra-sensual world,
+in the Gospel history. Among other examples they alleged the thirty
+years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the Gospel
+chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by
+themselves. At the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He
+had completed His twenty-ninth and was entering upon His thirtieth year,
+and His ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month, 'the
+acceptable _year_ of the Lord' foretold by the prophet. Irenaeus
+expresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the
+deep things of God should have overlooked the commonest facts of the
+evangelical narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in St
+John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of
+the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus has an _a priori_ reason
+of his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than thirty years. He
+came to sanctify every period of life--infancy, childhood, youth,
+declining age. It was therefore necessary that He should have passed the
+turn of middle life. From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still
+reckoned young (_juvenis_).
+
+     But from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining
+     into older age, which was the case with our Lord when he taught, as
+     the Gospel and all the elders who associated with John the disciple
+     of the Lord in Asia testify that John delivered this account. For
+     he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of them
+     saw not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard these same
+     things from their lips, and bear testimony to such an account.
+
+Irenaeus then goes on to argue that the same may be inferred from the
+language of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked: 'Thou art not yet
+fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' This, he maintains, could
+not properly be said of one who was only thirty years of age, and must
+imply that the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at
+least, and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth.
+
+On this passage it must be remarked that the Valentinian chronology was
+derived from a _prima facie_ interpretation of the Synoptic narrative;
+whereas the Asiatic reckoning, which Irenaeus maintains, was, or might
+well have been, founded on the Fourth Gospel, but could not possibly
+have been elicited from the first three Gospels independently of the
+fourth.
+
+On this question generally I have spoken already in a former paper
+[247:1]. Though it seems probable that our Lord's ministry was confined
+to three years, yet there is not a single notice in any of the four
+Gospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it extended over a much
+longer period, and that He was some forty years old at all events at the
+time of the Passion. The Synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing
+about the interval which elapsed between the Baptism and the Passion. St
+John mentions three passovers, but he nowhere intimates that he has
+given an exhaustive list of these festivals. The account of Irenaeus
+therefore is not so unreasonable after all; and we need not have
+hesitated to accept it, if there had been any definite grounds for doing
+so.
+
+It will be seen however, that Irenaeus, while maintaining that our Lord
+was forty years old, grounds his opinion mainly on a false inference
+from John viii. 57. At the same time he adduces the testimony of the
+Gospel and 'all the elders,' not for this particular view of our Lord's
+age, but for the more general statement that He was past middle life;
+and this vagueness of language suggests that, though their testimony was
+distinctly on his side as against the Valentinians, it did not go beyond
+this. It is very far from improbable indeed, that he borrowed this very
+interpretation of John viii. 57 from one of these Asiatic elders, just
+as we have seen him [247:2] elsewhere borrowing an interpretation of
+another passage of this Gospel (xiv. 2) from the same source. But, as he
+has here forced the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to say more than it
+really does say, so also he may have strained the testimony of 'all the
+elders' in the same direction. Yet the broad fact remains that he
+confidently appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the
+Fourth Gospel, but certainly not deducible from the Synoptic narratives.
+
+And the extant remains of this school support the appeal so qualified.
+We have seen that its two most famous authors, Melito and Apollinaris,
+distinctly follow the chronology of the Fourth Evangelist, the one in
+the duration of the Lord's ministry, the other in the events of the
+Paschal week [248:1].
+
+Of the special references to these fathers of the Asiatic Church, which
+appear elsewhere in Irenaeus, it is sufficient to say that in one
+instance an elder is represented as quoting a saying of our Lord
+contained only in the Gospel of St John [248:2] while the words ascribed
+to another are most probably suggested by the language of the same
+Evangelist [248:3]. This latter elder, whose speculations are given at
+great length, also introduces two direct quotations from St Paul's
+Epistles, and treats the Apostle's authority throughout as beyond
+dispute [248:4].
+
+The last father of the Asiatic school, whom it will be necessary to
+mention, is POLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus. When Victor of Rome in the
+closing years of the second century attempted to force the Western usage
+with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians, Polycrates wrote to
+remonstrate. The letter is unhappily lost, but a valuable extract is
+preserved by Eusebius [248:5]. In this the writer claims to speak
+authoritatively on the subject of dispute, owing to the special
+opportunities which he had enjoyed. He states that he had received the
+observance of the 14th by tradition from his relations, of whom seven
+had been bishops; he says that he had conferred with the brethren from
+all parts of the world; and he adds that he had 'gone through every holy
+scripture.' When we remember the question at issue, and recall the
+language of Apollinaris respecting the Gospels, in writing on the same
+subject, we see what is implied in this last sentence. The extract,
+which is short, contains only two references to the writings of the New
+Testament. The one is to the Fourth Gospel; St John is described in the
+very words of this Gospel, as 'he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord'
+([Greek: ho epi to stethos tou Kuriou anapeson]) [249:1]. The other is to
+a book of the Pauline cycle, the Acts of the Apostles; 'They that are
+greater than I,' writes Polycrates, 'have said, _We must obey God rather
+than men_' [249:2].
+
+We have now reached the close of the second century, and it is not
+necessary to pursue the history of the School of St John in their
+Asiatic home beyond this point. But in the meantime a large and
+flourishing colony had been established in the cities of southern Gaul,
+and no account of the traditions of the school would be adequate which
+failed to take notice of this colony. This part of the subject however
+must be left for a subsequent paper. Meanwhile the inferences from the
+notices passed under review cannot, I think, be doubtful. Out of a very
+extensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the
+extant remains are miserably few and fragmentary; but the evidence
+yielded by these meagre relies is decidedly greater, in proportion to
+their extent, than we had any right to expect. As regards the Fourth
+Gospel, this is especially the case. If the same amount of written
+matter--occupying a very few pages in all--were extracted accidentally
+from the current theological literature of our own day, the chances,
+unless I am mistaken, would be strongly against our finding so many
+indications of the use of this Gospel. In every one of the writers, from
+Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed phenomena which bear
+witness directly or indirectly, and with different degrees of
+distinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical
+ingenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An
+objector may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery; in
+a second, that the particular passage is an interpolation; in a third,
+that the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the
+Evangelist the copy; in a fourth, that the incident or saying was not
+deduced from this Gospel but from some apocryphal work, containing a
+parallel narrative. By a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie
+beyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the
+early existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple
+postulate which explains all the facts. The law of gravitation accounts
+for the various phenomena of motion, the falling of a stone, the jet of
+a fountain, the orbits of the planets, and so forth. It is quite
+possible for any one, who is so disposed, to reject this explanation of
+nature. Provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every
+new fact with which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will
+then
+                  "gird the sphere
+          With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,
+          Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,"
+
+happy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail nevertheless by
+reason of its simplicity.
+
+
+
+
+VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL.
+
+[AUGUST, 1876.]
+
+
+In the preceding papers I have investigated the testimony borne by the
+Churches of Asia Minor to the Canonical Gospels, and more especially to
+the Fourth Evangelist. The peculiar value of this testimony is due to
+the close personal relations of these communities with the latest
+surviving Apostles, more particularly with St John. At the same time I
+took occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards St Paul
+and his writings, because an assumed antagonism between the Apostle of
+the Gentiles and the Twelve has been adopted by a modern school of
+critics as the basis for a reconstruction of early Christian history. I
+purpose in the present paper extending this investigation to the
+Churches of Gaul. The Christianity of Gaul was in some sense the
+daughter of the Christianity of Asia Minor.
+
+Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of the second
+century we have no certain information. It seems fairly probable indeed
+that, when we read in the Apostolic age of a mission of Crescens to
+'Galatia' or 'Gaul' [251:1], the western country is meant rather than
+the Asiatic settlement which bore the same name; and, if so, this points
+to some relations with St Paul himself. But, even though this
+explanation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later
+tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is
+impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies these
+comparatively recent stories.
+
+The connection between the southern parts of Gaul and the western
+districts of Asia Minor had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul
+was indebted for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like
+Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries
+before the Christian era; and close relations appear to have been
+maintained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the people
+of Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly along with the
+vernacular Celtic of the native population and the official Latin of the
+dominant power [252:1]. When therefore Christianity had established her
+head-quarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the Gospel should
+flow in the same channels which had already conducted the civilization
+and the commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward.
+
+At all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities,
+the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A.D. 177, under
+Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the
+Rhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its
+extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
+Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant
+historical notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the
+martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from
+the persecuted Churches, addressed to 'the brethren that are in Asia and
+Phrygia' [252:2]. The communities thus addressed, it will be observed,
+belong to the district in which St John's influence was predominant, and
+which produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in
+the preceding papers--Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates.
+Of the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall
+speak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the very
+fact of their addressing the communication to these distant Churches
+shows the closeness of the ties which connected the Christians in Gaul
+with their Asiatic brethren. Moreover, in the body of the letter it is
+incidentally stated of two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia
+Minor--Attalus a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from
+Phrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul;' while
+nearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs the most
+conspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, who was more than
+ninety years old when he suffered. A later tradition makes him a native
+of Asia Minor [253:1]; and this would be a highly probable supposition,
+even if unsupported by any sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from
+unlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has
+not preserved the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he
+must have been a growing boy when St John died; and through him the
+Churches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the full light of
+history, are linked directly with the Apostolic age.
+
+Immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these
+distant parts of Christendom was manifested in another way. The
+Montanist controversy was raging in the Church of Phrygia, and the
+brethren of Gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted
+points [253:2]. To this communication they appended various letters of
+the martyrs, 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in
+Asia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent Irenaeus, then a
+presbyter, as their delegate with letters of recommendation to
+Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of conferring with him on this
+same subject [253:3].
+
+Some twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a close, another
+controversy broke out, relating to the observance of Easter, in which
+again the Asiatic Churches were mainly concerned; and here too we find
+the Christians of Gaul interposing with their counsels. When Victor of
+Rome issued his edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia
+Minor, Irenaeus wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion
+however did not merely represent his own private views, for we are
+especially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in Gaul over
+whom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the Roman bishop alone, but he
+exchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the Churches
+concerning the question which had been stirred' [254:1].
+
+Bearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we have a right
+to infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most part inherited the
+traditions of the Asiatic school of St John, we look with special
+interest to the documents emanating from these communities.
+
+The Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, already mentioned,
+is the earliest of these. The main business of the letter is a narrative
+of contemporary facts, and any allusions therefore to the Canonical
+writings are incidental.
+
+But, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the references to St
+Paul, for instance, there can be no doubt. Thus the martyrs and
+confessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that _the sufferings
+of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
+shall be revealed in us_,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in
+the Greek is given _verbatim_ as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again,
+they are described as 'imitators of Christ, _who being in the form of
+God thought it not robbery to be equal with God_,' where in like manner
+a sentence of twelve words stands _verbatim_ as we find it Phil. ii. 6.
+No one, I venture to think, will question the source of these passages,
+though they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation.
+Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is
+called 'the pillar and ground' ([Greek: stulon kai hedraioma]) of the
+Christians at Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or
+that when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water,
+received a revelation rebuking him for 'not using _the creatures of
+God_, in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and _gave
+thanks_ to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. These passages
+show the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards St
+Paul; but I have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation
+which prevails in this letter, and thus indicating what we are to expect
+in other cases.
+
+From the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations analogous to
+these.
+
+Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told, that though
+young he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias ([Greek:
+sunexisousthai te tou presbuterou Zachariou marturia]), for verily
+([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of
+the Lord blameless_.' Here we have the same words and in the same order,
+which are used of Zacharias and Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover,
+it is stated lower down of this same martyr, that he was 'called the
+paraclete (or advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in
+himself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This maybe compared
+with Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy
+Ghost.'
+
+The meaning of the expression 'The testimony of Zacharias' ([Greek: te
+tou Zachariou marturia]) has been questioned. It might signify either
+'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or
+'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom. I cannot doubt
+that the former explanation is correct; for the connecting particle
+([Greek: goun]) shows that the assertion is intended to find its
+justification in words which immediately follow, '_he walked in all the
+commandments_,' etc. I need not however dwell on this point, for the
+author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself adopts this rendering [255:1].
+Yet with an inconsistency, of which his book furnishes not a few
+examples, though he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently
+ignores the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis
+which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected.
+
+An early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, who is
+mentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between the temple and the
+altar (Matt. xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the father of the Baptist.
+And in the extravagant romance called the Protevangelium, which is
+occupied mainly with the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the
+Baptist's father is represented as slain by Herod 'at the vestibule of
+the temple of the Lord' [256:1]. Our author therefore supposes that
+these Christians of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some
+apocryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of
+Zacharias.
+
+Whether this identification which I have mentioned is true or false it
+is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again do I care to discuss
+the question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it, and
+so believed the Baptist's father to have fallen a martyr. I am disposed
+on the whole to think that they did. This supposition, which however
+must remain uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with
+Vettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment as regards
+the point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's Gospel has
+(according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives) no
+reference whatever to the martyrdom; and therefore affords no ground for
+the assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any
+account of or any reference to the death of the Baptist's father.
+
+But, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification
+(and this assumption, whether true or false, was very natural), our
+Third Gospel itself does furnish such a reference; and they would thus
+find within the limits of this Gospel everything which they required
+relating to Zacharias. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ indeed
+represents the matter otherwise; but then he has overlooked an important
+passage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels which ought
+surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how
+the Fathers, 'utterly uncritical' though they were, should ever quote
+any writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy, he says,
+'There can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in
+the Protevangelium, and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not
+based upon Luke, _in which there is no mention of his death_' [257:1].
+Here and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi.
+51, 'the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the
+temple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned in St
+Matthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also.
+
+But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third Gospel in
+this way, what will he say to those with the Acts? In this same letter
+of the Gallican Churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their
+persecutors 'like Stephen the perfect martyr, _Lord, lay not this sin to
+their charge._' Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
+another Acts containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
+supposes them to have had another Gospel containing words identical with
+our Third Gospel? Or will he allow this account to have been taken from
+Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter case, if they
+had the second treatise which bears the name of St Luke in their hands,
+why should they not have had the first also?
+
+Our author however does not stop here. He maintains that these same
+writers quoted not only from a double of St Luke, but from a double of
+St John also [258:1]. 'That was fulfilled,' they write, 'which was
+spoken by the Lord, saying, _There shall come a time in which whosoever
+killeth you will think that he doeth God service_,' where the words of
+St John (xvi. 2) are exactly reproduced, with the exception that for
+'There cometh an hour when' ([Greek: erchetai hora hina]) they
+substitute 'There shall come a time in which' ([Greek: eleusetai kairos
+en ho]. This substitution, which was highly natural in a quotation from
+memory, is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from
+the Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to some
+apocryphal gospel which has perished. No such gospel however is known to
+have existed. Moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse
+of the Fourth Gospel, and the expression itself is remarkable--far more
+remarkable than it appears in the English version ([Greek: latreian
+prospherein to Theo]), not 'to do God service,' but 'to offer a religious
+service to God'). I may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the
+Paraclete, already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the
+writers, and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence
+with St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. Here, as
+elsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not advance anything
+which is demonstrably impossible, he may pile one improbability upon
+another without endangering the stability of his edifice.
+
+But even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive
+this accumulation of improbabilities, it will appear absolutely
+untenable in the light of contemporary fact. Irenaeus was the most
+prominent and learned member of the Church from which this letter
+emanated, at the very time when it was written. According to some modern
+critics he was the actual composer of the letter; but for this there is
+no evidence of any kind. According to our author himself he was the
+bearer of it [259:1]; but this statement again is not borne out by
+facts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenaeus was intimately mixed
+up with all the incidents, and he cannot have been ignorant of the
+contents of the letter. Now this letter was written A.D. 177 or, as our
+author prefers, A.D. 178, while Irenaeus published his third book before
+A.D. 190 at all events, and possibly some years earlier. Irenaeus in
+this book assumes that the Church from the beginning has recognized our
+four Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before, at
+the outside, the very Church to which 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.
+
+Here then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what must be the fate of
+a writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts, when he comes to
+deal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful
+weighing of probabilities?
+
+From this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and Lyons, we are
+led to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican father, whose name has
+already been mentioned several times, and who is the most important of
+all witnesses to the Canonical writings of the New Testament.
+
+The great work of Irenaeus is entitled _Refutation and Overthrow of
+Knowledge falsely so called_, and consists of five books. The third book
+was published during the episcopate of Eleutherus, who was Bishop of
+Rome from about A.D. 175 to A.D. 190; for he is mentioned in it as still
+living [260:1]. It must therefore have been written before A.D. 190. On
+the other hand it contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX
+[260:2]; and Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published
+till the reign of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). Unfortunately Epiphanius, the
+authority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement,
+contradicts himself in this same passage, which is full of the grossest
+chronological and historical blunders [260:3]. No stress therefore can
+be laid on his statement; nor indeed can we regard its truth or
+falsehood as of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial
+whether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of
+Eleutherus. As the several books were composed and published separately,
+the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has a right to suppose, though he
+cannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written during the
+episcopate of Victor (A.D. 190-198 or 199). But in his partiality for
+late dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged.
+If the fourth and fifth books 'must,' as he confidently asserts, have
+been written some years after the third, it follows by parity of
+reasoning, that the first and second must have been written some years
+before it. Yet, with a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very
+same sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the
+latest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third must date
+from that epoch [261:1].
+
+With the respective dates of the several books however we need not
+concern ourselves; for they all exhibit the same phenomena, so far as
+regards the attitude of the author towards the Canonical writings of the
+New Testament. On this point, it is sufficient to say that the authority
+which Irenaeus attributes to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
+the Epistles of St Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the
+Apocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate of the Church
+Catholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats
+them as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testament; he
+cites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes them to the
+respective authors whose names they bear; he regards them as writings
+handed down in the several Churches from the beginning; he fills his
+pages with quotations from them; he has not only a very thorough
+knowledge of their contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with
+and a recognition of them in his readers [262:1].
+
+In the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his
+Valentinian opponents directly from the Scriptures. This leads him to be
+still more explicit. He relates briefly the circumstances under which
+our Four Gospels were written. He points out that the writings of the
+Evangelists arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He
+shows that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved
+by a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches can be
+traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely
+with the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. He maintains on the other
+hand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent
+growth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels
+alone were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that this had
+been so from the beginning. His Valentinian antagonists indeed accepted
+these same Gospels, paying especial deference to the Fourth Evangelist;
+and accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also
+superadded other writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a
+different type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the
+exclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four Gospels
+alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature
+of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four
+regions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church
+therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be
+supported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is
+represented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as
+four living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize
+the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The
+predominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are
+four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is
+therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number
+of the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of
+God, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel.
+
+What is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine
+that the documents which Irenaeus regards in this light had been
+produced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly
+full-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken
+their position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the
+Prophets, as the very voice of God?
+
+The author of _Supernatural Religion_ seems to think that no explanation
+is needed. 'The reasons,' he writes, 'which he [Irenaeus] gives for the
+existence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the
+Church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers,
+and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments'
+[263:1]. Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenaeus,
+but treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the
+difference in, the world between the value of the same man's evidence as
+to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of
+his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy
+analogies are _pro tanto_ an evidence of the firm hold which this
+quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above
+all, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of
+Irenaeus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is
+unconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this
+last consideration which led me to speak of Irenaeus as the most
+important witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and
+to which I wish to direct attention.
+
+The birth of Irenaeus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell,
+and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other
+writers again have adopted intermediate positions. I must frankly say
+that the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand,
+those who have placed it as late as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on
+the ground of the relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp in his old age
+[264:1], and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D.
+167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered
+A.D. 155 or 156 [264:2], it may be presumed that these critics would now
+throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther
+back, _i.e._ to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it
+should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I
+have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention [265:1], he was
+probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a
+matter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is,
+that he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age
+by two distinct personal links, if not more.
+
+Of his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken [265:2]. Polycarp
+was the disciple of St John; and, as he was at least eighty-six years
+old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon
+thirty when the Apostle died. Irenaeus was young when he received
+instruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as 'still
+a boy,' in another as 'in early life.' If we reckon his age as from
+fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the
+expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all
+events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's
+conversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but
+his very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he
+remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and
+other personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the
+Lord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were 'altogether in
+accordance with the Scriptures' [265:3].
+
+But Irenaeus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship
+also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which
+POTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the
+latter in A.D. 177 or 178. With Pothinus therefore he must have had
+almost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety
+years old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St
+John died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already
+seen [265:4], that like Irenaeus himself Pothinus came originally from
+Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential
+position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past
+history of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which
+we are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed
+to the Evangelists and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he
+could remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other
+day, when he was already advanced in life.
+
+In one passage in his extant work, Irenaeus gives an account of
+elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself
+'listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been
+disciples,' _i.e._ personal followers of Christ [266:1]. It seems most
+natural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the
+'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John
+the presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under
+the designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp more
+especially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he
+forms a third direct link of connection between Irenaeus and the
+Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of
+Irenaeus with him was frequent and intimate. 'The elder,' writes
+Irenaeus, 'used to say,' 'The elder used to refresh us with such
+accounts of the ancient worthies,' 'The elder used to discuss.' Indeed
+the elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated
+in a former paper [266:2], that Irenaeus is here reproducing notes of
+lectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct
+or indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not
+concerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has
+been said in a previous paper [266:3]. I wish now merely to call
+attention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse
+with this elder Irenaeus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of
+the earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic
+writings.
+
+Nor were these the only exceptional advantages which Irenaeus enjoyed.
+When he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his
+testimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at
+least. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle
+life he stayed for some time in Rome, having gone there on an important
+public mission [267:1]. Before and after this epoch he for many years
+held a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover
+actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in
+all the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we
+happen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on 'All the Heresies,'
+delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a
+diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and
+dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such
+letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less
+elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant
+work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced
+him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately
+concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the
+Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to
+remark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in
+the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and
+here again the relation between the narratives of St John and the
+Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was
+contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against
+Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the
+Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally
+we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.
+
+Thus Irenaeus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness,
+but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority.
+All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by
+denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and
+Irenaeus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box.
+
+The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor
+less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than
+other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional
+blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not
+unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome
+believes in the story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of
+repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine
+honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make
+statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the
+religion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias
+may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an AElian. The
+work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On
+the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian
+fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several
+excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen
+contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance
+with the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement
+of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same
+day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say
+nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his
+faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again,
+the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of
+Irenaeus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which
+emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may
+appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many
+monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations
+among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as
+elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a
+gross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such
+hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can
+be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit
+confidence, when their statements serve his purpose.
+
+Now Irenaeus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He
+possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an
+opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach
+of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a
+considerable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no
+parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His
+work is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His
+traditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes
+dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether
+in his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who
+refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate
+Emperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly
+superstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other
+showing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenaeus betrays
+no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and
+comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned.
+
+And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The
+recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact
+which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in
+previous writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the
+Church repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version,
+already existing when Irenaeus published his work and representing the
+Canon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these
+only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before
+him, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these,
+and these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the
+Alexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the
+feet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in
+Italy, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing,
+on the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed
+down by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence
+of view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament
+was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of
+the fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides
+in the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can
+only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing
+that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other
+documents, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past
+singled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a
+position of exceptional authority.
+
+One other remark on the testimony of Irenaeus suggests itself before
+closing. Irenaeus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of
+his work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject
+of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are
+either epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any
+references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and
+incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at
+this early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the
+Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old
+Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the
+martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous;
+or apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of
+the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him
+to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the
+Jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenaeus is
+the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of
+Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And
+here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.
+
+If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to
+read Irenaeus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which
+perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived
+ideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be
+accused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few
+paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each
+successive page of a long and elaborate work.
+
+
+
+
+IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1].
+
+[MAY, 1877.]
+
+
+All that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an
+Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers
+call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common
+confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be
+accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his
+life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this
+capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards
+Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As
+a Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin
+Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in
+bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by
+the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had
+among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one
+of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have
+spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria
+and the neighbouring countries.
+
+After the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his
+opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly
+orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused
+views closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his
+new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But
+he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more
+especially the doctrine of AEons, which he derived from the Valentinian
+school [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that,
+'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's)
+Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour,
+and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2].
+Where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian
+thought lightly of St Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is
+quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's
+Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle
+in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The
+Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in
+all respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been
+corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our
+author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St
+Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some
+[273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point
+to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those
+of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to
+Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul.
+At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of
+marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must
+therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them
+must be rejected as spurious.
+
+The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as
+we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this
+father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be
+treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much
+variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing
+Justin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius;
+but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended
+towards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian
+seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after
+this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox
+Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenaeus wrote his first book,
+Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of
+this father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D.
+190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if
+we may assume that the 'Assyrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions
+among his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we
+have another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in
+which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195;
+and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters,
+whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the
+tuition of Pantaenus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection
+with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we
+shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of
+Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier,
+or it may have extended some few years later.
+
+Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the
+ancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the
+Greeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not
+very long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed
+before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a
+heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain
+chronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it
+as 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to
+acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years
+too late, the point is not worth contending for.
+
+As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the
+Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles,
+who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred
+books, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus
+the _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from
+the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with
+quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work
+that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the
+Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards
+our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such
+that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and
+accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.
+
+The passages are here placed side by side:--
+
+          TATIAN.                    |           ST JOHN.
+                                     |
+'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma
+Theos]), Sec. 4.                        | ho Theos]), iv. 24.
+                                     |
+'And this then is the saying         | 'And the light shineth in the
+([Greek: to eiremenon]); The         | darkness, and the darkness
+darkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not'
+([Greek: he skotia to phos ou        | ([Greek: kai he skotia auto ou
+katalambanei]), Sec. 13.                | katelaben]), i. 5.
+                                     |
+'Follow ye the only God. All things  |'All things were made through
+have been made by Him, and apart     | Him, and apart from Him was
+from Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta
+([Greek: panta hup' autou kai choris | di' autou egeneto kai choris
+autou gegonen oude hen]), Sec. 19.      | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3.
+
+
+In the last passage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek:
+oude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated
+in this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following
+sentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.'
+
+Besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with
+which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be
+disputed.
+
+It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these;
+and yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them.
+
+The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says
+nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have
+regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it
+is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.
+
+Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it
+with the expression ([Greek: to eiremenon]), which is used in the New
+Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40,
+Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be
+'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'
+that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused
+perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously
+'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the
+Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its
+most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian
+are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying
+of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand,
+the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this
+coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back
+on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and
+other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not
+touch the point of the resemblance.
+
+On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth
+Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but
+then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo]
+for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author
+also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any
+language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like
+the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the
+coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are
+extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation
+which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.
+
+So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere
+does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative
+evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability
+that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances
+as in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain.
+
+It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the
+Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance
+of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a
+Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the
+name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in
+question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary
+therefore to examine the witnesses:--
+
+1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian
+composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the
+Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai
+sunagogen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto
+prosonomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some
+persons) even to the present day.'
+
+This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on
+the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is
+altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the
+writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopos]) regarding
+them' [278:1].
+
+His inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether
+unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal
+knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of
+books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not
+understand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic
+English it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is
+equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it
+implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed
+at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen
+against Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work
+which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself
+quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but
+disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of
+Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall
+see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat
+strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal
+literature, should have remained unacquainted with it.
+
+2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of
+Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of
+the foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new
+converts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with
+the Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It
+seems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed
+this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly
+read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a
+_Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence
+however it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its
+neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is
+obviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is
+assigned to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth
+or sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to
+have been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore
+must have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good
+reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to which
+Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with
+Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore
+cannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At
+the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements
+respecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it
+much earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may
+be its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_,
+adopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the
+Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this
+work however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from
+other sources. Nor is it far to seek.
+
+3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers,
+Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a
+commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius
+Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and
+died A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as
+follows [280:2]:--
+
+     Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
+     selected and patched together from the Four Gospels and constructed
+     a Gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_. On
+     this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
+     was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
+     called Aphthonius, constructed a Gospel after the likeness of the
+     _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
+     the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
+     Diatessaron and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
+     this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with
+     several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in
+     them, and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not
+     often met with.
+
+This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two
+older works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by
+Tatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a
+later date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about
+A.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in
+his _Letter to Carpianus_, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite
+different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. The
+_Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing
+with the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the Gospel of St
+Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by
+side with it the parallel passages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The
+principle of the one work was _amalgamation_; of the other,
+_comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could confuse them,
+though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_. Eusebius keeps them quite
+distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told,
+he quotes both works in the same place [281:2]. When therefore he
+relates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian,
+he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that
+the _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it
+was therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose
+it for commenting upon.
+
+It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two
+_Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that
+confusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this
+particular author, who shows himself in this passage altogether
+trustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or
+Mr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate?
+
+4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father
+Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the
+year 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see
+till his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote
+his treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:--
+
+     He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_,
+     cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other passages as show
+     the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.
+     This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect,
+     but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did
+     not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in
+     all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more
+     than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our
+     parts ([Greek: tais par' hemin ekklesiais]). All these I collected
+     and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four
+     Evangelists.
+
+The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his
+diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1].
+The proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its
+circulation in these parts.
+
+It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical
+character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials
+before Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a
+judgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any
+reasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here
+mentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the
+same which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this
+_Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is
+unnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the
+intelligence of the reader.
+
+Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending
+to the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in
+common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the
+fifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a
+compilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise
+and convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists
+themselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could
+commence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which,
+as we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in
+the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for
+otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but passages which
+offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies,
+were excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice
+under cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in
+itself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what
+might have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially
+mentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1].
+
+In this general convergence of testimony however, there are two
+seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural
+Religion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean.
+
+1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of
+the fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D.
+374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been
+composed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_'
+[284:2].
+
+Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This
+_Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct
+evangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this
+Gospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was
+exclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this
+assertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian.
+But this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its
+contents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne
+some resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he
+meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is found
+literally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether
+characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters
+not) he assigns it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his
+Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel
+according to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different
+document. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was
+constructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it
+resemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions,
+and additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the
+Hebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not
+answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the
+genealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all
+copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More
+especially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of
+Christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this
+Gospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His
+Messianic claims.
+
+How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple
+blunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface
+his pages. He had not seen the _Diatessaron_: this our author himself
+says. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of
+Syria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in
+these same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the
+identification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the
+broadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of
+the Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in
+the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author,
+who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony
+of all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence
+of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an
+Epiphanius.
+
+2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of _Supernatural Religion_, 'was
+not only called _Diatessaron_, but according to Victor of Capua, it was
+also called _Diapente_ ([Greek: dia pente]) "by five," a complication
+which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its
+composition.'
+
+This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the
+actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does
+not himself call it _Diapente_, but says that Eusebius called it
+_Diapente_. This makes all the difference.
+
+Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
+anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], and began in
+consequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in
+Eusebius of such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed
+to the Canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
+_Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the
+work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour
+of the latter, because it does not give St Matthew continuously and
+append the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states
+Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this
+anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress.
+
+There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship;
+for, though the work is constructed on the same general plan as
+Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it
+does contain the genealogies. It belongs therefore, at least in its
+present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius.
+
+But we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which
+commences as follows:--
+
+     Ex historia quoque ejus (_i.e._ Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir
+     eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor
+     compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum _Diapente_ imposuit.
+
+Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he
+repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's _Diatessaron_, except what
+Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius
+before us, and find that Eusebius does not call it _Diapente_ but
+_Diatessaron_. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without
+exception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was
+probably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS
+belonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was
+made by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text
+of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself,
+who knew Greek, says _ex quatuor_, which requires _Diatessaron_, and the
+work which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages
+from our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written
+_Diapente_ himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the
+blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2].
+
+Thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our
+author, [Greek: ouk oid' hopos], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical
+theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's
+Diatessaron [287:3].
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+[The actual _Diatessaron_ of Tatian has since been discovered, though
+not in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the
+subject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and
+scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (_The Diatessaron of Tatian_
+1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found.
+Ephraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of
+this Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836.
+I had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and
+the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might
+throw light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew
+that it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I
+did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift
+its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered
+enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by
+Moesinger under the title of _Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a
+Sancto Ephraemo doctore Syro_ Venet. 1876, just about the time when I
+wrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years
+after. Later still an Arabic translation of the _Diatessaron_ itself has
+been discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (_Tatiani Evangeliorum
+Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc._, 1888). On the relation of Victor's
+_Diatessaron_, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent
+of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's
+_Diatessaron_. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which
+was supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be
+unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all
+be abandoned.]
+
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX
+
+
+_The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural
+Religion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same
+Review, I have given it a place here._
+
+
+
+
+DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
+
+[MAY, 1878.]
+
+
+In a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the
+Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (_bien reellement_)
+Luke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work
+he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the
+later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the
+author, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with
+the rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding
+from a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the
+authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as
+it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when
+attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be
+out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative
+which recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords
+so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of
+contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and
+topography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the
+year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the
+large mass of evidence already existing.
+
+1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly
+dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus
+assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman
+dominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of
+provincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a
+proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an
+imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of propraetor ([Greek:
+antistrategos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutes]). Thus the use of the terms
+'proconsul' and 'propraetor' was changed; for, whereas in republican
+times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had
+previously held the offices of consul and praetor respectively at home,
+they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the
+provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the
+governors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the
+provinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant
+modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and
+military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to
+the Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an
+imperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be
+impossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact
+historical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a
+proconsul or a propraetor. The province of Achaia is a familiar
+illustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to
+Corinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a propraetor. Just
+at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler
+therefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke.
+
+Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same
+accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had
+charged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their
+mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later
+forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official
+designations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this
+writer, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the
+Emperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two
+provinces of Asia and Africa but praetors to the rest on their
+list,--among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the
+conclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of Cyprus would be
+called a propraetor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus,
+though a praetorian province, was often handed over _honoris causa_ to
+be administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore
+that Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a
+solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by
+flatterers on an official whose proper designation was propraetor. The
+error illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less
+dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and
+Africa, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two
+consuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to
+send ex-praetors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces
+under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and
+unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented
+the Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held
+previously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2].
+
+The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly
+stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces
+(B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the
+historian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in
+the first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus
+and Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in
+exchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in
+question (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer.
+'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also'
+[294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the
+Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample
+evidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of
+proconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of
+Claudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed
+the province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a
+third, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a
+later date, under Hadrian, we come across a propraetor of Cyprus
+[294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of
+the province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the
+close of the same century (A.D. 198)--under Severus--it is again
+governed by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition.
+
+Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established;
+but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul
+mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's
+inscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of
+parts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given
+as [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.'
+On this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus
+of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the
+suppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the
+suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently,
+thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the
+proconsul of this inscription.
+
+Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that
+'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned
+elsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the
+first book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one
+Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not
+this have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have
+observed, only one other person bearing it [295:1]--probably a
+descendant of this Cyprian proconsul--is mentioned, of whom I shall have
+something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later.
+Only one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny
+is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that
+writer. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it
+would be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir
+Rutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the
+opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his
+Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had
+resided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books
+of Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably
+be explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the
+second book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to
+the situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of
+Venus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book
+again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives
+some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and
+the bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book,
+in which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the
+last-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they
+are early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the
+list. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which
+contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we
+should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of
+this kind.
+
+From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to the Sergius
+Paulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius
+(A.D. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three
+or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius
+Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.D. 150, and was
+hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.D. 168 (on this latter
+occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held
+the Prefecture of the City [296:1]. He is probably also the same person
+who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a
+Christian martyrdom [296:2]. This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many
+features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike
+are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive
+disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may
+suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with
+the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to
+the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the
+Apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of
+Galen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as
+well as in philosophical studies;' he is especially mentioned as a
+student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen
+interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust
+the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two
+accounts. The same expression, 'who is also Paul' ([Greek: ho kai
+Paulos]), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts,
+and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of
+criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author
+of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen; and conversely I
+have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But if so,
+the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find
+favour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely
+furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms
+so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is
+suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us
+as 'Sergius who is also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in
+the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus
+simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in
+which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name
+Paulus only.
+
+2. The transition from General Cesnola's _Cyprus_ to Mr Wood's _Ephesus_
+carries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of St
+Paul. Here, again, we have illustrative matter of some importance. The
+main feature in the narrative of the Acts is the manner in which the
+cultus of the Ephesian Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's
+sojourn in that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would
+hardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing
+collection [297:1]. We seem to be reading a running commentary on the
+excited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are informed that
+'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the
+goddess, and statues erected and altars consecrated to her, on account
+of the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' ([Greek: tas hup' autes
+geinomenas enargeis epiphaneias]); that 'the greatest proof of the
+reverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name, being
+called Artemision among ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians
+and the other nations of Greece and their respective cities;' that
+during this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held,
+and more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own
+Ephesian goddess' ([Greek: te tropho tes idias theou tes Ephesias]); and
+that therefore 'the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet that
+the whole of this month which bears the divine name ([Greek: ton
+eponumon tou theiou onomatos]) should be kept holy, and dedicated to the
+goddess,' has decreed accordingly. 'For so,' concludes this remarkable
+document, 'the cultus being set on a better footing, our city will
+continue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time.' The sense
+of special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame, which
+pervades the narrative in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than
+by this decree. But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly
+enhance the effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as 'the
+great goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 'the
+supremely great goddess ([Greek: he megiste theos]) Artemis.' To her
+favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. She has
+not only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her essenes, her
+divines ([Greek: theologoi]), her choristers ([Greek: humnodoi]), her
+vergers ([Greek: skeptouchoi]), her tire-women or dressers ([Greek:
+kosmeteirai]), and even her 'acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of
+these terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her;
+endowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images; decrees
+are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her birthday is
+again and again mentioned. She is seen and heard everywhere. She is
+hardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the Great Theatre. This
+last-mentioned place--the scene of the tumult in the Acts--is brought
+vividly before our eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears
+as the recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed,
+and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the
+leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against
+St Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by
+memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the
+'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion, 'What man is there
+that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the
+great goddess Artemis?' he had only to point to the inscriptions which
+lined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones would have cried out
+from the walls in response to his appeal.
+
+Nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by St Luke
+less complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned in the
+narrative--the Roman proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), the governor of
+the province and supreme administrator of the law, translated 'deputy'
+in our version; the recorder ([Greek: grammateus]) or chief magistrate
+of the city itself, translated 'town-clerk;' and the Asiarchs ([Greek:
+Asiarchai]), or presidents of the games and of other religious
+ceremonials, translated 'the chief of Asia.' All these appear again and
+again in the newly-discovered inscriptions. Sometimes two of the three
+magistracies will be mentioned on the same stone. Sometimes the same
+person will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch,
+either simultaneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially
+frequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix
+every date.
+
+But besides these more general illustrations of the account in the Acts,
+the newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in
+the narrative. Thus where the chief magistrate pronounces St Paul and
+his companions to be 'neither sacrilegious ([Greek: hierosulous]) nor
+blasphemers of our goddess' [299:1], we discover a special emphasis in
+the term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing
+to the mutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the special
+offences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess.
+'Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' ([Greek: esto hierosulia
+kai asebeia]), says an inscription found in this very theatre [300:1],
+though not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke. So again,
+where the same speaker describes the city of Ephesus as the 'neocoros,'
+the 'temple sweeper,' or 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we
+find in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this
+term so applied. Though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of
+general application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of Ephesus on
+coins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of other Asiatic
+cities), it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity, but of
+the Roman emperors. In this sense Ephesus is described as 'twice' or
+'thrice sacristan,' as the case may be, the term being used absolutely.
+There was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed
+also to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible but
+highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a
+mutilated inscription [300:2]. By a highly probable but not certain
+interpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin [300:3].
+There were analogies too which supported it. Thus the Magnesians are
+styled on the coins 'sacristans of Artemis' [300:4]; and at Ephesus
+itself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of
+Artemis' [300:5]. Nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled
+itself 'the nurse of Artemis' should also claim the less audacious title
+of 'sacristan' to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty;
+and (so far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr Wood's
+inscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the city of the
+Ephesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the Augusti according to
+the decrees of the Senate and sacristan of Artemis' [301:1].
+
+One other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, desirous of
+pacifying the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms of law. 'If
+Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, 'have a matter against any
+one, assizes are held, and there are proconsuls [301:2]. Let them indict
+one another. But if you have any further question (_i.e._, one which
+does not fall within the province of the courts of justice), it shall be
+settled in the lawful (regular) assembly.' By a 'lawful (regular)
+assembly' ([Greek: ennomos ekklesia]) he means one of those which were
+held on stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to
+those which were called together on special emergencies out of the
+ordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be equally
+'lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in which the words
+were uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful.' It provides
+that a certain silver image of Athene shall be brought and 'set at every
+lawful (regular) assembly ([Greek: kata pasan nomimon ekklesian]) above
+the bench where the boys sit' [301:3].
+
+With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient
+literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial
+times--the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and
+perseverance of Mr Wood--comparable for its life-like truthfulness to
+the narrative of St Paul's sojourn there in the Acts.
+
+I am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient Christian
+writer, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, writing to the
+Ephesians from Smyrna in the early years of the second century, borrows
+an image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity, where the
+statues, sacred vessels, and other treasures, of the temple are borne in
+solemn procession. He tells his Christian readers that they all are
+marching in festive pomp along the Via Sacra--the way of love--which
+leads to God; they all are bearers of treasures committed to them,--for
+they carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their sacred things,
+in their heart [302:1]. The image was not new. It is found in Stoic
+writers. It underlies the surname Theophorus, the 'God-bearer,' which
+Ignatius himself adopted. But he had in his company several Ephesian
+delegates when he wrote; and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us
+that the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh
+impulse at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most
+important inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of
+numerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the temple of
+Artemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endowment for their
+custody. In one of these (dated A.D. 104) it is ordained that the
+treasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple
+to the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly, and at the
+gymnastic contests, and on any other days that may be directed by the
+Council and the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming
+the procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass through
+the length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate and leaving by
+the Coressian [302:2].
+
+
+
+
+[FOOTNOTES]
+
+
+[1:1] _Supernatural Religion; An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine
+Revelation._ Two Vols. Second Edition, 1874. [Subsequent editions are as
+follows, Third and Fourth Editions (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions
+(1875), Third Volume (1877), Complete Edition, in Three Vols. (1879).]
+
+[3:1] Iren. v. 36. 1, 2.
+
+[4:1] _S.R._ II. p. 328 sq.
+
+[4:2] _Canon_ p. 63, note 2.
+
+[4:3] The Greek is [Greek: Einai de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos
+... kai dia touto _eirekenai ton Kurion_ en tois tou patros mou monas
+einai pollas k.t.l.]
+
+[4:4] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs:
+'But ... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.]
+
+[5:1] [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]
+
+[5:2] [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's
+subsequent explanation is considered.]
+
+[5:3] [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (II. p. 328 n. 3), but
+objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too
+positive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see
+below, p. 53 sq.]
+
+[5:4] Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of
+'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting, "say they."'
+Tischendorf's words are, 'Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den
+Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the
+German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words
+are not Irenaeus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any
+idea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has
+suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this
+treatment of Tischendorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The language is
+modified in ed. 4 (II. p. 326) 'Tischendorf renders the oblique
+construction of the text by inserting "say they" referring to the
+Presbyters of Papias,' where the point of grammar is silently conceded.]
+
+The reader may compare _S.R._ II. p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy
+with which the "Great African" proceeds is all the better illustrated by
+the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually
+defines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never
+existed etc.... he actually repeats the same charge on two other
+occasions.'
+
+[6:1] _S.R._ II. p. 334.
+
+[6:2] [On the wording of this footnote in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is
+omitted in ed. 6, where see II. p. 333.]
+
+[6:3] [See further on this subject below, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]
+
+[7:1] _c. Cels._ i. 8.
+
+[7:2] _c. Cels._ viii. 76.
+
+[7:3] _S.R._ II. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) II. p.
+229 sq.]
+
+[7:4] There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which
+our author has not quoted, [Greek: allo suntagma ... en ho didaxein
+epengeilato.]
+
+[8:1] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 46).]
+
+[8:2] [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (II. p.
+63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as [Greek:
+pollachos] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houto makarizetai ... hoti
+opsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.]
+
+[8:3] [[Greek: to rhema] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but
+[Greek: zetesantes] still remains 'they who inquire' (ii. p. 265).]
+
+[8:4] II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.]
+
+[8:5] II. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.]
+
+[8:6] I. p. 448, comp. p. 455. [The latter passage is struck out in ed.
+6 (see I. p. 455); the former becomes 'committed no error'. See below,
+p. 163.]
+
+[8:7] II. p. 384.
+
+[8:8] [But in ed. 6 (II. p. 384) I see that my translation is tacitly
+substituted.]
+
+[8:9] [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see below, p. 129), but corrected in
+ed. 6, which also omits the first clause.]
+
+[9:1] [Other errors in translation are given below, p. 129.]
+
+[9:2] I. p. 113. The last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in
+the first edition (I. p. 103). Thus the passage has undergone revision,
+and yet the author has not discovered the contradiction. [The author's
+own explanation of this discrepancy is given below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (I.
+p. 113) the sentence ends, 'and it is argued that it was probably a
+later interpolation,' while in the Complete Edition (I. p. 113) it is
+further qualified 'argued by some.']
+
+[10:1] II. p. 421. [The argument in favour of the genuineness is
+expanded in the Complete Edition (II. pp. 419-423).]
+
+[10:2] [See below, p. 163 sq.]
+
+[11:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. [And so throughout all the editions.]
+
+[11:2] [See below, p. 111.]
+
+[11:3] i. pp. 444-485.
+
+[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.]
+
+[12:1] I. p. 441.
+
+[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.]
+
+[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.]
+
+[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, 'For the arguments of
+apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to Canon Westcott's work
+_On the Canon_ pp. 112-139. Dr Westcott does not attempt to deny the
+fact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our
+Gospels; but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' ['seem
+to us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author
+had read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence
+would doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by
+arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.'
+
+[13:1] II. p. 411.
+
+[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different
+purpose later on (II. p. 416).
+
+[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred
+to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: "And thou didst try them
+which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them
+false."' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No
+result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis ... than the fact
+that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' _i.e._, after St Paul's
+death. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one
+definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between
+the two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands
+of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this
+extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English
+review of high character.
+
+[14:2] 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the season of persecution arrived,
+and the constancy of Christians was tested in this very way, St Paul's
+own principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from
+even apparent complicity in idolatrous rites. There is every reason
+therefore to believe that, if St Paul had been living when the
+Apocalypse was written, he would have expressed himself not less
+strongly on the same side. On the other hand these early Gnostics who
+are denounced in the Apocalypse seem, like their successors in the next
+generation, to have held that a Christian might conform to Gentile
+practices in these matters to escape persecution. St Paul combats this
+spirit of license, then in its infancy, in the First Epistle to the
+Corinthians.
+
+[14:3] [On the diction of the Fourth Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.]
+
+[14:4] II. p. 445.
+
+[15:1] [_The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_
+(1872). Macmillans.]
+
+[15:2] Our author (II. p. 444) speaks of 'the works of imagination of
+which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is
+recognized by all.' Is this a true description of the world in the early
+Christian ages? If not, it is nothing to the purpose.
+
+[15:3] II. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress on the _difference_ of theme.
+[See below, p. 131 sq.]
+
+[15:4] [He does however mention the term elsewhere; see below, p. 123.]
+
+[15:5] II. p. 468, and elsewhere.
+
+[16:1] II. p. 451.
+
+[16:2] [These passages are added without comment in the Complete Edition
+in a note on II. p. 453.]
+
+[16:3] [On this point see below, p. 131.]
+
+[17:1] II, p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, 271. [The statement stands
+unchanged in the Complete Edition (II. p. 474 sq).]
+
+[17:2] [See further, p. 99 sq.]
+
+[17:3] II. p. 421. Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly
+identify Sychar with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This
+fact is not mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted'
+['evident' ed. 6] 'that there was no such place [as Sychar, [Greek:
+Suchar]], and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the
+difficulty.' This is altogether untrue. Others besides 'apologists'
+point to passages in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or
+Sochar, or Sichar);' see Neubauer _La Geographie du Talmud_ p. 169 sq.
+Our author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch _Zeitschr. f.
+Luth. Theol._ 1856 p. 240 sq. He cannot have read the article, for these
+Talmudic references are its main purport.
+
+[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133
+sq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.]
+
+[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete
+Edition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).]
+
+[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).]
+
+[19:1] II. p. 423 sq.
+
+[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht fuer noethig
+gefunden, den Taeufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes
+auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistes] zu
+unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25,
+26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).'
+
+[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124
+sq.]
+
+[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459.
+
+[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which
+Dr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileides, kan Glaukian
+epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermenea].
+
+[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets
+were inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been
+worth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After
+having been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is
+cut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).]
+
+[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123
+sq.]
+
+[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.]
+
+[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.]
+
+[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.]
+
+[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57.
+
+[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.).
+
+[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135.
+
+[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq.
+
+[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's
+conclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac,
+and Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace
+with its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer
+must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to
+which he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the
+whole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's
+critical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the
+suggestion, that the name of the fabulist AEsop is derived from
+Solomon's "_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33:
+_Die Sprueche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq.
+
+[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which
+depends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of
+Celsus (II. p. 228), etc.
+
+[25:3] [See further, p. 141.]
+
+[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.]
+
+[27:1] II. p. 484.
+
+[27:2] II. p. 487 sq.
+
+[27:3] II. p. 486.
+
+[27:4] II. p. 487 sq.
+
+[27:5] II. p. 489.
+
+[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490.
+
+[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv.
+
+[30:1] II. p. 492.
+
+[30:2] II. p. 492.
+
+[30:3] II. p. 492.
+
+[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to
+the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have
+occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations
+from the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here
+quoted.
+
+[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27.
+
+[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432.
+
+[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the
+statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I
+find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop
+of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the
+Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to
+this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is
+very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar
+veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated
+to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these
+two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Caesarea, in the
+preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias
+maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in
+other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness
+of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the
+acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore
+have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics,
+I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.
+
+[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6
+(I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition
+(p. xxi).]
+
+[35:1] I. p. 435.
+
+[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]
+
+[35:3] II. p. 320.
+
+[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p.
+318).]
+
+[35:5] I. p. 483.
+
+[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of
+this expression see below, p. 183 sq.]
+
+[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]
+
+[35:8] II. p. 322.
+
+[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]
+
+[35:10] II. p. 323.
+
+[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the
+sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the
+work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']
+
+[35:12] II. p. 164.
+
+[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.]
+
+[36:1] II. p. 166.
+
+[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in
+the Complete Edition.]
+
+[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ ton
+kata chronous ekklesiastikon sungrapheon _hopoiais kechrentai_ ton
+antilegomenon, _tina te peri_ ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon graphon
+kai _hosa peri_ ton me toiouton autois eiretai.] The words spaced will
+show the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references
+or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record
+of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike.
+The double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is
+incapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect
+the question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of
+Irenaeus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle
+to the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and
+Apocalypse alike.
+
+[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this
+Essay see below, p. 178 sq.]
+
+[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24.
+
+[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of
+economising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which
+the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that
+they are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been
+confused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a
+clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It
+must be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the
+amount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I
+refer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved
+by Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies.
+
+[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5.
+
+[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223.
+
+[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the
+Apostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel?
+Of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikos]
+concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made
+parties ([Greek: proskliseis]).
+
+[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37.
+
+[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16.
+
+[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33.
+
+[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12.
+
+[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8.
+
+[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29.
+
+[41:6] _Rom._ 4.
+
+[41:7] _Ephes._ 12.
+
+[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius
+generally.
+
+[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36.
+
+[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16.
+
+[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4.
+
+[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc.
+
+[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6.
+
+[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages.
+
+[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14.
+
+[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36.
+
+[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66.
+
+[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I.
+
+[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18.
+
+[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24.
+
+[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq.
+
+[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22.
+
+[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474.
+
+[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24.
+
+[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq.
+
+[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6.
+
+[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8.
+
+[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26.
+
+[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26.
+
+[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18.
+
+[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20.
+
+[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14.
+
+[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1.
+
+[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1.
+
+[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
+
+[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
+
+[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483.
+
+[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later
+editions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition
+(1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however,
+which survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending
+note.]
+
+[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341.
+
+[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.]
+
+[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62.
+
+[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66.
+
+[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.]
+
+[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.]
+
+[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised
+some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier
+and later editions.
+
+[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th
+[1874].
+
+[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.]
+
+[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.]
+
+[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.]
+
+[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.]
+
+[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views
+at the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has
+stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven
+Vossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness
+will be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S.
+Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he
+refers his readers.]
+
+[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263.
+
+[62:1] I. p. 269.
+
+[62:2] I. p. 270.
+
+[62:3] I. p. 274.
+
+[63:1] I. p. 274.
+
+[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the
+preface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.]
+
+[63:3] I. p. 263 sq.
+
+[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn
+Bunsen_, Tuebingen, 1848.
+
+[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz
+einverstanden' with Baur's view.
+
+[64:3] _Apostol. Vaeter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq.
+
+[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861).
+
+[64:5] _Die aelt. Zeugn._ p. 50.
+
+[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636.
+
+[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers,
+supposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170.
+
+[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr.
+Recens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's
+Zeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq.
+
+[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862).
+
+[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works,
+where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
+letters.
+
+[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignatianae_ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
+
+[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in
+Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's
+_Vindiciae Ignatianae_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted
+by Jacobson, are taken.
+
+[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error
+in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p.
+260 in that edition.]
+
+[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is
+given.
+
+[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his
+references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I
+confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for
+themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however
+'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]
+
+[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).
+
+[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9.
+
+[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at
+Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi.
+
+[72:1] I. p. 264.
+
+[72:2] I. p. 265.
+
+[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions,
+and is imbedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this
+collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the
+Greek, before the MS of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian
+Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious
+Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian
+Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See
+Zahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 111.
+
+[73:2] I. p. 262.
+
+[73:3] p. 164.
+
+[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: ego ginosko nun archomai
+mathetes einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but
+are wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences.
+
+[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269.
+
+[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267.
+
+[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von
+Antiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered
+by anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I
+venture to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to
+have attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important
+contribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since
+Cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn
+defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.
+
+[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.)
+
+[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere
+coepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem
+refrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut
+fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum
+eis.'
+
+[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12.
+
+[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no
+longer a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon
+tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathekas tinas kai
+paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi touto presbeutas ton hetairon
+echeirotonese nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This
+description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of
+Ignatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonesai_ tina ...
+hos dunesetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders
+reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp
+when he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly
+Lucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and
+believed by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from
+the pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by
+burning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the
+credulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to
+have had at least a superficial acquaintance.
+
+[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the
+Epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such
+circumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles
+are more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a
+soldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still
+greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in
+parts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton,
+has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian
+Letters.
+
+Our author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian
+Letters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227.
+Even the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as
+many hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty,
+Ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his
+guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than
+weeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at
+every stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two
+stages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written
+either at Smyrna or at Troas.
+
+[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the
+meaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._
+5.
+
+[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268.
+
+[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the
+fourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published
+separately.
+
+[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq.
+
+[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.).
+
+[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a
+different time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53.
+
+[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the
+other by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those
+of the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have
+no independent value, being compacted from these two.
+
+[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's
+_Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq.
+
+[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhaeltniss des Textes der drei Syrischen
+Briefe etc._ p. 7.
+
+[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.).
+
+[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the
+latter by Zahn, p. 67.
+
+[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found
+in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the
+credibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traianou], is
+treated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S.
+Polycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).]
+
+[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.]
+
+[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered
+down (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire
+for another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti]
+is substituted for [Greek: philouelon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per
+materiam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation,
+but has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from
+the Greek.
+
+[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq.
+
+[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aidios, ouk] apo
+siges proelthon.]
+
+[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245.
+
+[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in
+the _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq.
+
+[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq.
+
+[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoekonta kai hex ete echo douleuon
+auto]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek:
+echo douleuon] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuo].
+
+[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere);
+Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p.
+958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18.
+
+[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D.
+170-180).
+
+[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq.
+
+[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii.
+31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given
+reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the
+Apostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
+
+[91:5] Papias, _l.c._
+
+[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1.
+
+[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
+
+[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4.
+
+[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Praescr. Haer._ 32.
+
+[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4.
+
+[93:2] _ib._ Sec. 8.
+
+[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq.
+
+[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain
+writings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_
+(Sec. 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or
+others like him (Sec. 3).
+
+[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been
+much disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the
+fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament,
+but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I
+find the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr.
+2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE.
+FECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be
+hazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son
+of a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of
+Domitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of
+Christianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the
+name _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some
+dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian
+princes.
+
+[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi.
+
+[94:3] _Phil._ Sec.10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10,
+xii. 9.
+
+[95:1] _Phil._ Sec. 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et
+nolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,'
+evidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26.
+
+[95:2] _ib._ Sec. 1. [Greek: hon egeiren ho Theos lusas tas odinas tou
+hadou], from Acts ii. 24.
+
+[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
+
+[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference
+to Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the
+coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt.
+
+[96:1] _Phil._ Sec. 8.
+
+[97:1] [Greek: ton autopton tes zoes tou Logou.] I would gladly
+translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i.
+1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek
+order. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text.
+The Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living
+Word.'
+
+[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20.
+
+[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to
+Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe
+_Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there
+were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2)
+considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the
+imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a
+courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenaeus could hardly have
+expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The
+succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost
+entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones
+obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._
+7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years
+of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of
+John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his
+return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rheteur AElius
+Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early
+part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is
+too late for our purpose.
+
+As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a
+conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia
+(Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or
+three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne,
+and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite,
+and Irenaeus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in
+a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a
+visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the
+circumstances.
+
+[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.
+
+[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek:
+parechorese ten eucharistian.]
+
+[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.
+
+[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
+
+[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
+
+[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Roemischen Bischoefe_ p. 263.
+
+[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.
+
+[103:3] See his _Memoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rheteur AElius
+Aristide_ in the _Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202
+sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's
+_Voyage Archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure_.
+
+[104:1] _L'Antechrist_ p. 566.
+
+[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188
+(1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.
+
+[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.
+
+[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional
+guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of
+Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiae conventu legitur.'
+
+[108:1] _Phil._ Sec. 5.
+
+[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly
+correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a
+careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in
+the ordinary theological language of the two writers.
+
+[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
+
+[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence
+with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to
+another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid
+on the occurrence of these few obvious words.
+
+[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).
+
+[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]
+
+[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]
+
+[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the
+thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as
+worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must
+have been [Greek: ton met' autou].
+
+[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.
+
+[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq.
+[See also below, p. 189.]
+
+[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ Sec. 3.
+
+[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]
+
+[115:2] The words of Irenaeus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos
+Markioni pote eis opsin auto elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496)
+remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of
+time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding
+sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident
+from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.
+
+[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.
+
+[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ Sec. 7.
+
+[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.
+
+[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.
+
+[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian
+letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.
+
+[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come
+([Greek: eleluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that
+confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing
+the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be
+[Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: me
+homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of
+Irenaeus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32)
+says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of
+Irenaeus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts
+clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to
+conceive that the very simple [Greek: me homologei] would be altered
+into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all
+events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably
+from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it
+well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in
+Irenaeus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per
+multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere
+eos praecepit dicens' etc.
+
+[119:1] Die aeltesten Zeugnisse p. 41.
+
+[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.
+
+[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.
+
+[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.
+
+[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.
+
+[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.
+
+[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Praescr. Haer._
+33.
+
+[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references
+there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum
+quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens
+Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with
+the context.
+
+[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of
+his martyrdom (Sec. 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai
+pro tes polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in
+Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tes
+marturias].
+
+[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Vaeter_ p. 273) evidently feels this
+difficulty, and apologises for it.
+
+[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's
+note.
+
+[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.
+
+[124:1] See above, p. 20.
+
+[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.
+
+[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.
+
+[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.
+
+[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the
+language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his
+footnote is too clear to be misunderstood.
+
+[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning,
+but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not
+pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a
+quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first
+last" ([Greek: outos esontai oi eschatoi protoi kai oi protoi
+eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of
+the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite
+false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange
+to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the
+famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears
+twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30,
+it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last,
+and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.
+
+[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.
+
+[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that
+St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course,
+to which a passing reference is sufficient.
+
+[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]
+
+[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.
+
+[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.
+
+[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]
+
+[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.
+
+[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]
+
+[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he
+'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de ten
+diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of showing the
+construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my
+mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not
+for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was
+nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's
+'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of
+'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more
+especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural
+Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong
+justification I had for taking this view.
+
+[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.
+
+[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been
+made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a
+correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the
+earlier editions.
+
+[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of
+the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf
+and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc....
+His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the
+critical point in question Irenaeus passes from the direct to the
+indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the
+infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no
+means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such
+phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply
+denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to
+throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to
+fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is
+combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship
+upon himself.'
+
+This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.
+
+[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.
+
+[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.
+
+[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These
+two examples ... Commentaries of Caesar.']
+
+[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
+
+[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
+
+[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire
+whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same
+idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author
+assumes in his reply.
+
+[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]
+
+[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.
+
+[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.
+
+[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]
+
+[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been
+later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been
+superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware,
+which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight
+years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is
+only a probability.
+
+[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]
+
+[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in
+regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in
+Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on
+the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic
+Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four
+editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly
+Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read
+'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By
+'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by
+the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect
+like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._,
+Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.
+
+[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.
+
+[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]
+
+[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.
+
+[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference
+should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before
+this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains
+unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the
+Complete Edition.]
+
+[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition
+substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']
+
+[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.
+
+[136:2] John iv. 35.
+
+[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]
+
+[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.
+
+[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]
+
+[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]
+
+[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.
+
+[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on
+a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may
+be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand
+himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that
+he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as
+applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions
+may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly.
+No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity
+in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble
+passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In
+another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his
+anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and
+beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from
+the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to
+conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this
+wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged
+himself from it.
+
+In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the
+writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a
+believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand
+Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes
+will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of
+personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a
+belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God
+who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of
+the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with
+these beliefs.
+
+[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Ioannou men akoustes, Polukarpou de
+hetairos gegonos].
+
+[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk okneso de soi kai hosa pote
+para ton presbuteron kalos emathon kai kalos emnemoneusa sunkatataxai]
+[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermeneiais, diabebaioumenos huper
+auton aletheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the
+notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise
+stated.
+
+[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.
+
+[145:1] _Haer._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3;
+v. 36. 1, 2.
+
+[145:2] _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenaeus.' Clement
+of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantaenus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.
+
+[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.
+
+[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.
+
+[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated
+at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office
+throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent
+writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von
+Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das
+Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are
+distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings
+Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent
+wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that
+it is not likely to find much favour.
+
+[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the
+Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied
+to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.
+
+[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.
+
+[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.
+
+[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.
+
+[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the
+last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_
+gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still
+living.
+
+[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.
+
+[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used
+any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the
+extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.
+
+[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the
+Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schoene). The
+source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.
+
+[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.
+
+[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I
+wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but
+I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony
+points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in
+_Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
+
+[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.
+
+[150:1] See above, p. 90.
+
+[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third
+book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the
+fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin
+Martyr and events connected with him.
+
+[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te
+Aristion kai ho presbuteros Ioannes ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143],
+and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living
+when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a
+chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a
+historic present introduced for the sake of variety.
+
+[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.'
+Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second
+half of the second century.'
+
+[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307);
+Irenaeus _Haer._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr.
+Carn._ 24.
+
+[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ Sec. 15.
+
+[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.
+
+[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.
+
+[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel;
+_H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.
+
+[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hen to kat' Hebraious euangelion
+periechei].
+
+[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of
+Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite
+the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot
+have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses
+authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it
+in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553).
+'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel
+according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute
+line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even
+illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by
+that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation.
+_Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts
+would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of
+the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
+
+[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not
+know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well
+acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to
+render this very doubtful.
+
+[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii soteri].
+
+[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.
+
+[153:3] Boeckh 3817.
+
+[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kuehn).
+
+[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7;
+_Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p.
+16.
+
+[153:6] See above, p. 142.
+
+[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.
+
+[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in
+the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr.
+Graec._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given);
+the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where
+again only the Latin 'celebris' is given).
+
+[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural,
+'Exposition' ([Greek: exegesis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exegeseis]),
+I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias
+uses [Greek: logion], not [Greek: logon], 'oracles,' not 'words' or
+'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakon logion], not [Greek: logion
+tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall
+have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are
+significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than
+if he had used the alternative expressions.
+
+[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq.
+
+[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it
+is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little
+importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of
+information regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq.
+
+[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8.
+
+[156:3] See below, p. 160.
+
+[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154.
+
+[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes,
+was not [Greek: exegesis] but [Greek: diegesis], which Eusebius uses
+several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39.
+
+[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das
+Papias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to
+the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such
+violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of
+violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon,
+and that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words
+[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parekolouthekos], which occur several lines
+below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermeneiais] 'the interpretations
+belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in
+the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced
+impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact
+will still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_.
+Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the
+two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared,
+Hilgenfeld and Leimbach.
+
+[158:2] Haer. v. 33. 1 sq.
+
+[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the
+looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenaeus,
+does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines
+features from all the three.
+
+[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his
+interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld
+in his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p.
+238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq.
+But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical
+conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical
+narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in
+little esteem.
+
+[160:1] _Haer._ Praef. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to
+make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings]
+by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek:
+exegeseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to
+wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek:
+dia tes exegeseos].
+
+[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.
+
+[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of
+the Naassenes; _Haer._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous
+discourses ([Greek: pollon panu logon]), which they say that James,'
+etc.
+
+[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied
+several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the
+writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.
+
+[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his
+_History of the Canon_ p. 288.
+
+[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.
+
+[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly
+instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's
+view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found
+it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the
+disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as
+ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete
+Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they
+had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere
+collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the
+Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author
+practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which
+elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and
+as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other
+words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical
+records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he
+cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author
+himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at
+all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did
+not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from
+these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of
+books is intended, as I have explained in the text.
+
+[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would
+appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I
+pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated
+[Greek: ouden hemarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,'
+thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the
+result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in
+the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus
+writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.
+
+[165:1] I. p. 456.
+
+[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete
+Edition.]
+
+[166:1] I. p. 459.
+
+[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the
+Complete Edition.]
+
+[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.
+
+[167:3] I. p. 447.
+
+[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from
+its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenaeus, ii. 22.
+5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem
+seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes
+seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini
+convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis
+usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et
+alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur
+de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have
+enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.
+
+[169:1] I. p. 474.
+
+[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]
+
+[171:1] I. p. 465.
+
+[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng.
+Transl.), where there is more to the same effect.
+
+[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse
+Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine
+blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollstaendiges Evangelium laesst schon
+Papias den Matthaeus hebraeisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq,
+454 sq.
+
+[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenaeus did not derive his information
+solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by
+Pantaenus in certainly independent of Papias.'
+
+[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.
+
+[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.
+
+[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]
+
+[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555).
+Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books
+(of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chresmoi]) pronounced ([Greek:
+chresthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different
+kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).
+
+[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].]
+Elsewhere (Sec. 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis
+tas graphas].
+
+[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
+
+[174:4] Iren. _Haer._ i. 8. 1.
+
+[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p.
+392.
+
+[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. Sec. 6
+(III. p. 447).
+
+[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).
+
+[175:3] See p. 163.
+
+[176:1] I. p. 466.
+
+[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logon]
+for [Greek: logion] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading
+of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument;
+but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek:
+logion].
+
+[177:1] Iren. _Haer._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
+
+[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of
+Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural
+Religion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.
+
+[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the
+Preface to this Reprint.]
+
+[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.
+
+[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]
+
+[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]
+
+[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore
+proposes--however precise.']
+
+[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.
+
+[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
+
+[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.
+
+[182:1] Iren. _Haer._ iii. 11. 1.
+
+[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is
+scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the
+facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about
+the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,'
+etc.
+
+[182:3] Iren. _Haer._ iii. 1. 1.
+
+[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.
+
+[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.
+
+[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.
+
+[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
+
+[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]
+
+[184:3] II. p. 166.
+
+[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]
+
+[184:5] I. p. 483.
+
+[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]
+
+[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]
+
+[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.
+
+[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for
+the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me)
+unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June
+[1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of
+_Supernatural Religion_.
+
+[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.
+
+[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of
+Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514
+sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an
+unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_,
+that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an
+extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts
+however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on
+all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.
+
+[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which
+is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit
+ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert
+'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped
+out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem,
+prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek:
+kai autos, kathos hedunato parakolouthein, outos etheke, k.t.l.]), 'And
+he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of
+following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage
+is quite independent of any textual conjectures.
+
+[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek ton matheton],
+where [Greek: mathetes], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and
+Irenaeus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who
+had been taught directly by Christ.
+
+[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a
+single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when
+some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum
+si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet
+ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot
+help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta
+propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legon eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts
+forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle
+also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly
+attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former
+part of the sentence.
+
+[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great
+importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary
+Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of
+its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a
+substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this
+Gospel was composed.
+
+[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II.
+p. 323.
+
+[191:2] See above, p. 49.
+
+[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
+
+[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.
+
+[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note
+is omitted in the Complete Edition.]
+
+[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]
+
+[194:1] Iren. _Haer._ v. 36. 1, 2.
+
+[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]
+
+[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in
+his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly,
+though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they
+teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But
+he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other,
+in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek:
+en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making
+[Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from
+[Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be
+aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see
+Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the
+elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are
+mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in
+paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage
+runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia
+enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum
+verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things
+are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word
+says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to
+all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a
+paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.
+
+A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher
+stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether
+this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after
+(p. 332), I find the work of Irenaeus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of
+the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenaeus and
+Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed.
+II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked
+into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_
+was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the
+treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such
+errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special
+revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page
+to be 'carefully revised.'
+
+[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).
+
+[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).
+
+[196:1] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1.
+Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of
+lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on
+Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures
+of Irenaeus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils
+taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed.
+Kuehn). The discourses which Irenaeus reports from the lips of this
+anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate,
+that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to
+account for them.
+
+[197:1] See above, p. 143.
+
+[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.
+
+[198:1] See above, p. 158.
+
+[198:2] Iren. _Haer._ v. 6. 1.
+
+[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.
+
+[199:2] See above, p. 143.
+
+[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]
+
+[200:2] _Patrol. Graec._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).
+
+[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views
+as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a
+philosophical allegory, and Irenaeus, who regards it as a supramundane
+abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are
+both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main
+point which he has in view.
+
+[201:1] _Patrol. Graec._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.
+
+[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.
+
+[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from
+Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence
+seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be
+very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse,
+emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this
+shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p.
+186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign
+this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who
+mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).
+
+[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.
+
+[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55.
+
+[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.
+
+[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.
+
+[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.
+
+[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.
+
+[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]
+
+[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.
+
+[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.
+
+[208:1] Euseb. _Quaest. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome,
+who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist.
+120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui
+evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam
+_sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non
+_sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'
+
+[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
+
+[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.
+
+[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis
+anapempsantes _anankaios_ nun prosthesomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek:
+tauta d' hemin _anankaios_ pros tois ektetheisin epiteterestho].
+
+[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by
+Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until
+attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7
+sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._
+
+[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
+Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be
+found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.
+
+[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
+Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).
+
+[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the
+result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About
+the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and
+announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.
+
+[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog.
+Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of
+fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._
+(1875), p. 258.
+
+[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was
+suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have
+inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which
+Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6
+(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma
+ebaptisthesan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Herodes men apekteinen
+Iakobon ton Ioannou machaira, ho de Rhomaion basileus, hos he paradosis
+didaskei, katedikase ton Ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon
+eis Patmon ten neson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this
+passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus
+mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error
+which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John
+Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).
+
+[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237
+(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes
+Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in
+the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a
+later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of
+the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in
+_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.
+
+[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly
+substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's
+suggestion of the spurious Papias.
+
+[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by
+the Palaeographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.
+
+[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Graec. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder),
+[Greek: haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to
+heautou mathete Papia eubioto] (_sic_) [Greek: to hierapolite, k.t.l.].
+
+[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsa
+(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].
+
+[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]
+
+[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]
+
+[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Caesarea will be found in Routh _Rel.
+Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the
+Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name.
+Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It
+seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though
+he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony
+of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use
+by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that
+Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant
+his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the
+Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had
+mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was
+said by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en
+hupodeigmasi].
+
+[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]
+
+[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius
+(_Haer._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with
+special reference to the Gospel, by Irenaeus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus
+wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which
+was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that
+Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.
+
+[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.
+
+[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote
+about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons
+some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was
+really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868);
+and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether
+this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii.
+28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The
+important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq,
+1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from
+Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the
+identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.]
+
+[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.
+
+[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.
+
+[218:1] See above, p. 189.
+
+[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tes
+Hellados, ho Ionikos].
+
+[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.
+
+[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.
+
+[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
+
+[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.
+
+[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.
+
+[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.
+
+[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.
+
+[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.
+
+[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.
+
+[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 1.
+
+[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 6 [Greek: ho kekleromenos to auto onoma,
+Herodes epilegomenos], where [Greek: kekleromenos] (not [Greek: kai
+kleronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,'
+_i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.
+
+[221:2] _ib._ Sec. 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the
+expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.
+
+[221:3] _ib._ Sec. 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi huperchon].
+
+[221:4] _ib._ Sec. 8.
+
+[221:5] _ib._ Sec. 7 [Greek: hos epi lesten]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark
+xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.
+
+[221:6] _ib._ Sec. 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.
+
+[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are
+not serious. See above, p. 103.
+
+[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.
+
+[222:1] John xii. 28.
+
+[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. Sec. 5.
+
+[222:3] _ib._ Sec. 12 [Greek: edei gar to tes ... optasias plerothenai hote
+... eipen, k.t.l.]
+
+[222:4] John xii. 33.
+
+[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iesou plerothe, hon
+eipen semainon k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when
+the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch
+says (Sec. 12), [Greek: _me einai exon_ auto, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case,
+the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hemin ouk exestin_
+apokteinai oudena.]
+
+[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 16 [Greek: exelthe [peristera kai] plethos
+haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words
+[Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka]
+according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted
+altogether as in the text of Eusebius.
+
+[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.
+
+[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 15.
+
+[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.
+
+[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ Sec. 16.
+
+[223:2] _ib._ Sec. 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.
+
+[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
+
+[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and
+Waddington's _Voyage Archeologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p.
+507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.
+
+[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.
+
+[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antoninon biblidion].
+The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally
+accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.
+
+[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
+
+[224:2] See above, p. 218.
+
+[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_
+speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error
+survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete
+Edition].
+
+[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts
+relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise
+stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the
+works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences
+are not important enough to be considered here.
+
+[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the
+Syriac fragments.
+
+[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.
+
+[227:1] See above, p. 177.
+
+[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against
+the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.
+
+[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnemoneumata ton
+apostolon e ta sungrammata ton propheton anaginosketia k.t.l.], compared
+with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' auton
+apomnemoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].
+
+[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
+
+[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in
+Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.
+
+[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.
+
+[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.
+
+[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.
+
+[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
+
+[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Graec._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.
+
+[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.
+
+[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in
+Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.
+
+[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered
+this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this
+makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I
+have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have
+disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction
+between [Greek: phone] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the
+second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as
+Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this
+distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek:
+phone boontos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].
+
+[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is
+well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.]
+'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or
+Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to
+state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the
+early Church bearing the name of Melito.
+
+[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 61 (p. 284).
+
+[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 34 (p. 251).
+
+[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 100 (p. 327).
+
+[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ Sec. 100 (p. 327).
+
+[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences
+in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.
+
+[237:1] See above, p. 202.
+
+[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.
+
+[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.
+
+[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.
+
+[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts
+relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.
+
+[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.
+
+[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.
+
+[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollon para pollois sozomenon, ta
+eis hemas elthonta esti tade.]
+
+[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera
+sungrammata axiomnemoneuta einai, ois oupo hemeis enetuchomen.]
+
+[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).
+
+[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.
+
+[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.
+p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius,
+_l.c._
+
+[240:1] [See above, p. 17].
+
+[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many
+been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the
+third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives
+references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh,
+apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to
+reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel.
+Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont,
+where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of
+Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p.
+91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers
+in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria
+is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the
+question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is
+reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._
+p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not
+mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be
+added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the
+Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Osee logos]; see
+Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of
+Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment
+from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition
+of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are
+tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the
+text.]
+
+Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a
+witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same
+authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage
+bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an
+Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the
+Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without
+hesitation.
+
+[242:1] _Die aelt. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.
+
+[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete
+Edition.]
+
+[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.
+
+[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'
+
+[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.
+
+[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
+
+[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.
+
+[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
+
+[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
+
+[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent
+discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the
+Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it
+should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what
+Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris
+([Greek: to alethinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne
+testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself
+taking the opposite view.
+
+[245:2] Iren. _Haer._ ii. 22.
+
+[247:1] See above, p. 131.
+
+[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]
+
+[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of
+Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not
+[Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some
+adversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental
+confirmation of the statement of Irenaeus respecting the Asiatic elders.
+
+[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this
+elder with Papias.
+
+[248:3] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.
+
+[248:4] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 27 sq.
+
+[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
+
+[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.
+
+[249:2] Acts v. 29.
+
+[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in
+Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards.
+
+[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1.
+
+[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may
+be read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.
+
+[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Memoires_ II. p. 343.
+
+[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3.
+
+[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4.
+
+[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
+
+[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated
+'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find
+substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption
+of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition
+(II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is
+substituted for the above, and defended at some length.]
+
+[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44.
+
+[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom,
+_which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out
+instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New
+Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues
+throughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers
+was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]
+
+The _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded
+partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are
+borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken
+(_e.g._ Sec.Sec. 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is
+most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51,
+the writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's
+father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned
+to the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about
+the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the
+more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of
+Sec. 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx.
+25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which
+Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we
+have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other
+portion of the work.
+
+[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381.
+
+[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons]
+some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and
+Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events
+which had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by
+Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenaeus] was
+deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of
+Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their
+sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete
+Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenaeus is made the
+bearer of the Epistle.
+
+This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the
+Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution,
+which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenaeus was
+certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which
+Irenaeus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist
+controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence
+recommending Irenaeus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained
+references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb.
+_H.E._ v. 3, 4.
+
+[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3.
+
+[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1.
+
+[260:3] _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus
+Pius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M.
+Aurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus
+likewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next,
+and was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus
+translated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign
+of the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the
+before-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his
+translation; with more of the same kind. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also
+assigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year
+A.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that
+he repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed.
+
+I should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that
+even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but
+it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him
+just where it would be most in place.
+
+[261:1] _S.R._ II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of
+the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the _first
+three books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written,
+and the rest _must_ be assigned to a later period under the episcopate
+of Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics
+are my own.
+
+[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case,
+then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection
+with Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons]
+and our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way
+indicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary,
+in association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to
+events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled
+elsewhere. It follows clearly, and _few venture to doubt the fact_, that
+the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not
+to our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I
+have disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is
+still more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any
+interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the
+facts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those
+extraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former
+occasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth
+Gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics
+the least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by
+Hilgenfeld (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die aeltesten
+Zeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is
+considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in
+the Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third
+Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a
+Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.']
+
+[263:1] _S.R._ II. p. 474.
+
+[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en te
+prote hemon helikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar
+paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu
+geraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage
+suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life,
+Irenaeus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to
+mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenaeus saw
+him, since the words [Greek: panu geraleos] refer, not to the period of
+their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a
+parallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine
+gar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus
+limited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily
+imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage
+are taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon_ p.
+15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenaeus geboren_ p. 622 sq
+(in _Stud. u. Krit._ 1873), in answer to Ziegler.
+
+[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq.
+
+[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1.
+
+[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq.
+
+[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.
+
+[265:4] See above, p. 253.
+
+[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq.
+
+[266:2] See above, p. 196, note.
+
+[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq.
+
+[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself
+(II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenaeus remained in
+Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat
+protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the
+various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc.
+
+There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The
+notice at the end of the Moscow MS of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_,
+recently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875, p.
+362 sq), states that Irenaeus, 'being in Rome at the time of the
+martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his
+writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice
+announcing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some
+foundation in fact.
+
+[267:2] Photius _Bibl._ 121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where
+these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only
+as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood,
+the metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct
+evidence.
+
+[267:3] [See above, p. 219.]
+
+[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an
+intelligent author like Tacitus (_Hist._ v. 1. sq). It is related, he
+says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time
+when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence
+called _Iudaei, i.e. Idaei_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being
+over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their
+chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He
+states it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores
+consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their
+temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious
+springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days
+continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where
+they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this
+he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of
+thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively
+venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity _Semo Sancus_ for
+_Simo Sanctus_, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.
+
+[270:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553.
+
+[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.]
+
+[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the
+following:--Tatian _Orat. ad Graec._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenaeus i. 28. 1;
+Rhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12,
+p. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29;
+Epiphanius _Haer._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Haer. Fab._ i. 20. The statements
+in the text are justified by one or other of these references.
+
+[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in this article
+will be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq.
+
+[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's
+comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p.
+686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli
+epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli
+pronuntiandam credidit.'
+
+[274:1] Hort (_Journal of Philology_, iii. p. 155 sq, _On the date of
+Justin Martyr_) places it as early as A.D. 148.
+
+[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1.
+
+[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq.
+
+[274:4] Clem. Alex. _Strom_. i. 1 (p. 322).
+
+[275:1] See Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 116 sq, where this point is
+brought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve
+of the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it.
+
+[277:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 29.
+
+[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I.
+p. 150.]
+
+[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15,
+44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8,
+56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59.
+
+[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's
+posthumous volume, _Ancient Syriac Documents_ p. 6 sq (London, 1864),
+from MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire
+by Dr Phillips, _The Doctrine of Addai_ (London, 1876), from a St
+Petersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the
+word is corrupted into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton
+conjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (see pp. 15; 158), and
+his conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly
+so reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (_Lettre
+d'Abgare_, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of the _Trinity_ is
+substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if
+so, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of
+Capua, mentioned below.
+
+[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083.
+
+[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13.
+
+[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Goetting. Gelehrte
+Anzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to
+accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work
+itself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages
+containing these anachronisms are interpolations.
+
+[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the
+British Museum (Wright's _Catalogue_ p. 947) as 'Ann. Graec. 684.'
+
+[280:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should
+be warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading.
+More correct renderings are given here.
+
+[281:1] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammonios men ho
+Alexandreus ... to dia tessaron hemin kataleloipen euangelion, to kata
+Matthaion tas homophonous ton loipon euangeliston perikopas paratheis,
+hos ex anankes sumbenai ton tes akolouthias heirmon ton trion
+diaphtharanai, hoson epi to huphei anagnoseos]--_i.e._ 'He placed side by
+side with the Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of
+the other Evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of
+sequence in the three was destroyed, so far as regards the order
+(texture) of reading.'
+
+[281:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 158. See Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_
+p. 77.
+
+[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without
+difficulty:--
+
+(i) Bar-Hebraeus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem.
+_Bibl. Orient._ i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Caesarea, seeing the
+corruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of
+the _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, which commenced, _In the
+beginning was the Word_, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four
+Gospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from
+the language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of
+Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood
+him, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the
+coincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear
+that the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this
+interpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus
+obliterated the resemblance.
+
+(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the
+beginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but
+the men. He writes (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which
+was compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and
+he called it _Diatessaron_.' He too supposed the two independent
+sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to
+his collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's
+work which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum
+evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum
+scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis
+admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo
+cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta
+fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script.
+Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).
+
+(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes.
+Syr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made)
+from the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in
+Alexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of
+Alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with
+Ammonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul
+flourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice
+were really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this
+confusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown
+by accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can
+never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original
+compiler.
+
+Since writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr
+Hoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611,
+_i.e._, A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as
+it is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through
+Professor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul.
+Thus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than
+Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language.
+
+[282:1] _H.E._ i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who
+flourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian
+omitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869
+sq.
+
+[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze).
+
+[283:2] Zahn (_Goett. Gel. Anz._ p. 184) points out that Aphraates also,
+a somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used this
+_Diatessaron_. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And
+Christ is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in
+the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour--_In the beginning was the
+Word._' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337.
+
+[284:1] Epiphan. _Haer._ xlvi. 1.
+
+[284:2] See the reference in the last note.
+
+[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome
+relating to it, will be found in Westcott's _Introduction to the
+Gospels_ p. 462 sq.
+
+[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is
+given.
+
+[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq.
+
+[286:1] _Patrol. Lat._ lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish
+translation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more
+than once; _e.g._ by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841).
+
+[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained
+this by inquiry.
+
+[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (_Einleitung_ p. 79);
+and curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is
+consistent with the facts.
+
+[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has
+been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]
+
+[291:1] _Les Apotres_ p. xviii.
+
+[291:2] _Les Evangiles_ p. 436.
+
+[292:1] xvii. p. 840.
+
+[293:1] Sub ann. 46.
+
+[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Roem. Alterth._ III. i. p. 294 sq. Even
+De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to
+Strabo Cyprus was governed by propraetors,' and he therefore supposes
+that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands
+uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.
+
+[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12.
+
+[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4.
+
+[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr.
+Graec._ 2631, 2632.
+
+[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's
+_Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 39.
+
+[294:4] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription
+discovered by Mr Wood.
+
+[294:5] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 218.
+
+[294:6] Cesnola's _Cyprus_ p. 425.
+
+[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous
+writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two
+others--the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen--whom he
+describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is
+a mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as
+consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year
+94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of
+Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first
+time, as suffectus, _i.e._ about A.D. 150. See Marini _Atti e Monumenti
+de' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces
+Asiatiques_ p. 731.
+
+[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1
+(_Op._ ii. p. 218, ed. Kuehn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tes
+Rhomaion poleos, andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois
+en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Praenot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p.
+612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun
+chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tes poleos, kai
+Phlabios, hupatikos men on ede kai autos, espeukos de peri ten
+Aristotelous philosophian, hosper kai ho Paulos, hois diegesamenos,
+k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho
+Paulos] in Kuehn and other earlier printed editions which I have
+consulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by
+Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading
+rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense;
+for (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct
+from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that
+plainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage
+Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as
+of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho]
+altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii.
+p. 504.
+
+[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des
+Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.]
+
+[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Graec._ 2954. The first sentence which I
+have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document
+bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our
+own day.
+
+[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated
+'robbers of churches.'
+
+[300:1] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 14.
+
+[300:2] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neokoron ton Sebaston,
+mono]n hapa[son] de tes Artemidos.]
+
+[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESION
+TRIS NEOKORON KAI TES ARTEMIDOS.]
+
+[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153, _Suppl._ vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.
+
+[300:5] Xen. _Anab._ v. 3, 6.
+
+[301:1] _Inscr._ vi. 6, p. 50.
+
+[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hemerai]] [Greek:
+agontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there
+are deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court
+days are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second
+clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as _e.g._ in Euripides
+(_Iph. Taur._ 1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from
+the land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek ges xoana
+kai thuepolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess.
+
+[301:3] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 38.
+
+[302:1] Ign. _Ephes._ 9.
+
+[302:2] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 42.
+
+
+
+
+
+INDICES.
+
+
+I.  INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
+II. INDEX OF PASSAGES.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
+
+Aberle, 210, 213 n
+
+Abgarus, 279
+
+Achaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292
+
+_Acts of Peter_, 37
+
+Acts of the Apostles;
+  Eusebius' method with regard to, 46;
+  used by Polycarp, 95;
+  by Polycrates, 249;
+  ascribed by Irenaeus to St Luke, 44;
+  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 257;
+  Renan on its authorship, 291;
+  recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq
+
+Addai; see _Doctrine of Addai_
+
+AElian, credulity of, 269
+
+AEsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n
+
+African martyrs, 76, 83
+
+Agathonice, 148
+
+Alcibiades, 254
+
+Alexander, 253
+
+Alford, 9, 294, 295 n
+
+Alogi, 215 n
+
+Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7
+
+Ammonius of Alexandria;
+  his date, 280;
+  his Harmony of the Gospels, 280;
+  Eusebius' account of it, 280;
+  its scope distinct from Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;
+  but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq
+
+Anastasius of Sinai;
+  his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq;
+  quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq
+
+Andreas of Caesarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214
+
+Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193
+
+Anger, 165
+
+Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102
+
+Anthropomorphism, 139 n
+
+Antinomianism, 119 sq
+
+Antioch;
+  Trajan at, 79;
+  Antoninus Pius at, 98 n;
+  earthquake at, 79 sq
+
+Antoninus Pius;
+  proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n;
+  his movements as emperor, 98 n
+
+Aphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 283 n, [288]
+
+Aphthonius, 280
+
+Apion, as a critic, 269
+
+Apocalypse;
+  its date, 14 n, 132;
+  its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq;
+  the term Logos in, 15, 123;
+  supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq;
+  the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n;
+  its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47;
+  Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq;
+  Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214;
+  Justin Martyr, 43, 216;
+  Irenaeus, 45, 47, 216;
+  Eusebius, 144;
+  the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq;
+  notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216;
+  in Melito, 47;
+  his commentary on it, 216;
+  in the Muratorian Canon, 216;
+  in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216;
+  in Apollonius, 47
+
+_Apocalypse of Peter_, 37, 47
+
+Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis;
+  a contemporary of Melito, 237;
+  his date, 237 sq;
+  his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238;
+  his orthodoxy, 238 sq;
+  his writings, 238, 242 sq;
+  Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq;
+  his _Apology_, 237;
+  his work against the Montanists, 238, 243;
+  against the Severians, 243;
+  on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq;
+  the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq;
+  not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245;
+  but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq;
+  genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq;
+  references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240;
+  to the Fourth Gospel, 240;
+  follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248;
+  mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237;
+  his prominence in the School of St John, 218
+
+Apollonius;
+  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47;
+  extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n
+
+Apologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275
+
+Arethas, 201
+
+Arianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69
+
+Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270
+
+Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266
+
+Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n
+
+Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq
+
+Asia Minor;
+  imperial visits to, 98;
+  the proconsulate of, 293;
+  the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n;
+  its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252
+
+Asia Minor, the Churches of;
+  importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq;
+  Apostles resident in, 91, 217;
+  episcopacy in, 84, 218;
+  solidarity of, 102;
+  the arena of controversy, 84, 219;
+  literary activity of, 219, 249;
+  testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249;
+  the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249;
+  intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq;
+  Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n
+
+Asiarchs, 222 n, 299
+
+Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq
+
+Assemani, 280 n, 281 n
+
+Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80
+
+Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254
+
+Aubertin, 66, 67
+
+Augustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq
+
+
+Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13
+
+Bar-Ali, the lexicographer;
+  his date, 282 n;
+  mentions Tatian, 282 n
+
+Bar-Bahlul;
+  his date, 282 n;
+  Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n
+
+Bar-Hebraeus;
+  his date, 281 n;
+  confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n
+
+Bar-Salibi;
+  his date, 280;
+  his testimony to Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq
+
+Barnabas, Epistle of;
+  its date, 177;
+  quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227;
+  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;
+  Chiliasm in, 151
+
+Baronio, 293
+
+Basil (St), 175
+
+Basilides;
+  his date, 85, 161;
+  his work _On the Gospel_, 161;
+  fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161;
+  his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219;
+  the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85;
+  his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123
+
+Basnoge, 66, 67
+
+Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
+
+Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69
+
+Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70
+
+Beausobre, 68, 69
+
+Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126
+
+Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171
+
+Blondel, 66, 67
+
+Bochart, 66, 67, 83
+
+Boehringer, 65
+
+Borghesi, 296 n
+
+Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66
+
+
+Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66
+
+Carpus, 148
+
+Capitolinus, 98 n
+
+Casaubon, 66, 67
+
+Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n
+
+Cerinthus;
+  encountered by St John, 101, 212;
+  his separationism, 118;
+  attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118;
+  according to Irenaeus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182;
+  the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215;
+  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219;
+  confused with Marcion, 210, 212
+
+Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297
+
+Chemnitz, 65, 66
+
+Chiliasm;
+  of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n;
+  of the early Church generally, 151
+
+Christian literature;
+  compared with the classics as regards external evidence for
+    documents, 82;
+  plagiarisms in, 202
+
+Christian martyrs;
+  coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220;
+  zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq
+
+Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq
+
+Christology;
+  of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;
+  of Cerinthus, 118;
+  of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;
+  of Polycarp, 106, 108;
+  of Justin Martyr, 235;
+  of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq
+
+Christ's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq
+
+_Chronicon Paschale_; see _Paschal Chronicle_
+
+Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80
+
+[Ciasca, 288]
+
+Claudius Apollinaris; see _Apollinaris_
+
+Clemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n
+
+Clement of Alexandria;
+  coincidence in the name, 94 n;
+  a pupil of Pantaenus, 274;
+  perhaps of Melito, 218, 224;
+  perhaps also of Tatian, 274;
+  quotes from Tatian, 273 n;
+  his wide learning, 269;
+  compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269;
+  his travels, 270;
+  his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270;
+  to St Mark, 167;
+  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
+  to the labours of St John, 218;
+  accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel
+    and Apocalypse, 216;
+  employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47;
+  the Epistle of Barnabas, 47;
+  the _Apocalypse of Peter_, 47;
+  the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152;
+  quotes Basilides, 161;
+  his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq;
+  date of his _Stromateis_, 274;
+  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174
+
+Clement of Rome;
+  his name, 94 n;
+  probably a Hellenist Jew, 94;
+  and a freedman, 94;
+  his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89;
+  scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110;
+  Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179;
+  its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49;
+  employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;
+  its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n;
+  his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105;
+  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;
+  the story of the phoenix in, 268;
+  his place in modern German theories, 24
+
+Clementines;
+  as a romance, 15;
+  Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n;
+  quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52
+
+Cook, 66, 67
+
+Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
+
+Cramer's _Catena_, 201
+
+Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186
+
+Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272
+
+Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n
+
+Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq;
+  see also _Ignatian Epistles_
+
+Cyprian; his correspondence, 76;
+  accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216
+
+Cyprus;
+  its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq;
+  the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294;
+  source of Pliny's information regarding, 295;
+  proconsuls and propraetors of, 294;
+  recent excavations at, 291 sq
+
+Cyrrhestice, 282, 283
+
+
+Dallaeus, 65, 114
+
+De Wette, 9, 293 n
+
+Decian persecution, 76
+
+Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136
+
+Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301
+
+Denzinger, 63, 71
+
+_Diapente_, 279 n, 285 sq
+
+_Diatessaron_; see _Tatian_
+
+Dion Cassius, 293
+
+Dionysius of Alexandria;
+  his critical insight, 167;
+  assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216;
+  but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216
+
+Dionysius of Corinth;
+  his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227;
+  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184
+
+Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n
+
+_Doctrine of Addai_;
+  discovery of the document, 278 n;
+  its subject, 278;
+  its date, 279;
+  its country, 279;
+  noticed in Eusebius, 279;
+  mentions Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 278;
+  the Armenian version, 279
+
+Dodwell, 98 n, 264
+
+Dogma and morality, 27 sq
+
+Donaldson, 241 n
+
+Dressel, 80 n
+
+Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36
+
+
+Ebionism;
+  no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42;
+  nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq;
+  nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq
+
+Edessa, 278 sq
+
+Elders;
+  quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq;
+  by Irenaeus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq;
+  who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq;
+  identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266
+
+Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261;
+  Irenaeus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n
+
+Elias of Salamia;
+  his _Diatessaron_, 280;
+  his name Aphthonius, 280
+
+Encratites;
+  Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243;
+  Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284
+
+Ephesus;
+  St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq;
+  other Apostles at, 91;
+  Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq;
+  cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq;
+  the great theatre at, 298 sq;
+  the designation of magistrates, 299;
+  the title neocoros, 300;
+  the lawful assemblies, 301;
+  image-processions at, 301 sq;
+  gates of, 302
+
+Ephraem of Antioch, 172
+
+Ephraem Syrus;
+  date of his death, 280;
+  his commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq;
+  [an Armenian version discovered, 287]
+
+Epiphanius;
+  date of his work on _Heresies_, 284;
+  his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n;
+  his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n;
+  his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285;
+  confuses Tatian's _Diatessaron_ with the _Gospel according
+    to the Hebrews_, 284
+
+Episcopacy;
+  in the time of St John, 218;
+  in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84;
+  stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107;
+  especially in the Vossian Letters, 87;
+  the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61;
+  not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122;
+  prominent in the writings of Irenaeus, 122
+
+Ernesti, 68
+
+Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq
+
+Eusebius;
+  sources of his history, 32 sq;
+  his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq,
+     190 sq, 215 sq;
+  tested on extant literature, 40 sq;
+  what his silence means, 32 sq;
+  its value as a direct testimony, 51;
+  his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209;
+  his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209;
+  on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82;
+  on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq;
+  his estimate of Papias, 209;
+  on John the Presbyter, 143 sq;
+  his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228;
+  nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242;
+  dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225;
+  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245;
+  attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209;
+  for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208
+
+Evagrius, 80
+
+Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204
+
+[Greek: epi Traianou], 81
+
+[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189
+
+[Greek: exegesis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq;
+  and [Greek: diegesis], 157 n
+
+
+Fathers, early;
+  compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq;
+  considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268;
+  the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works
+    accounted for, 33, 271;
+  explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237
+
+Felicitas, 83
+
+Florinus;
+  a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq;
+  Irenaeus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n;
+  date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq;
+  his subsequent history, 98
+
+Four Gospels;
+  that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270;
+  in Irenaeus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;
+  in Eusebius, 39
+
+Fourth Gospel;
+  its spirit, 13;
+  its Hebraic character, 14;
+  the minuteness of its details, 14 sq;
+  the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq;
+  compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq;
+  in Christology, 15 sq;
+  the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267;
+  compared with the Synoptists in chronology and
+    narrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq;
+  the relation of the Paschal controversy to this
+    question, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267;
+  historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq;
+  the personality of its author, 18 sq;
+  association of others with him in the work, 187;
+  anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;
+  probably dictated, 187, 214;
+  its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq;
+  testimony given by the growth of various readings
+    and interpolations, 9 sq, 52;
+  by the commentary of Heracleon, 52;
+  the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41;
+  of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq;
+  of the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_, 221 sq;
+  of the elders in Irenaeus, 48;
+  of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq;
+  of Claudius Apollinaris, 240;
+  of the School of St John generally, 249 sq;
+  of the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 258;
+  of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq;
+  of Origen, 216;
+  of Gaius, 216 n;
+  Irenaeus on its purpose, 48, 182;
+  quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;
+  significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq;
+  ascribed to Cerinthus, 215;
+  its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220
+
+
+Gaius;
+  on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47;
+  of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n;
+  his date, 216 n;
+  his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n
+
+Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq
+
+Gallican Churches;
+  a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq;
+  intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq;
+  persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq;
+  their letter to the brethren in Asia and
+    Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271;
+  its date, 259;
+  scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq;
+  their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253;
+  their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq
+
+Gaul, called Galatia, 251
+
+Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq
+
+Gfroerer, 69
+
+Glaucias, 21
+
+Gnosticism;
+  the development of antinomian, 119;
+  the literature of, 160 sq;
+  the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202;
+  the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268;
+  the scene of the conflict with, 219;
+  attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119;
+  in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119;
+  in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq;
+  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
+  an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219
+
+Gobarus, 12
+
+_Gospel of Peter_, 37
+
+_Gospel according to the Hebrews_;
+  see _Hebrews, Gospel according to the_
+
+Gospels;
+  see _Matthew's (St) Gospel_, _Mark's (St) Gospel_, _Luke's (St) Gospel_,
+    _Fourth Gospel_, _Four Gospels_
+
+Grabe, 98 n
+
+Griesbach, 68, 69
+
+[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n]
+
+
+Hadrian, 98
+
+Hagenbach, 68
+
+Harless, 69
+
+Hase, 70
+
+_Hebrews, Gospel according to the_;
+  employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183;
+  by other fathers, 152;
+  perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153;
+  Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq;
+  translated by Jerome, 203, 285;
+  statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152;
+  confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285;
+  with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 284;
+  distinct scope of the last-named work, 285
+
+Hebrews, Epistle to the;
+  in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52;
+  the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49;
+  of Irenaeus, 46, 47;
+  of Gaius, 47
+
+Hefele, 63
+
+Hegesippus;
+  his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39;
+  the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185;
+  his attitude towards St Paul, 12;
+  towards tradition, 155;
+  employs the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 47, 183
+
+'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n
+
+[Hemphill, 287, 288]
+
+Henke, 68
+
+Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52
+
+Hermas, the _Shepherd_ of;
+  its devotional character, 271;
+  hence does not quote Scripture, 271;
+  the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq;
+  quoted by Irenaeus, 45, 47, 184
+
+Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221
+
+Heumann, 68
+
+Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224
+
+Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172,
+            176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n
+
+Hippolytus;
+  pupil of Irenaeus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;
+  probably at Rome, 267 n;
+  opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219;
+  defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n;
+  plagiarisms of, 202;
+  plagiarisms from, 216 n;
+  Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161;
+  his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n
+
+Hitzig, 24 sq
+
+Hoffmann, 282 n
+
+Hort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n
+
+
+Ignatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93;
+  three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60;
+    documents, 60;
+    date of the forgery, 60;
+  (2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq;
+    MSS and Versions, 61;
+    history of their discovery, 61;
+  (3) Curetonian Epistles, 61;
+    their discovery, 61;
+    questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistles
+       are prior, 61;
+    the view of _S.R._, 63, 74;
+    the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq;
+    arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from
+  (i) the Armenian Version, 60;
+    a translation from the Syriac Version of the
+         Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86;
+  (ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86;
+    the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters
+           answered, 60, 71, 72 sq;
+    the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq;
+  (B) whether any form is genuine, 61;
+    denied by _S.R._, 62, 74;
+   (i) internal evidence considered,
+    (_a_) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;
+    (_b_) the journey to Rome, 79 sq;
+    (_c_) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82;
+    (_d_) supposed anachronisms, 83;
+    (_e_) evidence of style, 84;
+   (ii) external evidence, 82;
+     result, 84, 88;
+    relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq;
+    argument from silence, 84 sq;
+    limit of their date, 85;
+    arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq;
+    result, 88, [59 n];
+    scriptural quotations in the, 41;
+   Eusebius' method tested on the, 41;
+   theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq;
+   Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;
+   a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302
+
+Ignatius; the name Theophorus, 302;
+  his letters (see _Ignatian Epistles_);
+  his journey to Rome, 59;
+  its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111;
+  his route, 93, 113;
+  his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;
+  his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113;
+  the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq;
+  his zeal for martyrdom, 82;
+  not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;
+  date of his martyrdom, 59;
+  days of commemoration of, 79;
+  extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80
+
+Irenaeus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264;
+  a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq;
+  his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n;
+  represents three Churches, 267;
+  his connexion with the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 259;
+  sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267;
+  at Rome more than once, 267 n;
+  his lectures there, 267;
+  his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;
+  date of his episcopate, 97;
+  his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100;
+  his literary activity, 267;
+  date of his _Refutation_, 259, 260;
+  the first great controversial treatise, 271;
+  its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271;
+  his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261;
+  Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184;
+  importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq;
+  appeals to the elders (see _Elders_);
+  his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq;
+  to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182;
+  to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;
+  to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;
+  to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq;
+  his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262;
+  his controversial treatises, 267;
+  his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219;
+  on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267;
+  on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246;
+  on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq;
+  on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216;
+  on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101;
+  on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116;
+  on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n;
+  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172;
+  his Chiliasm, 151, 197;
+  his evidence for episcopacy, 122;
+  his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;
+  his literary obligations to Papias, 202;
+  to Melito, 236 sq;
+  considered as a critic, 268 sq
+
+Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n
+
+Jerome;
+  on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285;
+  on the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 42, 152, 208, 285;
+  on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n;
+  on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n;
+  on Apollinaris, 242, 243
+
+Jerusalem, results to the Christian Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217
+
+John (St);
+  at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq;
+  his church organisation, 218;
+  the founder of a school, 217 sq;
+  the repositary of Apostolic doctrine and practice, 218;
+  his encounter with Cerinthus, 101, 212;
+  his connexion with Polycarp, 89, 92;
+  with Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 210 sq;
+  with his namesake John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 187;
+  his longevity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246;
+  a story of his martyrdom explained, 211 sq;
+  traditions respecting him, 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;
+  see also _Fourth Gospel_
+
+John (St), the Epistles of;
+  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 46 sq;
+  two mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, 190;
+  the First Epistle employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 191 sq, 220;
+  by Papias, 49, 154, 186, 190 sq, 206, 220;
+  by Irenaeus, 45;
+  a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 186 sq, 190, 220;
+  the evidence of Papias, and of the Muratorian Canon, to this
+    fact, 189, 206
+
+John Malalas;
+  represents Ignatius as martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214;
+  his historical blunders, 80 sq, 214, 269, 285;
+  on a visit of Antoninus Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n
+
+John the Baptist;
+  his designation in the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq;
+  his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq;
+  the [Greek: phone], 232 n
+
+John the Presbyter;
+  in Asia Minor, 91;
+  his connexion with Papias, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266;
+  with Pothinus, 266;
+  with the Apostle St John, 143 sq, 187
+
+Judith, date of the book of, 25 n
+
+Julian, the Emperor, 270
+
+Justa, the Syrophoenician, 129
+
+Justin Martyr;
+  his pupil Tatian, 272, 274;
+  his accuser Crescens, 148, 272;
+  his martyrdom, 148, 274;
+  the account in Eusebius, 150;
+  his evangelical quotations, 43;
+  looseness of his quotations from the O.T., 12, 43;
+  his lost writings, 33;
+  Eusebius' method tested upon his extant works, 43;
+  his Chiliasm, 151;
+  his error as to Simon Magus, 268;
+  his Logos doctrine compared with Melito, 235;
+  his references to the Virgin Mary, 236;
+  his evidence to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 43;
+  to the public use of the Gospels, 227
+
+
+Kestner, 68, 69
+
+
+Lampe, 68
+
+Lardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 109 n, 241 n
+
+Lechler, 70
+
+Leimbach, 158 n, 264 n
+
+Linus, 45
+
+Lipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n
+
+Logos;
+  the expression common to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 15;
+  as distinct from [Greek: phone], 232 n;
+  the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 86 sq;
+  in Justin Martyr, 235;
+  in Valentinus, 86;
+  in Melito, 232, 234 sq;
+  in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87;
+  its importance a characteristic of the second century, 235
+
+Lucian;
+  illustrates the Ignatian Epistles, 76 sq;
+  the Epistle of Polycarp, 77 n
+
+Luke's (St) Gospel;
+  the source of Marcion's Gospel, 8, 186;
+  Papias acquainted with, 178 sq, 186;
+  the evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 189;
+  quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255 sq;
+  Renan on its authorship, 291
+
+Luthardt, 14, 132
+
+[Greek: Leopardos], 67, 83
+
+[Greek: Logia], 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq
+
+
+Magdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66
+
+Malalas; see _John Malalas_
+
+Manes, 81
+
+Mansel, 28
+
+Marcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doctrine of, 87
+
+Marcion;
+  his date, 81, 116, 213 n;
+  confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212;
+  his Gospel, 6 n, 8, 186;
+  his Canon, 117, 227, 263, 273;
+  Papias' acquaintance with it, 186;
+  his attitude towards St Paul, 273;
+  his high moral character, 119;
+  his distinctive views, 117 sq;
+  not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
+  nor in Polycarp's Epistle, 101, 115, 212;
+  a supposed allusion considered, 106, 115 sq;
+  opposed by Justin Martyr, 33;
+  by Melito, 231;
+  scene of his heresy, 219, 227, 231;
+  the question of the Canon raised by it, 219, 225;
+  his views on the resurrection and judgment, 120
+
+Maries, the four, in Papias the lexicographer, 210 sq
+
+Mark's (St) Gospel;
+  the account and criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq,
+    181, 205 sq;
+  the motive of Papias' allusion, 207;
+  compared by Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 205 sq;
+  identification of Papias' St Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq;
+  evidence of the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq
+
+Marseilles, 252
+
+_Martyrdom of Polycarp_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_
+
+Massuet, 98 n
+
+Matthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193
+
+Matthew's (St) Gospel;
+  the account in Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181;
+  his testimony to the Hebrew original, 168, 172;
+  its character, 170 sq;
+  a Greek St Matthew in existence in his day, 168 sq;
+  identical with the extant Gospel, 169 sq;
+  relation of the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170;
+  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, by Jerome, 285;
+  perhaps by Papias, 170;
+  motive of Papias' allusion, 208;
+  quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 227
+
+Meletius, confused with Melito, 231
+
+Melito;
+  his date, 223, 224;
+  a contemporary of Polycarp and Papias, 224;
+  perhaps one of the elders quoted in Irenaeus, 196 n, 224;
+  perhaps a teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 218, 224;
+  his travels, 224, 226;
+  his learning, 228;
+  his orthodoxy, 230;
+  range of his literary works, 32, 102, 224;
+  their popularity, 102, 224, 230;
+  his lost works, 223, 225, 229;
+  his _Apology_, 223, 241 n;
+  the preface to his _Selections_, 226;
+    (1) the extant Greek fragments, their genuineness, 228 sq;
+      supported by the evidence of Tertullian and Hippolytus to his
+         style, 229 sq, 234;
+      not the work of Meletius, 231;
+      their direct evidence to the Gospels, 231;
+    (2) the Syriac fragments, 232 sq;
+      their theology, 234 sq;
+  his doctrine of the Logos, 234;
+  his references to the Virgin Mary, 235 sq;
+  passages from his works incorporated into Irenaeus, 236 sq;
+  Armenian version of a fragment and its Syriac abridgment, 236 sq;
+  a quotation in _Chronicon Paschale_, 241 n;
+  his work on the Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;
+  evidence to the Fourth Gospel therefrom, 248;
+  notice of the Apocalypse in, 47, 216;
+  coincidences with St Paul's Epistles, 237;
+  his treatise against Marcion, 231;
+  date and manner of his death, 224
+
+Merx, 64, 71
+
+Mill (J.S.), 28 sq, 204
+
+Milman, 65
+
+Ministry, the duration of our Lord's, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq
+
+Miracles, 26 sq
+
+[Moesinger, 288]
+
+Montanism;
+  its centre in Asia Minor, 219;
+  correspondence between the Churches of Asia and Gaul relating to, 253;
+  Irenaeus' mission to Rome respecting, 253, 259 n;
+  not referred to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;
+  nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;
+  opposed by Apollinaris, 238;
+  by Irenaeus, 267;
+  the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219, 238, 267
+
+Morality and dogma, 27 sq
+
+Mosheim, 68
+
+Mozley, 28
+
+Muratori, 295 n
+
+Muratorian Canon;
+  date, 188;
+  original language, 188 n;
+  English translation, 189 sq;
+  emendations in the text, 189 n;
+  represents the Church of Rome, 53, 270;
+  its evidence to St Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq;
+  to St Luke's Gospel, 189, 206;
+  to the Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 206, 216;
+  to four Gospels, 164, 188 sq, 205 sq, 270;
+  its testimony compared with that of Papias, 205 sq;
+  perhaps borrowed from him, 207;
+  Matthew Arnold's estimate of, 190 n
+
+
+Naassenes, 161 n
+
+Nature;
+  two meanings of the term, 29 sq;
+  its relation to a Personal God, 28 sq
+
+Neander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242
+
+Neocoros, 300
+
+Neubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136
+
+Nicolaitans, 48, 182
+
+Niebuhr, 25
+
+Nolte, 211 n
+
+
+Oecumenius, 201
+
+Onesimus, the friend of Melito, 226
+
+Ophites, 52, 161, 202, 219
+
+Origen;
+  on Celsus, 7;
+  on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 216;
+  of the Apocalypse, 216;
+  uses the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152 n;
+  quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82;
+  his accuracy in textual criticism, 269;
+  his use of the word 'oracles', 174
+
+Otto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n
+
+Oudin, 67
+
+Overbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n
+
+Owen, 67
+
+[Greek: ouk oid' hopos], 277 sq
+
+
+Pamphilus, 225
+
+Pantaenus, 145 n, 172, 274
+
+Papias;
+  his date, 142, 147 sq;
+  his name and namesakes, 153, 211;
+  of heathen origin, 153;
+  a companion of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153, 218;
+  perhaps not a hearer of St John, 142, 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq;
+  his _Expositions_, 32, 39, 142;
+  its title, 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq;
+  its date, 150;
+  its nature, 11, 155;
+  directed against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 175, 202;
+  as affecting his attitude towards the written Gospels, 156, 159 n, 160;
+  the extant Gospels the text for his exegesis, 163 sq;
+  his method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 197;
+  his informants the 'elders', 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 197 sq;
+  especially Aristion and John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n,
+     164 sq, 266;
+  his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n;
+  not an Ebionite, 151 sq;
+  his attitude towards St Paul, 151 sq;
+  his use of the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ considered, 152, 203 sq;
+  his orthodoxy, 154;
+  story of his martyrdom explained, 147 sq, 211 sq;
+  his mention of St Matthew's Gospel, 163, 167 sq, 181, 208;
+  character of the original Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq;
+  the Greek extant in his time, 168, 208;
+  his mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq;
+  his acquaintance with St Luke's Gospel, 178 sq, 186;
+  with the Fourth Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq;
+  evidenced by his acquaintance with 1 John, 186 sq, 190 sq;
+  by other indications, 192 sq, 203 sq;
+  Eusebius' method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 178 sq;
+  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 34 n, 214;
+  his testimony to the Canon supported by that of the
+     Muratorian fragment, 205 sq;
+  which perhaps borrowed from him, 207;
+  obligations of Irenaeus to, 202;
+  of Eusebius, 208;
+  not the amanuensis of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq;
+  nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq;
+  confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211;
+  quotations in Irenaeus, 4 sq, 127, 194, 248 n;
+  the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the Gospels perhaps
+     from his work, 203 sq;
+  his position as an authority, 10, 218;
+  his credulity considered, 269
+
+Papias, the lexicographer, 211
+
+Papylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq
+
+Paraclete;
+  the Montanist doctrine of the, 219, 267;
+  in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255, 258
+
+Parker, 66, 67
+
+_Paschal Chronicle_;
+  confuses Papias and Papylus, 148 sq;
+  preserves quotations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 sq;
+  from Melito, 241 n;
+  sources of its information, 148 n, 260 n;
+  on the date of Theodotion's version of the LXX, 260 n
+
+Paschal controversy;
+  silence of the Ignatian Epistles upon, 85;
+  of the Epistle of Polycarp, 106;
+  Asia Minor the scene of, 219;
+  Polycarp's visit to Rome respecting, 99 sq, 121;
+  the account in Eusebius, 17, 245;
+  the treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq;
+  of Apollinaris, 238 sq;
+  of Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq;
+  of Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n;
+  of Irenaeus, 242, 244 sq, 267;
+  action of the Gallican Churches with respect to, 253 sq;
+  the attitude of Victor upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq;
+  remonstrance of Irenaeus, 100;
+  of Polycrates, 248;
+  the error of _S.R._ regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 245;
+  its relation to the Canon, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267
+
+Paul (St);
+  in Cyprus, 294 sq;
+  at Ephesus, 299 sq;
+  his attack on Gnosticism, 119 sq;
+  his treatment as a prisoner, 75, 78;
+  his claim to work miracles, 125;
+  his directions as to idol-sacrifices, 14;
+  his connexion with Gaul, 251;
+  not aimed at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq;
+  attitude of Clement of Rome towards, 40;
+  of the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42;
+  of Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq;
+  of Hegesippus, 12;
+  of Papias, 151 sq;
+  of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273;
+  of the elders in Irenaeus, 248;
+  of Melito, 237;
+  of Tatian, 273;
+  of the School of St John generally, 251;
+  of the Churches in Gaul, 255;
+  position of his writings in the Canon of Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq;
+  see also _Tuebingen School_
+
+_Paul, Acts of_, 37
+
+Pearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 83, 86
+
+Pella, 90, 91
+
+Peregrinus Proteus, 76 sq
+
+Pergamum, 147, 148
+
+Pericope Adulterae, an insertion from Papias, 203 sq
+
+Perpetua, 76, 83
+
+Petau, 66, 67
+
+_Peter, Acts of_, 37
+
+_Peter, Apocalypse of_, 37, 47
+
+_Peter, Gospel of_, 37
+
+_Peter, Preaching of_, 37
+
+Peter (St), the Epistles of;
+  their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 sq, 46;
+  Eusebius' method tested on, 43, 45, 47, 49;
+  the First Epistle largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;
+  employed by Papias, 186, 206 sq;
+  by Irenaeus, 45
+
+Peter of Alexandria, 241 n
+
+Petermann, 63, 71, 86 sq
+
+Philip (St), the Apostle;
+  at Hierapolis, 91, 143, 149;
+  his daughters, 91, 149, 153;
+  his intercourse with Papias, 143, 146, 149, 193;
+  his identity, 91 n
+
+Philip, the Asiarch, 222 n
+
+Philippi, the Church at;
+  Ignatius' visit to, 93, 106;
+  Polycarp's correspondence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 (see
+     _Polycarp, Epistle of_);
+  episcopacy at, 106, 108
+
+Philippians, German theories as to the Pauline Epistle to the, 24 sq
+
+Phillips, 279 n
+
+Philo, 173 sq, 200 n
+
+Photius, 196 n, 238, 239, 241 n, 242, 243, 267 n
+
+Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n
+
+Pliny;
+  his credulity and that of the early fathers, 269;
+  his informant Sergius Paulus, 294 sq
+
+Polycarp of Smyrna;
+  date of his birth, 90;
+  born at a crisis, 90 sq;
+  of Christian parents, 94;
+  reared in the centre of Christianity, 91 sq;
+  under the influence of St John, 89, 92;
+  bishop of Smyrna, 92;
+  entertains Ignatius, 92, 113;
+  his age at this time, 121;
+  his letter to the Philippians (see _Polycarp, Epistle of_);
+  a companion of Papias, 142, 150, 153, 218;
+  his old age, 96;
+  his pupils Florinus and Irenaeus, 96 sq, 264, 265;
+  his journey to Rome, 99 sq, 121;
+  preaches at Rome, 101;
+  his encounter with Marcion, 101, 115, 212;
+  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 99 sq;
+  date of his martyrdom, 90, 97, 103 sq, 147, 264;
+  details of it, 77 n, 103, 220 sq;
+  document preserving it (see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_);
+  his position and that of Clement of Rome, 89, 94;
+  the depositary of Apostolic tradition, 89 sq, 96;
+  the link with Irenaeus, 89, 100 sq;
+  the reverence inspired by, 121 n;
+  characteristic expressions of, 97, 115 sq;
+  his use of the word 'oracles', 174
+
+Polycarp, Epistle of;
+  date and circumstances of writing, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121;
+  incomplete in the Greek, 11;
+  its genuineness, 104 sq;
+  (1) external evidence for, 104;
+  (2) internal evidence, 105 sq;
+    from (i) its formula of evangelical quotations, 105, 109;
+    (ii) its picture of Church order, 106, 107 sq, 122;
+    (iii) its Christology, 106, 108;
+    (iv) the argument from silence, 106;
+    (v) its style and subject-matter compared with the
+          Ignatian Epistles, 106 sq;
+  Ritschl's theory of interpretations considered, 110 sq;
+  further objections dealt with, (_a_) the martyr journey of Ignatius, 111;
+    (_b_) alleged anachronisms, 11, 111 sq, 122;
+    (_c_) the Ignatian Epistles appended, 113 sq;
+    (_d_) the thirteenth chapter, 114;
+    (_e_) a supposed reference to Marcion, 115 sq;
+    (_f_) the age of the writer, 121;
+  scriptural quotations in, 42 sq, 49 sq, 93 sq, 109, 118, 227;
+  Eusebius' method tested on, 42 sq, 49;
+  the quotations from 1 Peter, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq;
+  coincidence with 1 John, 49;
+  relation to the Pauline Epistles, 95 sq, 101 sq;
+  its testimony to the Ignatian Epistles, 11, 82, 113 sq
+
+_Polycarp, Martyrdom of_;
+  the document, 103, 220;
+  its date, 220;
+  emphasizes the coincidences with the Passion, 220 sq;
+  its evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 221 sq;
+  employed by the _Paschal Chronicle_, 148 n
+
+Polycrates of Ephesus;
+  his place in the School of St John, 218;
+  his work on the Paschal controversy, 244, 248 sq;
+  scriptural quotations in his letter to Victor, 248, 249;
+  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 249;
+  his reference to Melito, 224
+
+Pontius Pilate, date of the termination of the procuratorship of, 131 n
+
+Pothinus;
+  probably a native of Asia Minor, 253, 265;
+  date of his martyrdom, 253, 265;
+  perhaps one of the elders of Irenaeus, 196 n, 266
+
+Presbyter John; see _John the Presbyter_
+
+Presbyters in Irenaeus; see _Elders_
+
+Proclus, Cominius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
+
+Proconsuls;
+  the title in imperial times, 292 sq;
+  the Greek equivalent, 292;
+  of Cyprus, 294
+
+Propraetors; the title in imperial times, 292;
+  the Greek equivalent, 292
+
+_Protevangelium_, 15, 256 sq
+
+
+Quadratus, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
+
+Quadratus, Statius, the Asiatic proconsulship of, 103 sq
+
+Quartodeciman; see _Paschal controversy_
+
+
+Renan, 104, 232 n, 291
+
+Rhodon, 272, 273 n, 274
+
+Ritschl, 63, 65, 110 sq
+
+Rivetus, 66, 67
+
+Roman Church, its influence in the time of Ignatius, 59
+
+Roman prisoners, treatment of, 75 sq
+
+Roman provinces;
+  Augustus' division of, 291 sq;
+  the titles of their governors, 292;
+  interchange of imperial and senatorial provinces, 292;
+  Asia and Africa the most sought after, 293
+
+Rosenmueller, 68
+
+Routh, 154 n, 201 n, 214 n, 241 n, 252 n
+
+Rufinus, 203
+
+Rufus, 111
+
+Ruinart, 76 n, 80
+
+
+Sachau, 232 n
+
+Salutaris, C. Vibius, 302
+
+Sanday;
+  on the Fourth Gospel, 15;
+  on Marcion's Gospel, 186 n
+
+Saturus, 76
+
+Saumaise, 66
+
+Schleiermacher, 171
+
+Schliemann, 70
+
+Schmidt, 68
+
+Scholten, 64, 119, 242, 262 n
+
+Schroeckh, 68, 69
+
+Schwegler, 24
+
+Second century;
+  its voluminous ecclesiastical literature, 32, 102;
+  meagre literary remains of the first three quarters, 33, 53, 89, 102;
+  small bearing on the Canon of the extant works, 33, 271;
+  importance of Irenaeus at the close of the century, 53, 89
+
+Semler, 68
+
+Serapion, 238
+
+Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus;
+  perhaps an informant of Pliny, 294 sq;
+  Cyprian inscription mentioning him, 294, 297
+
+Sergius Paulus, L.;
+  the friend of Galen, 296;
+  proconsul of Asia, 223, 296;
+  his date, 223;
+  his cursus honorum, 296;
+  his resemblance in character to his namesake in the Acts, 296;
+  his scientific studies, 297;
+  identification of an unknown, 295 n
+
+Severians, Apollinaris' treatise against the, 238, 243
+
+Severus of Antioch, 87
+
+Shechem and Sychar, 17, 133 sq
+
+Silence, its place in the Gnostic Systems, 86 sq
+
+Siloam, 18, 203
+
+Simon Magus, 268
+
+Simonians, 86, 161
+
+_Smyrnaeans, Letter of the_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_
+
+Socinus, 66, 67
+
+Socrates, the historian, 239
+
+Stephanus Gobarus, 12
+
+Strabo, 292, 293 n
+
+_Supernatural Religion_;
+  criticisms on his grammar and scholarship, 3 sq, 53 sq, 126 sq;
+  on his impartiality, 9 sq, 20 sq, 130 sq, 140 sq, 191 sq;
+  on the plan of his book, 26, 138 sq;
+  his charges against opponents, 20 sq, 137 sq;
+  his lists of references, 23, 65 sq;
+  his theological position, 139 n;
+  on the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq;
+  on the Paschal controversy, 17, 240 sq, 245;
+  clerical and other errors, and ambiguities in, 124 sq, 182 sq, 257
+
+Supernatural, meaning of the term, 29 sq
+
+Sychar, identification of, 17 sq, 133 sq
+
+Synoptists;
+  their points of contrast with the Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;
+  recognized by the early fathers, 207 sq, 239;
+  their chronology compared, 16, 48, 131, 239 sq, 245 sq;
+  see also _Fourth Gospel_
+
+
+Tacitus, 25, 268 n
+
+Tatian;
+  an Assyrian, 272;
+  a heathen sophist, 272;
+  his travels, 272;
+  his conversion, 272;
+  a pupil of Justin Martyr, 272, 274;
+  his disciples at Rome, 272, 274;
+  removes to the East, 272;
+  his subsequent heretical opinions, 272;
+  his attitude towards St Paul and the Pauline Epistles, 273, 284;
+  his views anti-Judaic, 273;
+  date of his literary activity, 274;
+  his extant _Apology_, 274;
+  its date, 275;
+  quotes from the Fourth Gospel, 50, 275;
+  his formula of quotation, 276;
+  his _Diatessaron_, 277 sq;
+  its description in Eusebius, 277;
+  who knew but disparaged it, 278;
+  the evidence of the _Doctrine of Addai_, 278 sq;
+  the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, 280, 283;
+  [discovery of an Armenian Version, 288;]
+  Bar-Salibi's statements, 280 sq;
+  Theodoret's testimony to its circulation, 282 sq;
+  summary of evidence, 283 sq;
+  counter-statement of Epiphanius, 284 sq;
+  of Victor of Capua, 285 sq;
+  read in the Churches of Edessa, 278 sq;
+  of Cyrrhestice, 282 sq;
+  its opening words, 280, 281 n, 283;
+  its plan, 280 sq;
+  other than that of Ammonius' _Diatessaron_, 280 sq, 283;
+  confusion of the two works, 281 n;
+  Aphraates' knowledge of it, 283 n, [288];
+  the range of its circulation, 284;
+  confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 284 sq;
+  [recent discovery of an Arabic Version, 288]
+
+Tertullian;
+  gives evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
+  his _Apologeticum_, 275;
+  on the episcopate of Polycarp, 92 n;
+  on the style of Melito, 229;
+  Chiliasm of, 151
+
+Theodoret;
+  date of his episcopate, 282;
+  his treatise on Heresies, 282;
+  his evidence for the Ignatian Epistles, 72;
+  for Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 282 sq;
+  for Apollinaris, 238, 239, 242 sq
+
+Theodotion's Version of the LXX, 260
+
+Theophilus of Antioch;
+  his works, extant and lost, 44;
+  quotes the Fourth Gospel, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;
+  Eusebius' method tested on his _Autolycus_, 44, 52, 215;
+  his testimony to the Apocalypse, 44, 47, 216;
+  his investigations in comparative chronology, 269
+
+Thiersch, 68
+
+Thomas (St), 143, 193
+
+Thomasius, 210 n
+
+Tillemont, 241 n, 253 n
+
+Tischendorf;
+  defended against _S.R.'s_ charges, 5 sq, 54 sq, 125 n, 127 n, 128 n, 138;
+  other references to, 4, 129, 165, 167, 210
+
+Tuebingen School, criticised, 12, 24, 42, 64, 82, 89 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq,
+                 110 sq, 151 sq, 251
+
+
+Uhlhorn, 63, 71
+
+Ussher, 60, 61
+
+
+Valens, the Presbyter, 108
+
+Valentinianism;
+  its expressions anticipated in the Ignatian Epistles, 85, 86 sq;
+  opposed by Irenaeus, 98, 101, 219, 245 sq, 262;
+  by Hippolytus, 161;
+  its appeal to the Canon, 219, 262, 268;
+  to the Fourth Gospel, 52;
+  to uncanonical books, 263;
+  its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's Life, 245 sq;
+  its exegesis, 161
+
+Vettius Epagathus, 255, 256
+
+Victor of Capua;
+  his date, 286;
+  discovers an anonymous Harmony of the Gospel, 286;
+  Frankish translation of this Harmony, 286 n;
+  assigns it to Tatian, 286;
+  [perhaps rightly, 288;]
+  the word _Diapente_ in his notice of Tatian, 279 n, 285 sq
+
+Victor of Rome;
+  his date, 261;
+  his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq
+
+Vienne and Lyons, Churches of; see _Gallican Churches_
+
+Virgin Mary, character of the allusions in Justin Martyr and Melito
+             to the, 235 sq
+
+Volkmar, 24 sq, 64, 71, 79 sq
+
+Voss, 61
+
+Vossian Epistles; see _Ignatian Epistles_
+
+
+Waddington, 98 n, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n, 296 n
+
+Weiffenbach, 146 n, 158 n
+
+Weismann, 68, 69
+
+Weiss, 63, 65, 71
+
+Westcott;
+  defended against the attacks of _S.R._, 4 sq, 12 sq, 21 sq, 53 sq,
+                                          123 sq, 128 n, 137 sq;
+  other references to, 93, 130, 155, 161 n, 211 n, 226 sq, 275 n;
+  his reply to _S.R._, 79 n
+
+Whiston, 69
+
+_Wisdom of Solomon_, 46
+
+Wood's discoveries at Ephesus, 294 n, 297 sq
+
+Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, 222 n
+
+Wright, 282 n
+
+
+Zacharias, 146 n, 255 sq, 262 n
+
+Zahn, 63, 71, 75 n, 77 n, 79 n, 81 n, 115 n, 213 n, 279 n, 283 n, [287]
+
+Zeller, 64
+
+Ziegler, 68, 264 n
+
+Zosimus, 111
+
+Zunz, 153 n
+
+
+
+
+
+INDEX OF PASSAGES.
+
+
+                                       PAGE
+
+Genesis      iv. 15                     174
+
+Exodus       xxxii. 7 sq                174
+
+Deuteronomy  ix. 12 sq                  174
+             x. 9                       173
+             xxxi. 7, 23                221
+
+1 Kings      iv. 33                      25
+
+Psalms       iv. 4                       94
+
+Isaiah       xi. 6 sq                   198
+             lxv. 25 sq                 198
+             lxvi. 22               55, 198
+
+Ezekiel      xxviii. 13                 200
+             xxviii. 15, 16             201
+
+Hosea        ii. 6-17                   241
+
+Tobit        iv. 10                      94
+             xii. 9                      94
+
+St Matthew   v. 44                      123
+             x. 16                       41
+             xi. 27 sq                   16
+             xii. 33                     41
+             xiii. 8                      4
+             xix. 12                     41
+             xix. 29                    158
+             xix. 30                    125
+             xx. 16                     125
+             xxiii. 35                  256
+             xxiii. 37              16, 131
+             xxvi. 29              158, 205
+             xxvi. 42                   221
+             xxvi. 55                   221
+             xxviii. 1                  208
+
+St Mark      x. 29, 30                  158
+             x.31                       125
+             xiv. 48                    221
+
+St Luke      i. 1                       286
+             i. 3                       189
+             i. 5 sq                    146
+             i. 6                       255
+             i. 67                      255
+             ii. 24                     276
+             iii. 23                    231
+             x. 18            186, 200, 201
+             xi. 51                     257
+             xiii. 30                   125
+             xiii. 32, 33                16
+             xiii. 34               16, 131
+             xiv. 13, 14                158
+             xviii. 30                  158
+             xxi. 38                    204
+             xxii. 52                   221
+             xxiii. 43                  201
+
+St John      i. 1             44, 232, 280,
+                              281, 283, 286
+             i. 3                       276
+             i. 5                       275
+             i. 18                       52
+             i. 44                       91
+             iii. 8                      41
+             iv. 5                  17, 133
+             iv. 18                      52
+             iv. 24                     275
+             iv. 35                     136
+             v. 3, 4             9, 52, 126
+             v. 29                      223
+             vii. 36                    204
+             vii. 37 sq                 203
+             vii. 52                    204
+             vii. 58-viii. 11           203
+             viii. 12 sq                204
+             viii. 15              204, 205
+             viii. 29                    41
+             viii. 44                    13
+             viii. 56                   248
+             viii. 57              246, 247
+             ix. 7                       18
+             xii. 21 sq                  91
+             xii. 28                    222
+             xii. 33                    222
+             xiii. 25                   249
+             xiv. 2         4, 54, 194, 247
+             xvi. 2                     258
+             xvii. 3                    223
+             xviii. 31, 32              222
+             xix. 28, 30                222
+             xix. 34 sq                 222
+             xix. 35                    187
+             xx. 1                      208
+             xx. 25                     257
+             xx. 31                     187
+             xxi. 20                    249
+
+Acts         ii. 16                     276
+             ii. 24                      95
+             v. 29                      249
+             vii. 60                    257
+             xiii. 7          292, 294, 295
+             xiii. 40                   276
+             xix. 24 sq                 297
+             xix. 31                    299
+             xix. 35               299, 300
+             xix. 37, 38           299, 301
+             xxi. 9                     149
+             xxi. 14                    221
+
+Romans       i. 5                       237
+             iii. 2                     173
+             iv. 1 sq                   173
+             iv. 18                     276
+             viii. 18                   254
+             xv. 19                     125
+             xvi. 26                    237
+
+1 Corinthians vi. 12-18                 119
+              vii. 5                    273
+              viii. 1 sq                119
+              x. 1 sq                   173
+              x. 7, 8, 14, 21            14
+              xi. 8 sq                  173
+              xv. 12                    120
+
+2 Corinthians xii. 12                   125
+
+Galatians     ii. 9                      14
+              iv. 21 sq                 173
+
+Ephesians     iv. 26                     95
+              v. 21                     109
+              vi. 14                     50
+              vi. 18                    123
+
+Philippians   ii. 6                     254
+              ii. 7                     237
+              iii. 18                   123
+              iv. 2                      24
+
+1 Timothy     ii. 2                     123
+              iii. 15                   254
+              iv. 3                     273
+              iv. 3, 4                  255
+              v. 1, 2, 17, 19           146
+              vi. 7                     123
+              vi. 10                    122
+
+2 Timothy     ii. 18                    120
+              iv. 10                    251
+
+Hebrews       v. 12                     173
+              xi. 2                     145
+
+1 Peter       i. 1                       92
+              i. 8                       50
+              i. 13                      50
+              i. 21                      50
+              ii. 11, 12                 50
+              ii. 17                50, 122
+              ii. 22, 24                 50
+              iii. 9                     50
+              iv. 7                 49, 191
+              iv. 14                     50
+              v. 5                  50, 109
+              v. 13                     207
+
+1 John        i. 1                  97, 190
+              iv. 2, 3                  118
+
+Revelation    i. 4                      133
+              ii. 2                      14
+              ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24     119
+              ii. 14                     13
+              xii. 9                    201
+              xix. 13                    15
+
+Anastasius of Sinai          154, 200, 201,
+                              202, 225, 230
+
+Andreas of Caesarea                      214
+
+Aphraates
+     _Hom._ i. p. 13 (ed. Wright)       283
+
+_Apost. Constit._ ii. 24                203
+
+Aristides Op. I. p. 453 (ed. Dind.)      98
+
+_Barnabae Ep._ 4, 5                      177
+                 15                     151
+
+Basil (St) _Hom._ xi. 5                 175
+      _Hom._ xii. 1                     175
+
+Capitol. _Vit. Anton._ 7                 98
+
+_Chronicon Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.)    238
+                   p. 481               148
+
+Claudius Apollinaris                    207
+
+Clemens Alexandrinus
+    _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter)  174
+    _Exc. Theod._ 38                    273
+    _Strom._ i. 1                  218, 274
+    _Strom._ i. p. 392                  174
+    _Strom._ ii. 9                      152
+    _Strom._ iii. 12                    270
+    _Strom._ iii. 13               152, 270
+    _Strom._ iv. 12                     161
+    _Strom._ vii. p. 889                257
+    _Strom._ vii. 17           21, 161, 213
+    _Quis Div. Salv._ 42            91, 218
+
+Clem. Rom. 5                             40
+          25                            268
+          45                            174
+          47                             40
+          53                            174
+
+Dion Cassius liii. 12                   293
+             liv. 4                     294
+
+Euripides _Iph. Taur._ l. 1359          301
+
+Epiphanius
+    _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17          260
+    _Haer._ xlvi. 1                 273, 284
+    _Haer._ li. 1 sq                     215
+
+Eusebius
+     _Chron._ (Syr. epit.) p. 216
+       (ed. Schoene)                     149
+     _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9                87
+     _Hist. Eccl._ i. 13                279
+                   iii. 3           37, 145
+                   iii. 23     48, 168, 209
+                   iii. 24               39
+                   iii. 25, 27          152
+                   iii. 30, 31           91
+                   iii. 36      41, 43, 152
+                   iii. 37               40
+                   iii. 39    91, 143, 150,
+                             152, 157, 193,
+                                        209
+                   iv. 14           43, 49,
+                                   150, 191
+                   iv. 15      77, 90, 121,
+                           148, 150, 220 sq
+                   iv. 16               273
+                   iv. 18                43
+                   iv. 21               239
+                   iv. 22          152, 183
+                   iv. 23     156, 177, 228
+                   iv. 24                44
+                   iv. 26      32, 47, 223,
+                              225, 243, 296
+                   iv. 27           82, 238
+                   iv. 28               273
+                   iv. 29          273, 277
+                   v. 1            146, 252
+                   v. 3,4          253, 259
+                   v. 6                  45
+                   v. 8        45, 145, 156
+                   v. 13                273
+                   v. 15                 98
+                   v. 18             47, 91
+                   v. 19                238
+                   v. 20       97, 98, 116,
+                                   218, 265
+                   v. 24      91, 100, 224,
+                              244, 248, 254
+                   v. 26                 46
+                   v. 28           102, 230
+                   vi. 13      47, 145, 244
+                   vi. 14           47, 145
+                   vi. 20                47
+                   vii. 25              216
+    _Quaest. ad Marin._ 2, iv.           208
+    _Quaest. ad Steph._ 1                 73
+    Op. IV. p. 1276 (ed. Migne)         281
+
+Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1            296
+      _de Praenot._ 2                    296
+       Op. XIX. p. 11 (ed. Kuehn)        196
+
+Hippolytus
+      _Ref. Haer._ v. 7                  161
+      _Ref. Haer._ vi. 42, 55       145, 202
+
+Ignatius _Ephes_. 1                      42
+         _Ephes_. 7                      42
+         _Ephes_. 9                     302
+         _Ephes._ 12                 41, 42
+         _Ephes._ 14                     41
+         _Ephes._ 19                     73
+         _Magn._ 8               41, 42, 86
+         _Magn._ 11                     118
+         _Magn._ 13                     109
+         _Trall._ 6                     161
+         _Trall._ 9                     118
+         _Rom._ inscr.                  161
+         _Rom._ 2                       232
+         _Rom._ 4               41, 42, 114
+         _Rom._ 5                73, 74, 78
+         _Rom._ 6                    42, 85
+         _Rom._ 7                        85
+         _Philad._ 3                    161
+         _Philad._ 6                     42
+         _Philad._ 7                     41
+         _Smyrn._ 1                     118
+         _Smyrn._ 6                      41
+         _Polyc._ 1-4                    93
+         _Polyc._ 2                      41
+         _Polyc._ 3                  42, 93
+         _Polyc._ 7                  77, 93
+
+Irenaeus
+    _Haer. pref._ i.                     160
+           i. 3. 6                      160
+           i. 8. 1                      174
+           i. 26. 1                     118
+           i. 27. 2                     117
+           i. 27. 3                117, 120
+           i. 28. 1                273, 274
+           ii. 22. 5       48, 91, 92, 131,
+                             168, 209, 217,
+                              218, 245, 264
+           ii. 31. 2                    120
+           iii. 1. 1                48, 182
+           iii. 3. 3                    260
+           iii. 3. 4     92, 101, 115, 217,
+                                   218, 264
+           iii. 11. 1                48,182
+           iii. 11. 9                   215
+           iii. 12. 12                  117
+           iii. 16. 8                   118
+           iii. 21. 1                   260
+           iii. 25. 2                   120
+           iii. 25. 3                   120
+           iv. 26. 2                    218
+           iv. 27. 1 sq           145, 196,
+                                   248, 266
+           iv. 30. 1               145, 196
+           iv. 31. 1          145, 196, 248
+           iv. 32. 1                    196
+           v. 5. 1            145, 198, 218
+           v. 20. 2                     177
+           v. 30. 1                     218
+           v. 31. 1 sq                  151
+           v. 33. 1                     158
+           v. 33. 3                145, 218
+           v. 33. 4                     142
+           v. 86. 1, 2          3, 54, 126,
+                              145, 194, 199
+
+Jerome
+    _de Vir. Illust._ 16                 42
+    _de Vir. Illust._ 17                105
+    _de Vir. Illust._ 24                229
+    _de Vir. Illust._ 26                243
+    _Ep. ad Magnum_ (p. 83)             243
+    _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428)                239
+    _Ep._ 120 _ad Hedib._ (I. p. 826)   208
+    _praef. ad Tit._ vii.                273
+
+John Malalas p. 276 (ed. Bonn.)          79
+             p. 280                      98
+
+Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 26             268
+              _Apol._ i. 66, 67     43, 227
+              _Dial._ 34                235
+              _Dial._ 51 sq             151
+              _Dial._ 61                235
+              _Dial._ 80 sq             151
+              _Dial._ 100          235, 236
+
+Lucian _de Morte Peregr._ 12             76
+       _de Morte Peregr._ 41             77
+
+_Martyr. Polyc._ 1                      220
+                 5                      222
+                 6, 7, 8                221
+                 9                  90, 221
+                12                      222
+                13                      121
+                14                      223
+                15                      222
+                16             77, 222, 223
+
+Origen _c. Cels._ pref. etc.            278
+       _c. Cels._ i. 8                    7
+       _c. Cels._ viii. 76                7
+       _de Princ._ iv. 11               175
+       _in Matth._ x. 6                 175
+       _in Matth._ xvi. 6               212
+       _in Luc. Hom._ i.                152
+
+Philo _de Conj. Erud. Grat._ 24         174
+      _de Profug._ 11                   174
+      _Vit. Moys._ iii. 23              174
+
+Photius _Bibl._ 14                 238, 239
+        _Bibl._ 119                     241
+        _Bibl._ 121                196, 267
+
+Pliny _Nat. Hist._ ii. 90, 97, 112      295
+      _Nat. Hist._ xviii. 12, 57        295
+
+Polycarp _Phil._ 1                   50, 95
+         _Phil._ 2                       50
+         _Phil._ 3         93, 96, 112, 114
+         _Phil._ 4                      122
+         _Phil._ 5                  50, 108
+         _Phil._ 7        49, 93, 115, 116,
+                                   174, 191
+         _Phil._ 8                       50
+         _Phil._ 9                 111, 112
+         _Phil._ 10                  50, 94
+         _Phil._ 12            95, 112, 122
+         _Phil._ 13        11, 93, 111, 114
+
+_Protevangelium_ 11, 12                 257
+                 23                     256
+
+Socrates _Hist. Eccl._ III. 7           239
+                       VII. 32          118
+
+Tacitus _Hist._ v. 1 sq                 268
+
+Tatian _Orat. ad Graec._ 4, 13           275
+       _Orat. ad Graec._ 19         273, 276
+       _Orat. ad Graec._ 29, 35, 42      273
+
+Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24         151
+           _adv. Marc._ iv. 2             8
+           _adv. Marc._ v. 10           120
+           _de Praescr. Haer._ 32          92
+           _de Praescr. Haer._ 33         120
+           _de Resurr. Carn._ 19        120
+           _de Resurr. Carn._ 24        151
+
+Theodoret _Haer. Fab._ i. 20        273, 282
+          _Haer. Fab._ i. 21        238, 243
+          _Haer. Fab._ iii. 2       239, 243
+          _Ep._ 113                     283
+
+Theophilus _ad Autol._ ii. 22            44
+
+Victor Cap. _Praef. ad Anon. Harm.
+             Evang._                    286
+
+Xenophon _Anab._ v. 3, 6                300
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Essays on "Supernatural Religion", by
+Joseph B. Lightfoot
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ESSAYS ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" ***
+
+***** This file should be named 18191.txt or 18191.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/1/9/18191/
+
+Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+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
+http://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 http://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
+http://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 http://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 http://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 checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is 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:
+
+     http://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.
+
+*** END: FULL LICENSE ***
+