diff options
Diffstat (limited to '18191-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 18191-8.txt | 14483 |
1 files changed, 14483 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/18191-8.txt b/18191-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d771c31 --- /dev/null +++ b/18191-8.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: ISO-8859-1 + +*** 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 tê alêtheia]. + +BOURNEMOUTH, +_May_ 2, 1889. + + + + + TABLE OF CONTENTS. + + PAGE + I. INTRODUCTION 1--31 + II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS 32--58 + III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES 59--88 + IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA 89--141 + V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I. 142--177 + VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II. 178--216 + VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN 217--250 +VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL 251--271 + IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 272--288 + + DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 291--302 + INDICES 303--324 + + + + +SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. + + +I. INTRODUCTION. + +[DECEMBER, 1874] + + +If the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by +withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend +the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in +his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the +pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was +secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was +promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears +of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious. +The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception) +lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition +was exhausted in a few months. + +No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this +imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this +anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to +such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler +alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his +opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived +in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath +of suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities +obliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years +past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less +than this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous +author, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication +of an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was +preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining +Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt +any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men +talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained +great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the +rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty +of the basest fraud of which a man is capable. + +And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this +identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics +of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and +cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of +resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the +theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch +writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions +of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a +reputation is traduced on these grounds. + +I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural +Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers +have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of +Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this +assumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested, +it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd. +It is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual +reviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be +convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this +identification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have +read, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other +four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same +name and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics +quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me. + +1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in +attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order. +'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has +learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second, +'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His +scholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.' +'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another +place, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third +reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the +first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect, +praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a +fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute +scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four +different quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already +mentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among +his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic. + +Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are +written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be +assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an +adequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom +which will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the +work itself, which will throw any light on this point. + +The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important +passage of Irenæus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier +authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded +only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:-- + + 'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the + abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights + of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city; + for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see + Him shall be worthy.' + +Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by +our author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear +immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:-- + + + WESTCOTT. | SUPERNATURAL RELIGION. + | +'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this +they taught, exists between | distinction [4:4] of dwelling +those who brought forth a | ([Greek: einai de tên diastolên +hundred-fold, and those who | tautên tês oikêseôs]) of those bearing +brought forth sixty-fold, and | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the +those who brought forth | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of +twenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of + | whom some indeed shall be taken up + | into the heavens, some shall live +And it was for this reason | in Paradise, and some shall +the Lord said that _in His | inhabit the City, and for that +Father's House_ ([Greek: en | reason ([Greek: dia touto]-- +tois tou patros]) _are many | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared +mansions_ (John xiv. 2).' | many mansions to be in the (heavens) +[4:3] | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou + | patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.' + +On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one +who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes +himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenæus conducts his +argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the +phrase we are considering is introduced by Irenæus himself, and is in +no case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the +relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks, +which I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the +other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel +himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our +author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite +unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative, +or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so +he boldly translates [Greek: einai tên diastolên] as though it were +[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: hê diastolê], and +[Greek: eirêkenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eirêken ho +Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to +persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and +between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our +author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view +by several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own +remarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto], +though in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is +used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr +Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],' +because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to +show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St +John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of +others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because +I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral +motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that +our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would +venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as +more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an +anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty +against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least +given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name. +It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this +grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two +later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the +reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself, +and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at +all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it +will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which +'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to +find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of +grammar [6:3]. + +The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at +issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall +take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former +instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is +equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who +shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date +therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in +the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this +person had been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first +book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is +disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have +flourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close +of the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him +the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he +writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as +follows:-- + + 'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise + after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise + to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight + books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and + finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may + answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3] + +On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that +Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been +'considerably modified', and remarks that he now 'treats him as a +contemporary'. Unfortunately however, the tenses, on which everything +depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say, +'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_' ([Greek: +epangellomenon]), _i.e._ in the treatise before him, for Origen's +knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And again, he does +not say 'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write', but 'If he +_did not write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: egrapsen +huposchomenos]); nor 'if he _has commenced and finished_', but 'if he +_commenced and finished_' ([Greek: arxamenos sunetelese]) [7:4]. Thus +Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict +accordance with the earlier passages in his work. + +These two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means +the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an +elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is +curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek +sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides +(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II. +p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as +[Greek; ho logos edêlou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata +korrês propêlakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from +such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a +translation of [Greek: ouden hêmarte] in an important passage of Papias +relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist, +though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he +did record. + +Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be +inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt +credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of +believers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of +believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is +still better illustrated by the following example:-- + +'Nam ex iis commentatoribus | 'For of the Commentators +quos habemus, Lucam videtur | whom we possess, Marcion seems +Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke, +Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2. | which he mutilates.' _S.R._ + | II. p. 99. [8:9] + +Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect +subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same +time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the +Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries +of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Cæsar +[9:1]. + +Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge +which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to +inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic, +which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating +tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether +again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and +might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries +ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and +reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These +qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my +subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for +forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to +remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to +contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism. +Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel +at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes: +'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it +was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards +the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely +forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the +other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did +originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted +from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to +make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why +the disputed words must have formed part of the original text. + +It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the +_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural +Religion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias, +an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of +critical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot +possibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he +says that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and +doings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one +maintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our +Second Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological +sequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which +is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able +reviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical +nineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that +they must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic +and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me? + +2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to +increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also, +on which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the +author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.' +Our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with +excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment +must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony +of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same +direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer, +'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The +account given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a +perfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no +small prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an +error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and +scholarly criticism.' + +Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author +does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of +'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their +weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, +though they often occur in the same books and even in the same contexts +which he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly +substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a +few samples. + +Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism +[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to +be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is +requested regarding him "and those who are with him."' Why then does he +not notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of +information, that when the Latin version (the Greek is wanting here) 'de +his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original language, [Greek: +tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again, +when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias +[11:3], why does he not even mention the view maintained by Dr Westcott +and others (and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of +Papias' own words), that this father's object in his 'Exposition' was +not to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and +illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written +documents? [11:4] This view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of +Papias to the written Gospels; and its discussion was a matter of +essential importance to the main question at issue. Again, when he +reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of +Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], and quotes the often-quoted passage +from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of +Hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen, etc.', +why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical +teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently +'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as +used by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according +to the Tübingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts +everything else which we know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the +view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's +consideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin +Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's +careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most +favourable specimen of his critical work, our author frequently refers +to Dr Westcott's book to censure it, and many comparatively +insignificant points are discussed at great length. Why then does he not +once mention Dr Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin +Martyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as throwing some light on +the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the +Gospels? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the +reviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took +a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A +reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ will have his +eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind, when he turns to Dr +Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, mis-names, and +mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these +are unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these +omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue. + +Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted, +'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with +special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and +character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen +and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had +his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or +he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear +presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as +explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the +reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be +candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any +other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The +arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this +part of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such +writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments +remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth +Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of +Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and +love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to +such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of +this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in +the Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion +is undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them +that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a +stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed +to idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses +this same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers +and free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the +scandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct +antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on +this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to +deny, the Hebraic [14:3] character of the Fourth Gospel, does he wholly +ignore the investigations of Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' +venture to think) show that the whole texture of the language in the +Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness +of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its +authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the +'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no +difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the +identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have +been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments +as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1]; +arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough +naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle +and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the +local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on +the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas, +more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the +like. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in +the literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable +probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which +(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and +uncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any +evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of +romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or +the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he +would at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when +he is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth +Gospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic +writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to +exist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3] +without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these +analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in +these two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs +more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel, +but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the +Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the +Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not +mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi. +27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man +knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save +the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, +all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This +one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the +Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our +author says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the +ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his +preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career +culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth +Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee, +Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and +refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then +does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as +Matt. xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem,... +_how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the +expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate other +visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not recorded in +the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested also that the +twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St Luke, 'I do cures +_to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall be perfected,' 'I must +walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day following_,' points to the very +duration of our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth Gospel +[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does +not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words, +was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought +of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here, +as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical +difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the +course of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their +confidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3]. + +Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second +century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one +occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not +mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be +absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian +Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan, +commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it +naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main +dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the +question whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th +Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus, +they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This +view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the +unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to +end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan, +as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the +_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were +certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2] + +The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic' +writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and +geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he +condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least +likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of Sychar and +Shechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a +rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments. +One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring +to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes +this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a +fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight +knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound +[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam +signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin +_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'? +and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark +on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress +(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not +unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence +transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate +upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes, +ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases +ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do +not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn +his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own +armour is gaping at every joint. + +But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic' +writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning. + +Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth +Gospel:-- + + 'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests + principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other + Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and + also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the + appellation [Greek: ho baptistês], whilst he carefully + distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always + speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but + rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness + of this evidence, etc.' [19:1] + +Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes +this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the +other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be +natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay +great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because +it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle +indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a +forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author +considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it, +when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it +is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to +whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer +stating that the Fourth Evangelist + + 'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from + the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein + einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistês].' [19:2] + +So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his +German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error +is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a +commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set +right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not +construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the +reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the +subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of +mistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the +critics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of +the original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead +authority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual +[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers] +is sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1] + +3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third +point. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are +conducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union +with a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our +second reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this +part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they +leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had +our _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He +rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity +of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.' + +Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which +bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,' +'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic +truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for +instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not +savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of +the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the +highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who +differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a +righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself +with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at +another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will +not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which +we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is +sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. Dr Westcott writes of +Basilides as follows:-- + + 'At the same time, he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, + as well as St Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' [21:1] + +The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr Westcott's book. +It need hardly be said that Dr Westcott is simply illustrating the +statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St Peter by +the similar statement of Papias and others that St Mark was an +interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information, +one would suppose. On this passage however our author remarks:-- + + 'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading + system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, + in the introduction after 'Glaucias' of the words '_who as well as + St Mark was_ an interpreter of St Peter.' The words in italics are + the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only + have been inserted for one of two purposes: (I) to assert the fact + that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition + represented Mark to be; or (II) to insinuate to unlearned readers + that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the + interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been + the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and + infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal + of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the + allusion to Mark, was [unconsciously, no doubt] too strong for the + apologist.' [21:2] + +Dr Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. It +stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. I only +call attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr Westcott's +inverted commas [22:1], and then founded on the passage so manipulated a +charge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their +absence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of. +I will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate +falsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not +believe that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this +highly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the +elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It +illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a +straightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper +of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said, +'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the +processes of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would +render life intolerable and history impossible [22:2]. + +It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all +this literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be +constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as +impossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by +an 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything +which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not +the Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the +works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles +and Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its +hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and +who, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such +abilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest +place among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of +dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him. + +There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an +important part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in +the notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the +mode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author +in the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and +have found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions +to which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances, +these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is +strange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of +authority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on +his readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a +presumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on +examination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen +centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of +men in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present +themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit +of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past +times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the +intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance, +whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been +altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of +intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was +setting strongly in one direction. + +This comparison is not without its use. Here were men eminently learned, +painstaking, minute; eminently ingenious also, and in a certain sense, +eminently critical. In accumulating and assorting facts--such facts as +lay within their reach--and in the general thoroughness of their work, +the rabbis of Jewish exegesis might well bear comparison with the rabbis +of neologian criticism. They reigned supreme in their own circles for a +time; their work has not been without its fruits; many useful +suggestions have gone to swell the intellectual and moral inheritance of +later ages; but their characteristic teaching, which they themselves +would have regarded as their chief claim to immortality, has long since +been consigned to oblivion. It might be minute and searching, but it was +conceived in a false vein; it was essentially unhistorical, and +therefore it could not live. The modern negative school of criticism +seems to me to be equally perverse and unreal, though in a different +way; and therefore I anticipate for it the same fate. + +Mr Matthew Arnold, alluding to an eccentric work of rationalizing +tendencies written by an English scholar, and using M. Renan as his +mouthpiece, expresses the opinion that 'an extravagance of this sort +could never have come from Germany where there is a great force of +critical opinion controlling a learned man's vagaries, and keeping him +straight.' [24:1] I confess that my experiences of the critical +literature of Germany have not been so fortunate. It would be difficult, +I think, to find among English scholars any parallel to the mass of +absurdities, which several intelligent and very learned German critics +have conspired to heap upon two simple names in the Philippian Epistle, +Euodia and Syntyche; first, Baur suggesting that the pivot of the +Epistle, which has a conciliatory tendency, is the mention of Clement, a +mythical or almost mythical person, who represents the union of the +Petrine and Pauline parties in the Church [24:2]; then Schwegler, +carrying the theory a step further, and declaring that the two names, +Euodia and Syntyche, actually represent these two parties, while the +true yoke-fellow is St Peter himself [24:3]; then Volkmar, improving the +occasion, and showing that this fact is indicated in their very names, +Euodia, or 'Rightway,' and Syntyche or 'Consort,' denoting respectively +the orthodoxy of the one party and the incorporation of the other +[24:4]; lastly, Hitzig lamenting that interpreters of the New Testament +are not more thoroughly imbued with the language and spirit of the Old, +and maintaining that these two names are reproductions of the patriarchs +Asher and Gad--their sex having been changed in the transition from one +language to another--and represent the Greek and Roman elements in the +Church, while the Epistle to the Philippians itself is a plagiarism from +the Agricola of Tacitus [25:1]. When therefore I find our author +supporting some of his more important judgments by the authority of +'Hitzig, Volkmar and others,' or of 'Volkmar and others,' [25:2] I have +my own opinion of the weight which such names should carry with them +[25:3]. + +It is not however against the eccentricities of individuals except so +far as these can be charged to a vicious atmosphere and training, that I +would rest the chief stress of my complaint. The whole tone and spirit +of the school in its excess of scepticism must, I venture to think, be +fatal to the ends of true criticism. A reviewer of _Supernatural +Religion_ compares the author's handling of the reconstructive efforts +of certain conservative critics regarding the Fourth Gospel to Sir G.C. +Lewis's objections to Niebuhr's 'equally arbitrary reconstruction of +early Roman history.' From one point of view this comparison is +instructive. We have no means of testing the value of that eminent +writer's negative criticisms of early Roman history. But where +additional knowledge has enabled us to apply a test to his opinions, as, +for instance, respecting the interpretation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic +language, we find that his scepticism led him signally astray. It seems +to be assumed that, because the sceptical spirit has its proper function +in scientific inquiry (though even here its excesses will often impede +progress), therefore its exercise is equally useful and equally free +from danger in the domain of criticism. A moment's reflection however +will show that the cases are wholly different. In whatever relates to +morals and history--in short, to human life in all its developments-- +where mathematical or scientific demonstration is impossible, and where +consequently everything depends on the even balance of the judicial +faculties, scepticism must be at least as fatal to the truth as +credulity. + +The author of _Supernatural Religion_ proposes to himself the task of +demonstrating that the miraculous element in Christianity is a delusion. +The work is divided into three parts. The first part undertakes to prove +that miracles are not only highly improbable, but antecedently +incredible, so that no amount of testimony can overcome the objections +to them. As a subsidiary aim, he endeavours to show that the sort of +evidence, which, under the most favourable circumstances, we should be +likely to obtain in the early Christian ages, ought not to inspire +confidence. The second and third parts are occupied in examining the +actual witnesses themselves, that is, the four Gospels; the second being +devoted to the Synoptists, and the third to St John. The main contention +is that the four Gospels are entirely devoid of evidence sufficient to +satisfy us of their date and authorship, considering the momentous +import of their contents. These portions of the work therefore are +chiefly occupied in examining the external testimonies to the +authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. In the case of St John the +internal character of the document is likewise subjected to examination. + +Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first +part, the second and third are altogether superfluous [27:1]. It is +somewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole +work should be devoted to this needless task. Impressed, as it would +seem, by the elaboration of these portions, reviewers have singled them +out for special praise, even when they have condemned the first as +unsatisfactory. With this estimate of their value I find myself +altogether unable to agree; and in the articles which will follow I hope +to give my reasons for dissenting. Regarded as a handbook of the +critical fallacies of the modern destructive school, _Supernatural +Religion_ well deserves examination. + +For this reason I shall hereafter occupy myself solely with the two +latter portions of the work, and more especially with the external +evidences of the Gospels; but there is one point, affecting the main +question at issue, which it is impossible to pass over in silence. +Anyone who, with the arguments of the first part fresh in his memory, +will turn to the final chapter, in which the author gives a confession +of faith, must be struck with the startling dislocation between the +principles from which the work starts and the manifesto with which it +concludes. Our author has eliminated, as he believes, the miraculous or +supernatural element from the Gospel. He will have nothing to say to +'Ecclesiastical Christianity,' by which strange phrase is meant the +Christianity of the Apostles and Evangelists. He will not even hear of a +future life with its hopes and fears [27:1]. He will purge the Gospel of +all 'dogmas,' and will present it as an ethical system alone. The +extreme beauty, I might almost say the absolute perfection, of Christ's +moral teaching [27:2] he not only allows, but insists upon. 'Morality,' +he adds, 'was the essence of his system; theology was an after-thought.' +[27:3] And yet almost in the same breath he adopts as his 'two +fundamental principles, Love to God and love to man.' He commends a +'morality based upon the earnest and intelligent acceptance of Divine +Law, and perfect recognition of the brotherhood of man,' as 'the highest +conceivable by humanity.' [27:4] He speaks of the 'purity of heart which +alone "sees God.'" [27:5] He enforces the necessity of 'rising to higher +conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being ... whose laws of +wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we ever perceive in operation +around us.' [28:1] All this is well said, but is it consistent? This +universal 'brotherhood of man,' what is it but a 'dogma' of the most +comprehensive application? This 'Love to God' springing from the +apprehension of a 'wondrous perfection,' and the recognition of an +'infinitely wise and beneficent Being,'--in short, this belief in a +Heavenly Father, which on any showing was the fundamental axiom of our +Lord's teaching, and which our author thus accepts as a cardinal article +in his own creed,--what is it but a theological proposition of the most +overwhelming import, before which all other 'dogmas' sink into +insignificance? + +And what room, we are forced to ask, has he left for such a dogma? In +the first portion of the work our author has been careful not to define +his position. He has studiously avoided committing himself to a belief +in a universal Father or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God. If +he had done so, he would have tied his hands at once. Very much of the +reasoning which he brings forward against the miraculous element in +Christianity in answer to Dr Mozley and Dean Mansel falls to the ground +when this proposition is assumed. His arguments prove nothing, because +they prove too much: for they are equally efficacious, or equally +inefficacious, against the doctrine of a Divine providence or of human +responsibility, as they are against the resurrection of Christ. The +truth is, that when our author closes his work, he cannot face the +conclusions to which his premisses would inevitably lead him. They are +too startling for himself, as well as for his readers, in their naked +deformity; and with a noble inconsistency he clutches at these 'dogmas' +to save himself from sinking into the abyss of moral scepticism. + +Mr J.S. Mill's inexorable logic may not be without its use, as holding +up the mirror to such inconsistency. On his own narrow premisses this +eminent logician builds up his own narrow conclusions with remorseless +rigour. Our author in his first part adopts this same narrow basis, and +truly enough finds no resting-place for Christianity upon it, as indeed +there is none for any theory of a providential government. But at the +conclusion he tacitly and (as it would seem) quite unconsciously assumes +a much wider standing-ground. If he had not done so, he himself would +have been edged off his footing, and hurled down the precipice. A whole +pack of 'pursuing wolves' [29:1] is upon him, far more ravenous than any +which beset the path of the believers in revelation; and he has left +himself no shelter. If he had commenced by defining what he meant by +'Nature' and 'Supernatural,' he might have avoided this inconsistency, +though he must have sacrificed much of his argument to save his creed. +As it is, he has unconsciously juggled with two senses of Nature. Nature +in the first part, where he is arguing against miracles, is the +aggregate of external phenomena--the same Nature against which Mr Mill +prefers his terrible indictment for its cruelty and injustice. But +Nature in the concluding chapter involves the idea of a moral Governor +and a beneficent Father; and this idea can only be introduced by opening +flood-gates of thought which refuse to be closed just at the moment when +it is necessary to bar the admission of the miraculous. Our author has +ranged himself unconsciously with the 'intuitive philosophers,' of whom +Mr Mill speaks so scornfully. He has appealed, though he does not seem +to be aware of it, to the inner consciousness of man, to the instincts +and cravings of humanity, to interpret and supplement the teachings of +external Nature; and he is altogether unaware how large a concession he +has made to believers in revelation by so doing. + +Even though we should close our eyes to all other considerations, it is +vain to ignore the inevitable moral consequences which flow from this +mode of reasoning; for they are becoming every day more apparent. The +demand is made that we should abandon our Christianity on grounds which +logically involve the abandonment of any belief in the providential +government of the world and in the moral responsibility of man. Young +men are apt to be far more logical than their elders. Older persons are +taught by long experience to distrust the adequacy of their premisses: +consciously or unconsciously they supplement the narrow conclusions of +their logic by larger lessons learnt from human life or from their own +heart. But generally speaking, the young man has no such distrust. His +teacher has appealed to Nature, and to Nature he shall go. The teacher +becomes frightened, struggles to retrace his steps, and speaks of 'an +infinitely wise and beneficent Being'; but the pupil insolently points +out how + + Nature, red in tooth and claw, + With ravin, shrieks against his creed. + +The teacher urges, 'All that is consistent with wise and omnipotent Law +is prospered and brought to perfection:' [30:1] and the pupil replies: +'You have limited my horizon to this life, and in this life the facts do +not verify your statement.' The teacher says, Believe that you--you +personally--'are eternally cared for and governed by an omnipresent +immutable power for which nothing is too great, nothing too +insignificant.' [30:2] The pupil says: 'My Christianity did show me how +this was possible; but with my Christianity I have cast it away as a +delusion. I could not stop short at this point consistently with the +principles you have laid down for my guidance. I have done as you told +me to do; I have "ratified the fiat which maintains the order of +Nature," [30:3] and I find Nature wholly + + Careless of the single life. + +I will therefore please myself henceforth.' The teacher speaks of 'the +purity which alone sees God;' and to him the expression has a real +meaning, for his mind is unconsciously saturated with ideas which he has +certainly not learnt from his adopted philosophy: but to the pupil it +has lost its articulate utterance, and is no better than sounding brass +or a tinkling cymbal. Hence the pupil, having thrown off his +Christianity, too often follows out the principles of his teacher to +their logical conclusions, and divests himself also of moral restraints, +except so far as it may be convenient or necessary for him to submit to +them. Happily this has not been the case hitherto in the large majority +of instances. The permanence of habits formed in a nobler school of +teaching, the abiding presence of a loftier ideal not derived from this +new philosophy, and (we may add also) the voice of an inward witness +whose authority is denied, but whose warnings nevertheless compel a +hearing, all tend to raise the level of men's conduct above their +principles. The full moral consequences of the teaching would only then +be seen, if ever a generation should grow up, moulded altogether under +its influences. + + + + +II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. + +[JANUARY, 1875.] + + +'It is very important,' says the author of _Supernatural Religion_, when +commencing his critical investigations, 'that the silence of early +writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to +the Gospels.' [32:1] In the present article I shall act upon this +suggestion. In one province more especially, relating to the external +evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place. This +mysterious oracle will be interrogated, and, unless I am mistaken, the +response elicited will not be at all ambiguous. + +To EUSEBIUS we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost +ecclesiastical literature of the second century. This literature was +very considerable. The Expositions of Papias, in five books, and the +Ecclesiastical History of Hegesippus, likewise in five books, must have +been full of important matter bearing on our subject. The very numerous +works of Melito and Claudius Apollinaris, of which Eusebius has +preserved imperfect lists [32:2], ranged over the wide domain of +theology, of morals, of exegesis, of apologetics, of ecclesiastical +order; and here again a flood of light would probably have been poured +on the history of the Canon, if time had spared these precious documents +of Christian antiquity. Even the extant writings of the second century, +however important they may be from other points of view, give a very +inadequate idea of the relation of their respective authors to the +Canonical writings. In the case of Justin Martyr for instance, it is not +from his Apologies or from his Dialogue with Trypho that we should +expect to obtain the fullest and most direct information on this point. +In works like these, addressed to Heathens and Jews, who attributed no +authority to the writings of Apostles and Evangelists, and for whom the +names of the writers would have no meaning, we are not surprised that he +refers to those writings for the most part anonymously and with reserve. +On the other hand, if his treatise against Marcion (to take a single +instance) had been preserved, we should probably have been placed in a +position to estimate with tolerable accuracy his relation to the +Canonical writings. But in the absence of all this valuable literature, +the notices in Eusebius assume the utmost importance, and it is of +primary moment to the correctness of our result that we should rightly +interpret his language. Above all, it is incumbent on us not to assume +that his silence means exactly what we wish it to mean. Eusebius made it +his business to record notices throwing light on the history of the +Canon. The first care of the critic therefore should be to inquire with +what aims and under what limitations he executed this portion of his +work. + +Now, our author is eloquent on the silence of Eusebius. His fundamental +assumption is that where Eusebius does not mention a reference to or +quotation from any Canonical book in any writer of whom he may be +speaking, there the writer in question was himself silent. This indeed +is only the application of a general principle which seems to have taken +possession of our author's mind. The argument from silence is +courageously and extensively applied throughout these volumes. It is +unnecessary to accumulate instances, where 'knows nothing' is +substituted for 'says nothing,' as if the two were convertible terms; +for such instances are countless. But in the case of Eusebius the +application of the principle takes a wider sweep. Not only is it +maintained that A knows nothing of B, because he says nothing of B; but +it is further assumed that A knows nothing of B, because C does not say +that A says anything of B. This is obviously an assumption which men +would not adopt in common life or in ordinary history; still less is it +one to which a competent jury would listen for a moment: and therefore a +prudent man may well hesitate before adopting it. + +With what unflinching boldness our author asserts his position, will +appear from the following passages:-- + +Of Hegesippus he writes [35:1]:-- + + 'The care with which Eusebius searches for every trace of the use + of the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety + to produce any evidence concerning their authenticity, render his + silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct + utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.' + +And again [35:2]:-- + + 'It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the + testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, + regarding the Gospels _and the Apocalypse_ [35:3], would not have + neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus, + for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with + any opportunity.' + +And again [35:1]:--'As Hegesippus does not [35:2] mention any +Canonical work of the New Testament etc.' And in the second +volume he returns to the subject [35:3]:-- + + 'It is certain that, had he (Hegesippus) mentioned [35:4] our + Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would + have been recorded by Eusebius.' + +Similarly he says of Papias[35:5]:-- + + 'Eusebius, who never fails to enumerate [35:6] the works of the New + Testament to which the Fathers refer, does not pretend [35:7] that + Papias knew either the Third or Fourth Gospels.' + +And again, in a later passage [35:8]:-- + + 'Had he (Papias) expressed any recognition [35:9] of the Fourth + Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this + silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the + Johannine Gospel.' + +And a little lower down [35:10]:-- + + 'The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not + mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth + Gospel in the work of Papias.' [35:11] + +So again, our author writes of Dionysius of Corinth [35:12]:-- + + 'No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New + Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still + extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the + Epistles which have perished [35:13], which he certainly would not + have omitted to do had they contained any.' + +And lower down [36:1]:-- + + 'It is certain that had Dionysius mentioned [36:2] books of the New + Testament, Eusebius would, as usual, have stated the fact.' + +Of this principle and its wide application, as we have seen, the author +has no misgivings. He declares himself absolutely certain about it. It +is with him _articulus stantis aut cadentis critices_. We shall +therefore do well to test its value, because, quite independently of the +consequences directly flowing from it, it will serve roughly to gauge +his trustworthiness as a guide in other departments of criticism, where, +from the nature of the case, no test can be applied. In the land of the +unverifiable there are no efficient critical police. When a writer +expatiates amidst conjectural quotations from conjectural apocryphal +Gospels, he is beyond the reach of refutation. But in the present case, +as it so happens, verification is possible, at least to a limited +extent; and it is important to avail ourselves of the opportunity. + +In the first place then, Eusebius himself tells us what method he +intends to pursue respecting the Canon of Scripture. After enumerating +the writings bearing the name of St Peter, as follows;--(l) The First +Epistle, which is received by all, and was quoted by the ancients as +beyond dispute; (2) The Second Epistle, which tradition had not stamped +in the same way as Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkon], 'included in the +Testament'), but which nevertheless, appearing useful to many, had been +studied ([Greek: espoudasthê]) with the other Scriptures; (3) The Acts, +Gospel, Preaching, and Apocalypse of Peter, which four works he rejects +as altogether unauthenticated and discredited--he continues [37:1]:-- + + 'But, as my history proceeds, I will take care ([Greek: prourgou + poiêsomai]), along with the successions (of the bishops), to + indicate what Church writers (who flourished) from time to time + have made use of any of the disputed books ([Greek: + antilegomenôn]), and what has been said by them concerning the + Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) and acknowledged Scriptures, and + anything that (they have said) concerning those which do not belong + to this class. Well, then, the books bearing the name of Peter, of + which I recognise ([Greek: egnôn]) one Epistle only as genuine and + acknowledged among the elders of former days ([Greek: palai]), are + those just enumerated ([Greek: tosauta]). But the fourteen Epistles + of Paul are obvious and manifest ([Greek: prodêloi kai sapheis]). + Yet it is not right to be ignorant of the fact that some persons + have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was + disputed by the Church of the Romans as not being Paul's. And I + will set before (my readers) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata + kairon]) what has been said concerning this (Epistle) also by those + who lived before our time ([Greek: tois pro hêmon]).' + +He then mentions the Acts of Paul, which he 'had not received as handed +down among the undisputed books,' and the Shepherd of Hermas, which 'had +been spoken against by some' and therefore 'could have no place among +the acknowledged books,' though it had been read in churches and was +used by some of the most ancient writers. And he concludes:-- + + 'Let this suffice as a statement ([Greek: eis parastasin ... + eirêsthô]) of those Divine writings which are unquestionable, and + those which are not acknowledged among all.' + +This statement, though not so clear on minor points as we could wish, is +thoroughly sensible and quite intelligible in its main lines. It shows +an appreciation of the conditions of the problem. Above all, it is +essentially straightforward. It certainly does not evince the precision +of a lawyer, but neither on the other hand does it at all justify the +unqualified denunciations of the uncritical character of Eusebius in +which our author indulges. The exact limits of the Canon were not +settled when Eusebius wrote. With regard to the main body of the +writings included in our New Testament there was absolutely no question; +but there existed a margin of _antilegomena_ or disputed books, about +which differences of opinion existed, or had existed. Eusebius therefore +proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways. +This is the cardinal point of the passage. Of the antilegomena he +pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book +belonging to their class ([Greek: tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); but as +regards the undisputed Canonical books he only professes to mention +them, when such a writer has something to _tell about them_ ([Greek: +tina _peri_ tôn endiathêkôn eirêtai]). Any _anecdote_ of interest +respecting them, as also respecting the others ([Greek: tôn mê +toioutôn]), will be recorded. But in their case he nowhere leads us to +expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and +however precise [38:1]. + +This statement is inserted after the record of the martyrdom of St Peter +and St Paul, and has immediate and special reference to their writings. +The Shepherd of Hermas is only mentioned incidentally, because (as +Eusebius himself intimates) the author was supposed to be named in the +Epistle to the Romans. But the occasion serves as an opportunity for the +historian to lay down the general principles on which he intends to act. +Somewhat later, when he arrives at the history of the last years of St +John, he is led to speak of the writings of this Apostle also; and as St +John's Gospel completes the tetrad of Evangelical narratives, he inserts +at this point his account of the Four Gospels. This account concludes as +follows [39:1]:-- + + 'Thus much ([Greek: tauta]) we ourselves (have to say) concerning + these (the Four Gospels); but we will endeavour more particularly + ([Greek: oikeioteron]) on the proper occasions ([Greek: kata + kairon]) by quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been + said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them. + Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera]) + of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among + our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients, + while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse + opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day, + among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall + receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from + the testimonies of the ancients.' + +After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the +results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage, +important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers. + +Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is +observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes +concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere +references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford +important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical +authority. + +Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which +our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question, +after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he +actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with +the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means +of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus +and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping +assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next +to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us. +But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to +the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of +Polycarp, of Irenæus, and others; and, as these writings are still +extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a +definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this +test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not, +then it is worthless. + +Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This Epistle contains +several references to Evangelical narratives--whether oral or written, +whether our Canonical Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for the present +to discuss [40:1]. It comprises a chapter relating to the labours and +martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul [40:2]. It also, as our author himself +allows (accepting the statement of Tischendorf), 'here and there ... +makes use of passages from Pauline Epistles.' [40:3] It does more than +this; it mentions definitely and by name St Paul's First Epistle to the +Corinthians, alluding to the parties which called themselves after Paul +and Cephas and Apollos [40:4]. Of all this Eusebius says not a word. He +simply remarks that Clement, by + + 'putting forward ([Greek: paratheis]) many thoughts of the + (Epistle) to the Hebrews, and even employing some passages from it + word for word ([Greek: autolexei]), shows most clearly that the + document [Greek: sungramma] was not recent (when he wrote).' [40:5] + +This is strictly true, as far as it goes; the passages are too many and +too close to leave any doubt about their source; but the Epistle to the +Hebrews is not directly named, as the Epistle to the Corinthians is. + +The IGNATIAN EPISTLES deserve to be considered next. The question of +their genuineness does not affect the present inquiry; for the seven +letters contained in what is commonly called the Short Greek recension, +whether spurious or not, were confessedly the same which Eusebius read; +and to these I refer. For the sake of convenience I shall call the +writer Ignatius, without prejudging the question of authorship. Ignatius +then presents some striking coincidences with our Synoptic Gospels +(whether taken thence or not, I need not at present stop to inquire), +_e.g._ 'Be thou wise as a serpent in all things, and harmless always as +a dove,' [41:1] 'The tree is manifest by its fruit,' [41:2] 'He that +receiveth, let him receive.' [41:3] He likewise echoes the language of +St John, _e.g._ 'It (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and whither it +goeth,' [41:4] 'Jesus Christ ... in all things pleased Him that sent +Him,' [41:5] with other expressions. He also refers to the examples of +St Peter and St Paul. [41:6] He describes the Apostle of the Gentiles as +'making mention of' the Ephesians 'in every part of his letter' (or 'in +every letter' [41:7]). These letters moreover contain several passages +which are indisputable reminiscences of St Paul's Epistles [41:8]. Yet +of all this Eusebius says not a word. All the information which he gives +respecting the relation of Ignatius to the Canon is contained in this +one sentence [41:9]:-- + + 'Writing to the Smyrnæans, he has employed expressions (taken) I + know not whence, recording as follows concerning Christ:-- + + "And I myself know and believe that He exists in the flesh after + the resurrection. And when He came to Peter and those with him + ([Greek: pros tous peri Petron]), He said unto them, 'Take hold, + feel me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit' [literally, + 'demon,' [Greek: daimonion asômaton]]; and immediately they + touched Him, and believed."' + +It should be added that, though Eusebius does not know the source of +this reference, Jerome states that it came from the Gospel of the +Hebrews [42:1]. + +Now let us suppose that these Epistles were no longer extant, and that +we interpreted the silence of Eusebius on the same principle which our +author applies to Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth. +'Here,' we should say, 'is clearly a Judaising Christian--an Ebionite of +the deepest hue. He recognises St Peter as his great authority. He +altogether ignores St Paul. He knows nothing of our Canonical Gospels, +and he uses exclusively the Gospel of the Hebrews. Thus we have a new +confirmation of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the +Christian Church. The thing is obvious to any impartial mind. Apologetic +writers must indeed be driven to straits if they attempt to impugn this +result.' It so happens that this estimate of Ignatius would be +hopelessly wrong. He appeals to St Paul as his great example [42:2]. His +Christology is wholly unlike the Ebionite, for he distinctly declares +the perfect deity as well as the perfect humanity of Christ [42:3]. And +he denounces the Judaisers at length and by name [42:4]. What then is +the value of a principle which, when applied in a simple case, leads to +conclusions diametrically opposed to historical facts? + +From Ignatius we pass to POLYCARP. Here again the genuineness of the +Epistle bearing this Father's name does not affect the question; for it +is confessedly the same document which Eusebius had before him. In +Polycarp's Epistle [42:5] also there are several coincidences with our +Gospels. There is a hardly disputable embodiment of words occurring in +the Acts. There are two or three references to St Paul by name. Once he +is directly mentioned as writing to the Philippians. There are obvious +quotations from or reminiscences of Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, +Ephesians, 1 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, not to mention other more +doubtful coincidences. Of all this again Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So +far as regards the Canon, he does not think it necessary to say more +than that 'Polycarp in his aforesaid ([Greek: dêlôtheisê]) writing +([Greek: graphê]) to the Philippians, which is in circulation ([Greek: +pheromenê]) to the present day, has used certain testimonies from the +First (former) Epistle of Peter [43:1]. Here again, we might say, is a +Judaiser, the very counterpart of Papias. This inference indeed would be +partially, though only partially, corrected by the fact that Eusebius in +an earlier place [43:2], to illustrate his account of Ignatius, quotes +from Polycarp's Epistle a passage in which St Paul's name happens to be +mentioned. But this mention (so far as regards the matter before us) is +purely accidental; and the sentence relating to the Canon entirely +ignores the Apostle of the Gentiles, with whose thoughts and language +nevertheless this Epistle is saturated. + +When we turn from Polycarp to JUSTIN MARTYR, the phenomena are similar. +This Father introduces into his extant writings a large number of +Evangelical passages. A few of these coincide exactly with our Canonical +Gospels; a much larger number have so close a resemblance that, without +referring to the actual text of our Gospels, the variations would not be +detected by an ordinary reader. Justin Martyr professes to derive these +sayings and doings from written documents, which he styles _Memoirs of +the Apostles_, and which (he tells his heathen readers) 'are called +Gospels [43:3].' His expressions and arguments moreover in some passages +recall the language of St Paul's Epistles [43:4]. Of all this again +Eusebius 'knows nothing.' So far as regards the Canon of the New +Testament, he contents himself with stating that Justin 'has made +mention ([Greek: memnêtai]) of the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying +that it is (the work) of the Apostle.' [43:5] + +His mode of dealing with THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH is still more +instructive. Among the writings of this Father, he mentions one work +addressed _To Autolycus_, and another _Against the Heresy of Hermogenes_ +[44:1]. The first is extant: not so the other. In the extant work +Theophilus introduces the unmistakeable language of Romans, 1, 2 +Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, not to mention +points of resemblance with other Apostolic Epistles which can hardly +have been accidental [44:2]. He has one or two coincidences with the +Synoptic Gospels, and, what is more important, he quotes the beginning +of the Fourth Gospel by name, as follows [44:3]:-- + + 'Whence the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired men ([Greek: + pneumatophoroi]) teach us, one of whom, John, says, "In the + beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at + the first ([Greek: en prôtois]) God was alone, and the Word in Him. + Then he says, "And the Word was God; all things were made by Him, + and without Him was not anything made."' + +This quotation is direct and precise. Indeed even the most suspicious +and sceptical critics have not questioned the adequacy of the reference +[44:4]. It is moreover the more conspicuous, because it is the one +solitary instance in which Theophilus quotes directly and by name any +book of the New Testament. Here again Eusebius is altogether silent. But +of the treatise no longer extant he writes, that in it 'he (Theophilus) +has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.' [44:5] This is all +the information which he vouchsafes respecting the relation of +Theophilus to the Canon. + +One example more must suffice. IRENÆUS [44:6] in his extant work on +heresies quotes the Acts again and again, and directly ascribes it to St +Luke. He likewise cites twelve out of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, +the exception being the short letter to Philemon. These twelve he +directly ascribes to the Apostle in one place or another, and with the +exception of 1 Timothy and Titus he gives the names of the persons +addressed; so that the identification is complete. The list of +references to St Paul's Epistles alone occupies two octavo pages of +three columns each in the index to Stieren's _Irenæus_. Yet of all this +Eusebius 'knows nothing.' In a previous chapter indeed he happens to +have quoted a passage from Irenæus, relating to the succession of the +Roman bishops, in which this Father states that Linus is mentioned by St +Paul 'in the Epistle to Timothy;' [45:1] but the passage relating to the +Canon contains no hint that Irenæus recognised the existence of any one +of St Paul's Epistles; and from first to last there is no mention of the +Acts. The language of Eusebius here is highly characteristic as +illustrating his purpose and method. He commences the chapter by +referring back to his original design, as follows [45:2]:-- + + 'Since, at the commencement of our treatise, we have made a + promise, saying that we should adduce at the proper opportunities + the utterances of the ancient elders and writers of the Church, in + which they have handed down in writing the traditions that reached + them concerning the Canonical ([Greek: endiathêkôn]) writings, and + Irenæus was one of these, let me now adduce his notices also, and + first those relating to the sacred Gospels, as follows.' + +He then quotes a short passage from the third book, giving the +circumstances under which the Four Gospels were written. Then follow two +quotations from the well-known passage in the fifth book, in which +Irenæus mentions the date and authorship of the Apocalypse, and refers +to the number of the beast. Eusebius then proceeds:-- + + 'This is the account given by the above-named writer respecting the + Apocalypse also. And he has made mention too of the First Epistle + of John, adducing very many testimonies out of it; and likewise + also of the First (former) Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows, + but even receives the writing of the 'Shepherd,' saying, 'Well then + spake the writing' [or 'scripture,' [Greek: hê graphê]] 'which says, + "First of all believe that God is One, even He that created all + things;"' and so forth.' + +This is all the information respecting the Canon of the New Testament +which he adduces from the great work of Irenæus. In a much later +passage [46:1], however, he has occasion to name other works of this +Father no longer extant; and of one of these he remarks that in it 'he +mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Wisdom of +Solomon, adducing certain passages from them.' + +From these examples, combined with his own prefatory statements, we feel +justified in laying down the following canons as ruling the procedure of +Eusebius:-- + +(1) His main object was to give such information as might assist in +forming correct views respecting the Canon of Scripture. + +(2) This being so, he was indifferent to any quotations or references +which went towards establishing the canonicity of those books which had +never been disputed in the Church. Even when the quotation was direct +and by name, it had no value for him. + +(3) To this class belonged (i) the Four Gospels; (ii) the Acts; (iii) +the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. + +(4) As regards these, he contents himself with preserving any anecdotes +which he may have found illustrating the circumstances under which they +were written, _e.g._ the notices of St Matthew and St Mark in Papias, +and of the Four Gospels in Irenæus. + +(5) The Catholic Epistles lie on the border-land between the +_Homologumena_ and the _Antilegomena_, between the universally +acknowledged and the disputed books. Of the Epistles of St John for +instance, the First belonged to the one class, the Second and Third to +the other. Of the Epistles of St Peter again, the First was +acknowledged, the Second disputed. The Catholic Epistles in fact occupy +an exceptional position. + +Respecting his treatment of this section of the Canon he is not explicit +in his opening statement, and we have to infer it from his subsequent +procedure. As this however is uniform, we seem able to determine with +tolerable certainty the principle on which he acts. He subjects all the +books belonging to this section to the same law. For instance, he +mentions any references to 1 John and 1 Peter (_e.g._ in Papias, +Polycarp, and Irenæus), though in the Church no doubt was ever +entertained about their genuineness and authority. He may have thought +that this mention would conduce to a just estimate of the meaning of +silence in the case of disputed Epistles, as 2 Peter and 2, 3 John. + +(6) The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse still remain to be +considered. Their claim to a place in the Canon is, or has been, +disputed: and therefore he records every decisive notice respecting +either of them, _e.g._ the quotations from the Epistle to the Hebrews in +Clement of Rome and Irenæus, and the notices of the Apocalypse in +Justin and Melito [47:1] and Apollonius [47:2], and Theophilus and +Irenæus. So too, he records any testimony, direct or indirect, bearing +the other way, _e.g._ that the Roman presbyter Gaius mentions only +thirteen Epistles of St Paul, 'not reckoning the Epistle to the Hebrews +with the rest.' [47:3] + +(7) With regard to the books which lie altogether outside the Canon, but +which were treated as Scripture, or quasi-scripture, by any earlier +Church writer, he makes it his business to record the fact. Thus he +mentions the one quotation in Irenæus from the Shepherd of Hermas; he +states that Hegesippus employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he +records that Clement of Alexandria in the _Stromateis_ has made use of +the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and in the _Hypotyposeis_ has +commented on the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of +Peter [47:4]. + +It will have appeared from the above account, if I mistake not, that his +treatment of this subject is essentially frank. There is no indication +of a desire to make out a case for those writings which he and his +contemporaries received as Canonical, against those which they rejected. +The Shepherd of Hermas is somewhere about two-thirds the length of the +whole body of the thirteen Epistles of St Paul. He singles out the one +isolated passage from Hermas in Irenæus, though it is quoted +anonymously; and he says nothing about the quotations from St Paul, +though they exceed two hundred in number, and are very frequently cited +by name. + +It is necessary however, not only to investigate his principles, but +also to ascertain how far his application of these principles can be +depended upon. And here the facts justify us in laying down the +following rules for our guidance:-- + +(i) As regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the +books of the New Testament he restricts himself to the narrowest limits +which justice to his subject will allow. His treatment of Irenæus makes +this point clear. Though he gives the principal passage in this author +relating to the Four Gospels [48:1], he omits to mention others which +contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the +question, _e.g._ that St John wrote his Gospel to counteract the errors +of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans [48:2]. Thus too, when he quotes a few +lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic elders who were +acquainted with St John [48:3], he omits the context, from which we find +that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the +Fourth Gospel, for it declared that Christ's ministry extended much +beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the +Fourth Gospel against the apparent chronology of the Synoptists. + +(ii) As regards the quotations and references the case stands thus. When +Eusebius speaks of 'testimonies' in any ancient writer taken from a +Scriptural book, we cannot indeed be sure that the quotations were +direct and by name (this was certainly not the case in some), but we may +fairly assume that they were definite enough, or numerous enough, or +both, to satisfy even a sceptical critic of the modern school. This is +the case, for instance, with the quotations from the Epistle to the +Hebrews in Clement of Rome, and those from the First Epistle of St Peter +in Polycarp. _In no instance which we can test does Eusebius give a +doubtful testimony._ On the other hand he omits several which might +fairly be alleged, and have been alleged by modern writers, as, for +instance, the coincidence with 1 John in Polycarp [49:1]. He may have +passed them over through inadvertence, or he may not have considered +them decisive. + +I am quite aware that our author states the case differently; but I am +unable to reconcile his language with the facts. He writes as follows +[49:2]:-- + + 'He (Eusebius) states however, that Papias "made use of testimonies + from the First Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter." + As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages from Papias, we + must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from + some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from + these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made + a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the + so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds.' + [49:3] + +For the statement 'as elsewhere' our author has given no authority, and +I am not aware of any. + +The note to which the number in the text (^5) refers is 'Ad Phil. vii.; +Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14.' + +I cannot help thinking there is some confusion here. The passage of +Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp +'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of +Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a +reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by +modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is +true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a +coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this +one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are +elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' +whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c. +1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye +rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c. +2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14); +'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the +dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for +evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust +warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our +sins with His own body ([Greek: to idiô sômati]) on the tree,' from 1 +Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,' +from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet. +ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having +your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good +works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of +in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am +quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and +close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author +elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in +Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence +which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics, +yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of +passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has +overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references +to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to +test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion, +because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am +not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2]. + +This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's +sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he +supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still +more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of +Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose. + +_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on +arbitrary _à priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must +mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted +him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him +his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some +errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main +conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be +obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I +pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a +subsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how +large a part of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to +pieces. + +Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively +enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a +powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its +correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of +this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have +taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same. +Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers. + +I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had +preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I +mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The +silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is +an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been +questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius +was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was +not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of +Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes +it to mean. + +If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other +hypothesis, to answer the following questions:-- + +(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the +Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the +universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2 +Corinthians, and Galatians? + +(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony +in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a +reference in this same author to the Apocalypse? + +And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by +his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts +relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century. +Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its +authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic +sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed +even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The +phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century +are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a +long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that +the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the +alternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18, +and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of +the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up +respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in +the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations, +wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted +it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that +ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this +epoch--Irenæus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria, +Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome? +that they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the +beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or +Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first +three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the +paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the +remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the +obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the +light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses +altogether to discuss Irenæus, though Irenæus was a disciple of +Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted +that the opinion of Irenæus, as an isolated individual, is not worth +much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his +whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment: +and Irenæus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of +the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his +ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with +just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up +overnight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its +continuous growth. + +The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an +early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his +courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it +in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed +that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made. +But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the +fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my +criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary. + +In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a +charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of +his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same +for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct +narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a +reference to St John) was Irenæus' own, whereas the grammar showed that +Irenæus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had +wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their +translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong +to Irenæus himself. + +I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old +[54:1]:-- + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes +in this place, in previous | this passage in a note (_On the +editions, has been understood as | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates +an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling, +of deliberate falsification of | they taught, exists" etc. +the text of Irenæus, we at once | The introduction of "they taught" +withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and +that the expressions used could | being inserted, without a word +bear an interpretation so far | of explanation or mark showing +from our intention. _We desired | its addition by the translator, in +simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation +of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_, +p. 61, note 2), without some | and whose origin is in dispute, it +indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the +original text, that these words | text. Dr Westcott neither gives +were merely supplementary and | the Greek nor the ancient Latin +conjectural. The source _of the | version for comparison.' +indirect passage_ is, of course, | +matter of argument, and we make | +it so; but it seems to us that | +the introduction of specific | +words like these, without | +explanation of any kind, conveys | +to the general reader too | +positive a view of the case. We | +may perhaps be permitted to say | +that we fully recognise Dr | +Westcott's sincere love of truth, | +and feel the most genuine respect | +for his character.' | + +Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might +have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that +he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew +his own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that, +having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenæus' own, he +had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the +passage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right +and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best +to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the +authenticity of the fourth Gospel. + +The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end, +the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression +that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr +Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or +have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a +juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions. + + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +'Now, in the quotation from | 'Now in the quotation from +Irenæus given in this passage, | Irenæus given in this passage, +_Tischendorf renders the oblique | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies +construction_ by inserting "say | the text_ by inserting "say they;" +they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the +of Papias; and, as he does not | original, the great majority of +give the original, he should at | readers could never detect how +least have indicated that these | he thus adroitly contrives to +words are supplementary. We | strengthen his argument. As +shall endeavour' [55:2] etc. | regards the whole statement of + | the case we must affirm that it + | misrepresents the facts. We + | shall endeavour' etc. + +Lower down he mentions how Irenæus 'continues with a quotation from +Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and +it might just as well be affirmed that Irenæus found the quotation from +the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the +reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under +consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that +the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the +direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in +the fourth edition. + +In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de tên diastolên] we +notice this difference:-- + + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this + | distinction.' + +The translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is +followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:-- + + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +'Now it is impossible for anyone | 'Now it is impossible for anyone +who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole +of this passage, and who makes | of this passage, and who makes +himself acquainted with the manner | himself acquainted with the manner +in which Irenæus conducts his | in which Irenæus conducts his +argument, and interweaves it _with | argument, and interweaves it _with +quotations, to assert that the | texts of Scripture, to doubt that +phrase we are considering_ must | the phrase we are considering is +have been taken from a book | introduced by Irenæus himself_, +referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation +and _was not introduced by Irenæus | from the work of Papias.' +from some other source_.' | + +Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few +weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has +substituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:-- + + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +'In the passage from the | 'The passage from the commencement +commencement of the second | of the second paragraph (§ 2) is +paragraph Irenæus enlarges upon, | an enlargement or comment on what +and illustrates, what "the | the Presbyters say regarding the +Presbyters say" regarding the | blessedness of the Saints, and +blessedness of the Saints, _by | Irenæus illustrates the distinction +quoting the view held_ as to the | between those bearing fruit +distinction between those bearing | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one +fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and | hundred-fold, so often represented +one hundred-fold, and _the | in the Gospel, _by the saying_ +interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being +regarding "many mansions."' | prepared in Heaven.' + +After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of +passages from Irenæus to support his view that the words in question +are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek: +dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive +mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue. + + 'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenæus_, + as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is + introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is + further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the + fact that' etc. + +All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the +sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_ +(Irenæus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the +exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all, +and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and +'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make +room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine +octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering +sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without +any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more +distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by +this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not +anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted +above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts? + +I add one other passage for comparison:-- + + + FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS. + | +'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his +that the quotation being by "the | alternative that the quotation, +Presbyters" was more ancient even | being by "the Presbyters," was +than Papias, by showing that it | more ancient even than Papias, +_may be referred to Irenæus himself | by showing that it _must be +quoting probably from | attributed to Irenæus himself_, +contemporaries_, and that there is | and that there is no ground for +no ground for attributing it to the | attributing it to the Presbyters +Presbyters at all.' [58:1] | at all.' + +Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in +charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and +deliberate evasion,' and the like. + + + + +III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. + +[FEBRUARY, 1875.] + + +The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are +immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he +was passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their +representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome +to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The +exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility +are not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the +later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are +written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed +more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter +is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis +that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his +eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue +him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time +members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a +pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic +Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations, +friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against +heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in +personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their +delegates. + +Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down +to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long +Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin +translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part +of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it +seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two +others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it +may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction; +its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers +of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth +century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of +the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence. +Only, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of +our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in +the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability +of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this +reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth, +or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must +not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian +letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided +by independent evidence. + +The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as +follows:-- + +(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him, +and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians, +Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Polycarp. +It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them +in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong +to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is +preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian +versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from +which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was +translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in +the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original, +about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the +Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the +happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus +superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious +reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the +_Vossian._ + +(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of +the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in +a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the +Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I +shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles. + +Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon +fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is +raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or +the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the +Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or +whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and +abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the +prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not. + +The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the +case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light +of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial +prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the +dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the +investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of +Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with +equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are +affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved +have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and +Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth +century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the +eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions, +though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting. + +In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian +question as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the +statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural +Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these +papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to +early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot +be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to +indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid +testimony. + +The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student +of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the +considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. +A writer therefore may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of +familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally +expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with +some diffidence. + +The author of _Supernatural Religion_ has no hesitation on the subject. +'The whole of the Ignatian literature,' he writes, 'is a mass of +falsification and fraud.' [62:1] 'It is not possible,' he says, 'even if +the Epistle [to the Smyrnæans] were genuine, which it is not, to base +any such conclusion upon these words.' [62:2] And again:-- + + 'We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the + Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the + end of the second, or beginning of the third, century, even if they + possess any value at all.' [62:3] + +And immediately afterwards:-- + + 'We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, + for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the + Epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held + to be spurious.' [63:1] + +The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such +very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his +subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the +most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author +with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. It +becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that +accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching +weight to his dicta, as distinguished from his arguments. + +I will take first of all a passage which sweeps the field of the +Ignatian controversy, and therefore will serve well as a test. The +author writes as follows:-- + + 'The strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which + space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics + to recognise the Syriac Version as the most genuine form of the + letters of Ignatius extant, and this is admitted by most [63:2] of + those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the + Epistles.' [63:3] + +No statement could be more erroneous, as a summary of the results of the +Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac Epistles, than +this. Those who maintain the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, in +one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided +on this question of priority. While Cureton and Bunsen and Ritschl and +Ewald and Weiss accept the Curetonian letters, Uhlhorn and Denzinger and +Petermann and Hefele and Jacobson and Zahn still adhere to the Vossian. +But this is a trifling error compared with what follows. The +misstatement in the last clause of the sentence will, I venture to +think, surprise anyone who is at all familiar with the literature of the +Ignatian controversy. Those, who 'deny the authenticity of any of the +Epistles,' almost universally maintain the priority of the Vossian +Epistles, and regard the Curetonian as later excerpts. This is the case, +for instance, with Baur [64:1], and Zeller [64:2] and Hilgenfeld [64:3] +and Merx [64:4] and Scholten [64:5]. It was reserved for a critic like +Volkmar [64:6] to entertain a different opinion; but, so far as I have +observed, he stands alone among those who have paid any real attention +to the Ignatian question. Indeed, it will be apparent that this position +was forced upon critics of the negative school. If the Ignatian letters, +in either form, are allowed to be genuine, the Tübingen views of early +Christian history fall to the ground. It was therefore a matter of life +and death to this school to condemn them wholly. Now the seven Vossian +Epistles are clearly very early [64:7]; and, if the Curetonian should be +accepted as the progenitors of the Vossian, the date is pushed so far +back that no sufficient ground remains for denying their genuineness. +Hence, when Bunsen forced the question on the notice of his countrymen +by advocating the Curetonian letters as the original work of Ignatius, +Baur instinctively felt the gravity of the occasion, and at once took up +the gauntlet. He condemned the Curetonian Epistles as mere excerpts from +the Vossian; and in this he has been followed almost without exception +by those who advocate his views of early Christian history. The case of +Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. Having at +one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian +letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, retracted his +former opinion on both questions alike [64:8]. + +But how has our author ventured to make this broad statement, when his +own notes elsewhere contain references to nearly all the writers whom I +have named as belonging to this last category, and even to the very +passages in which they express the opposite opinion? To throw some light +on this point, I will analyse the author's general statement of the +course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage. He writes +as follows:-- + + 'These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest + scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be + the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not + admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, + still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles, and + consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess + (^1). As early as the sixteenth century however, the strongest + doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the + Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first + attacked them, and Calvin declared [p. 260] them to be spurious + (^1), an opinion fully shared by Chemnitz, Dallæus, and others, + and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed + throughout the seventeenth century (^2), and onward to + comparatively recent times (^3), although the means of forming a + judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles were + interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and more + comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier + doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity + of none of these Epistles can be established, and that they can + only be considered later and spurious compositions (^4).' + +The first note (^1) on p. 259 is as follows:-- + + 'Bunsen, _Ignatius v. Ant. u. s. Zeit_, 1847; _Die drei ächt. u. d. + vier unächt. Br. des Ignat._, 1847; Bleek, _Einl. N.T._, p. 145; + Böhringer, _K.G. in Biograph._, 2 Aufl., p. 16; Cureton, _The + Ancient Syriac Version of Eps. of St Ignatius, etc._, 1845; + _Vindiciæ Ignat._, 1846, _Corpus Ignatianum_, 1849; Ewald, _Gesch. + d. V. Isr._, vii. p. 313; Lipsius, _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d. + Ign. Br._ in _Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol._, 1856, H. i., + 1857, _Abhandl. d. deutsche-morgenl. Gesellschaft._ i. 5, 1859, p. + 7; Milman, _Hist. of Chr._, ii. p. 102; Ritschl, _Entst. altk. + Kirche_, p. 403, anm.; Weiss, _Reuter's Repertorium_, Sept. 1852.' + [The rest of the note touches another point, and need not be + quoted.] + +These references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more +immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who +do not admit that even these [the Curetonian Epistles] are genuine +letters emanating from Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of +seven Greek Epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the +letters which we possess.' The reader therefore will hardly be prepared +to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the Ignatian letters +as spurious. Bleek [66:1] alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty, +while inclining to Bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain +the genuineness of the Curetonian letters [66:2]. + +As regards the names which follow in the text, it must be remembered +that the Magdeburg Centuriators and Calvin wrote long before the +discovery of the Vossian letters. The Ignatian Epistles therefore were +weighted with all the anachronisms and impossibilities which condemn the +Long Recension in the judgment of modern critics of all schools. The +criticisms of Calvin more especially refer chiefly to those passages +which are found in the Long Recension alone. The clause which follows +contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz did not fully share the opinion +that they were spurious; on the contrary he quotes them several times as +authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many +places to strengthen the position of the Papal power etc.' [66:3] + +The note (^2) on p. 260 runs as follows:-- + + 'By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, + Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, + etc., etc.; of. Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._, i. p. xxv; Cureton, + _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, 1846, appendix.' + +Here neither alphabetical nor chronological order is observed. Nor is it +easy to see why an Englishman R. Cook, Vicar of Leeds, should be Cocus, +while a foreigner, Petavius, is Petau. These however are small matters. +It is of more consequence to observe that the author has here mixed up +together writers who lived before and after the discovery of the Vossian +Epistles, though this is the really critical epoch in the history of the +Ignatian controversy. But the most important point of all is the purpose +for which they are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be +interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of +any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.' The facts however are these +[67:1]. Bochart condemns the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans on account +of the mention of 'leopards,' of which I shall speak hereafter, but says +nothing about the rest, though probably he would have condemned them +also. Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise, reject all. +Humfrey (1584) considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, +but he believes them genuine in the main. Cook (1614) pronounces them +'either supposititious or shamefully corrupted.' F. Socinus (A.D. 1624) +denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as I can see, does +not question a nucleus of genuine matter. Casaubon (A.D. 1615), so far +from rejecting them altogether, promises to defend the antiquity of some +of the Epistles with new arguments. Rivet explains that Calvin's +objections apply not to Ignatius himself but to the corrupters of +Ignatius, and himself accepts the Vossian Epistles as genuine [67:2]. +Petau, before the discovery of the Vossian letters, had expressed the +opinion that there were interpolations in the then known Epistles, and +afterwards on reading the Vossian letters, declared it to be a _prudens +et justa suspicio_ that these are the genuine work of Ignatius. + +The next note (^3) p. 260 is as follows:-- + + [Wotton, _Præf. Clem. R. Epp._, 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into + original nature, etc., Evang. Church: Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, + vol. xx, p. 147; Oudin, _Comm. de Script. Eccles. etc._ 1722, p. + 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex Evang. Joan._, 1724, i. p. 184; + Lardner, _Credibility, etc., Works_, ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, + _Hist. Crit. de Manichée, etc._, 1734, i. p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, + _N. Theol. Biblioth._, 1761, ii. p. 489; [Mosheim, _de Rebus + Christ._, p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in Memorab. Eccles._, + 1745, p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._, 1763, p. 492; + Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._, 1775, ii. p. 341; Griesbach, + _Opuscula Academ._, 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpr. + Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._, 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. in + Epist. ii. Petri_, 1784, Præf.; Kestner, _Comm. de. Eusebii H.E. + condit._, 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i. + p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 357, anm. 1]; + Baumgarten-Crusius. _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1832, p. 83, cf. + _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._, 1840, p. 79; [_Niedner, Gesch. chr. K._, + p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit_, p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._, + i. p. 115 f.]; cf. Cureton, _Vind. Ign. append._; Ziegler, _Versuch + ein. prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungs-formen_, u.s.w., 1798, p. + 16; J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. + Ignat._ in _Henke's Mag. f. Rel. Phil._, u.s.w. [1795; cf. + _Biblioth. f. Krit._, u.s.w., _N.T._, i. p. 463 ff., _Urspr. kath. + Kirche_, II. i. p. I f.]; _H'buch Chr. K.G._, i. p. 200. + +The brackets are not the author's, but my own. + +This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made +such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it stands, this +note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the +Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years' +reading. It is important to observe however, that every one of these +references, except those which I have included in brackets, is given in +the appendix to Cureton's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_, where the passages are +quoted in full. Thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been +compiled in ten minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the +order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is +chronological in Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing +into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he +thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among +the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional +references on which it has no bearing? + +Moreover, several of the writers mentioned in this note express opinions +directly opposed to that for which they are quoted. Wotton, for instance +[69:1], defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles very decidedly, +and at some length, against Whiston, whose Arianism led him to prefer +the Long Recension. Weismann declares that 'the authenticity and +genuineness of the Epistles have been demonstrated clearly and solidly' +by Pearson and others, so that no valid objections remain affecting the +main question. Thiersch again, who wrote after the publication of +Cureton's work, uses the three Syriac Epistles as genuine, his only +doubt being whether he ought not to accept the Vossian Epistles and to +regard the Curetonian as excerpts. Of the rest a considerable number, as +for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, +Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, with different degrees of certainty or +uncertainty, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus [69:2]. + +The next note (^4), which I need not quote in full, is almost as +unfortunate. References to twenty authorities are there given, as +belonging to the 'large mass of critics' who recognise that the Ignatian +Epistles 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.' Of +these Bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite +opinion. Gfrörer declares that the substratum (_Grundlage_) of the seven +Epistles is genuine, though 'it appears as if later hands had introduced +interpolations into both recensions' (he is speaking of the Long +Recension and the Vossian). Harless avows that he must 'decidedly reject +with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the +opinion maintained by certain persons that the Epistles are 'altogether +spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands +in the Vossian letters as well as in the Long Recension [70:1]. +Schliemann also says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to +recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either +existing recension. All these critics, it should be observed, wrote +before the discovery of the Curetonian letters. Of the others, Hase +commits himself to no opinion; and Lechler, while stating that the seven +Epistles left on his mind an impression unfavourable to their +genuineness, and inclining to Baur's view that the Curetonian letters +are excerpts from the others, nevertheless adds, that he cannot boast of +having arrived at a decided conviction of the spuriousness of the +Ignatian letters. One or two of the remaining references in this note I +have been unable to verify; but, judging from the names, I should expect +that the rest would be found good for the purpose for which they are +quoted by our author. + +I am sorry to have delayed my readers with an investigation which--if I +may venture to adopt a phrase, for which I am not myself +responsible--'scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise.' +[70:2] But these notes form a very appreciable and imposing part of the +work, and their effect on its reception has been far from +inconsiderable, as the language of the reviewers will show. It was +therefore important to take a sample and test its value. I trust that I +may be spared the necessity of a future investigation of the same kind. +If it has wearied my readers, it has necessarily been tenfold more +irksome to myself. Ordinary errors, such as must occur in any writer, +might well have been passed over; but the character of the notes in +_Supernatural Religion_ is quite unique, so far as my experience goes, +in works of any critical pretensions. + +In the remainder of the discussion our author seems to depend almost +entirely on Cureton's preface to his _Ancient Syriac Version_, to which +indeed he makes due acknowledgment from time to time. Notwithstanding +the references to other later writers which crowd the notes already +mentioned, they appear (with the single exception of Volkmar) to have +exercised no influence on his discussion of the main question. One +highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, from +first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that this version +(so far as regards the documentary evidence) has been felt to be the key +to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its +publication. One who (like our author) maintains the priority of the +Curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration, +for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. This +version was given to the world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in +which Cureton's later work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and +therefore was unknown to him [71:1]. Its bearing occupies a more or less +prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially +discussed the Ignatian question during the last quarter of a century. +This is true of Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he +cites, not less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to +cite. The facts established by Petermann and others are these;--(1) This +Armenian Version, which contains the seven Vossian Epistles together +with other confessedly spurious letters, was translated from a previous +Syriac version. Indeed fragments of this version were published by +Cureton himself, as a sort of appendix to the Curetonian letters, in the +_Corpus Ignatianum_, though he failed to see their significance. (2) +This Syriac Version conformed so closely to the Syriac of the Curetonian +letters that they cannot have been independent. Either therefore the +Curetonian letters were excerpts from this complete version, or this +version was founded upon and enlarged from the pre-existing Curetonian +letters by translating and adding the supplementary letters and parts of +letters from the Greek. The former may be the right solution, but the +latter is _a priori_ more probable; and therefore a discussion which, +while assuming the priority of the Curetonian letters, ignores this +version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to +give an account. + +I have no wish to depreciate the labours of Cureton. Whether his own +view be ultimately adopted as correct or not, he has rendered +inestimable service to the Ignatian literature. But our author has +followed him in his most untenable positions, which those who have since +studied the subject, whether agreeing with Cureton on the main question +or not, have been obliged to abandon. Thus he writes:-- + + 'Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all + equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that + number were mentioned by Eusebius.' [72:1] + +And again:-- + + 'It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned + by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These + Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient + Latin MSS with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to + be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal + honour.' [72:2] + +with more to the same effect. + +This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius with +the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented themselves +to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing +on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, betrays no +knowledge of any other Epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the +use of the confessedly spurious Epistles till late in the sixth century +at the earliest. (2) The confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in +style from the seven Epistles, and betray the same hand which +interpolated the seven Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed +part of the Long Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in +anachronisms which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of +their composition. (4) It is not strictly true that the seven Epistles +are mixed up with the confessedly spurious Epistles. In the Greek and +Latin MSS as also in the Armenian version, the spurious Epistles come +after the others [73:1]; and this circumstance, combined with the facts +already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition, +borrowed from the Long Recension to complete the body of Ignatian +letters. + +Indeed our author seems hardly able to touch this question at any point +without being betrayed into some statement which is either erroneous or +misleading. Thus, summing up the external evidence, he writes:-- + + 'It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth + century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one by Eusebius, + exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac letters.' + [73:2] + +In this short statement three corrections are necessary. (1) Our author +has altogether overlooked one quotation in Eusebius from _Ephes._ 19, +because it happens not to be in the Ecclesiastical History, though it is +given in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ [73:3]. (2) Of the two quotations +in the Ecclesiastical History, the one which he here reckons as found in +the Syriac Epistles is not found in those Epistles in the form in which +Eusebius quotes it. The quotation in Eusebius contains several words +which appear in the Vossian Epistles, but not in the Curetonian; and as +the absence of these words produces one of those abruptnesses which are +characteristic of the Curetonian letters, the fact is really important +for the question under discussion [73:4]. (3) Though Eusebius only +directly quotes two passages in his Ecclesiastical History, yet he gives +a number of particulars respecting the places of writing, the persons +named, etc., which are more valuable for purposes of identification than +many quotations. + +Our author's misstatement however does not in this instance affect the +main question under discussion. The fact remains true, when all these +corrections are made, that the quotations in the second and third +centuries are confined to passages which occur both in the Curetonian +and in the Vossian Epistles, and therefore afford no indication in +favour of either recension as against the other. The testimony of +Eusebius in the fourth century first differentiates them. + +Hitherto our author has not adduced any arguments which affect the +genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles as a whole. His reasons, even on +his own showing, are valid only so far as to give a preference to the +Curetonian letters as against the Vossian. When therefore he declares +the whole of the Ignatian literature to be 'a mass of falsification and +fraud,' [74:1] we are naturally led to inquire into the grounds on which +he makes this very confident and sweeping assertion. These grounds we +find to be twofold. + +(1) In the first place he conceives the incidents, as represented in the +Epistles, to be altogether incredible. Thus he says [74:2]:-- + + 'The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as + follows:--"From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by + sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten + leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even when good is + done to them render evil." Now if this account be in the least + degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could + have found means to write so many long epistles, entering minutely + into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and + advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government?' + +And again:-- + + 'It is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation + above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts + for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at + every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for + which he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to + martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles, perfect freedom to + see his friends. He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of + various Christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and + devoted followers accompany him on his journey. All this without + hindrance from the "ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains, + and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare + themselves his friends and fellow-believers. The whole story is + absolutely incredible.' + +To this objection, plausible as it may appear at first sight, a complete +answer is afforded by what is known of Roman procedure in other cases +[75:1]. As a matter of fact, Christian prisoners during the early +centuries were not uncommonly treated by the authorities with this same +laxity and indulgence which is here accorded to Ignatius. An excited +populace or a stern magistrate might insist on the condemnation of a +Christian; a victim must be sacrificed to the wrath of the gods, or to +the majesty of the law; a human life must be 'butcher'd to make a Roman +holiday;' but the treatment of the prisoners meanwhile, even after +condemnation, was, except in rare instances, the reverse of harsh. St +Paul himself preaches the Gospel apparently with almost as much effect +through the long years of his imprisonment as when he was at large. +During his voyage he moves about like the rest of his fellow-travellers; +when he arrives at Rome, he is still treated with great consideration. +He writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates +with churches and individuals as he desires, though the chain is on his +wrist and the soldier at his side all the while. Even at a much later +date, when the growth of the Christian Church may have created an alarm +among statesmen and magistrates which certainly cannot have existed in +the age of Ignatius, we see the same leniency of treatment, and (what is +more important) the same opportunities of disseminating their opinions +accorded to the prisoners. Thus Saturus and Perpetua, the African +martyrs, who suffered under Severus [76:1] (apparently in the year 202 +or 203), are allowed writing materials, with which they record the +extant history of their sufferings; and they too are visited in prison +by Christian deacons, as well as by their own friends. They owed this +liberty partly to the humanity of the chief officers; partly to +gratuities bestowed by their friends on the gaolers [76:2]. Even after +the lapse of another half-century, when Decius seriously contemplated +the extermination of Christianity, we are surprised to find the amount +of communication still kept up with the prisoners in their dungeons. The +Cyprianic correspondence reveals to us the confessors and martyrs +writing letters to their friends, visited by large numbers of people, +even receiving the rites of the Church in their prisons at the hands of +Christian priests. + +But the most powerful testimony is derived from the representations of a +heathen writer. The Christian career of Peregrinus must have fallen +within the reign of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). Thus it is not very +far removed, in point of time, from the age of Ignatius. This Peregrinus +is represented by Lucian, writing immediately after his death (A.D. +165), as being incarcerated for his profession of Christianity, and the +satirist thus describes the prison scene [76:3]:-- + + 'When he was imprisoned, the Christians, regarding it as a great + calamity, left no stone unturned in the attempt to rescue him. + Then, when they found this impossible, they looked after his wants + in every other respect with unremitting zeal ([Greek: ou parergôs + alla sun spoudê]). And from early dawn old women, widows, and + orphan children, might be seen waiting about the doors of the + prison; while their officers ([Greek: hoi en telei autôn]) + succeeded, by bribing the keepers, in passing the night inside with + him. Then various meals were brought in, and religious discourses + were held between them, and this excellent Peregrinus (for he still + bore this name) was entitled a new Socrates by them. Moreover, + there came from certain cities in Asia deputies sent by the + Christian communities to assist and advise and console the man. + Indeed they show incredible despatch, when any matter of the kind + is undertaken as a public concern; for, in short, they spare + nothing. And so large sums of money came to Peregrinus at that time + from them, on the plea of his fetters, and he made no + inconsiderable revenue out of it.' + +The singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of +Ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression [77:1], +have led to the opinion that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian +history, if not with the Ignatian letters. For this view there is much +to be said; and, if it be true, the bearing of the fact on the +genuineness of the Ignatian literature is important, since Lucian was +born in Syria somewhere about A.D. 120, and lived much in Asia Minor. At +all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that +Christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these +epistles. The reception of delegates and the freedom of correspondence, +which have been the chief stumbling-blocks to modern criticism in the +Ignatian letters, appear quite as prominently in the heathen satirist's +account of Peregrinus [77:2]. + +In the light of these facts the language of Ignatius becomes quite +intelligible. He was placed under the custody of a maniple of soldiers. +These ten men would relieve guard in turns, the prisoner being always +bound to one or other of them day and night, according to the well-known +Roman usage, as illustrated by the case of St Paul. The martyr finds his +guards fierce and intractable as leopards. His fight with wild beasts, +he intimates, is not confined to the arena of the Flavian amphitheatre; +it has been going on continuously ever since he left Antioch. His +friends manage to secure him indulgences by offering bribes, but the +soldiers are exorbitant and irritating in the extreme [78:1]. The more +they receive, the more they exact. Their demands keep pace with his +exigencies. All this is natural, and it fully explains the language here +ascribed to Ignatius. A prisoner smarting under such treatment naturally +dwells on the dark side of the picture, without thinking how a critic, +writing in his study centuries afterwards, will interpret his +fragmentary and impulsive utterances. In short, we must treat Ignatius +as a man, and not as an automaton. Men will not talk mechanically, as +critics would have them talk. + +(2) Having declared 'the whole story' to be 'absolutely incredible,' on +the grounds which I have just considered, our author continues [78:2]:-- + + 'This conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by + facts arrived at from a totally different point of view. It has + been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but + suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115 + (^3), when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the + amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced + by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month (^4).' + +The two foot-notes contain no justification of this very positive +statement, though so much depends upon it; but the reader is there +furnished with a number of references to modern critics. These +references have been analysed by Dr Westcott [79:1], with results very +similar to those which my analysis of the author's previous notes has +yielded. In some cases the writers express opinions directly opposed to +that for which they are quoted; in others they incline to views +irreconcilable with it; and in others they suspend judgment. When the +references are sifted, the sole residuum on which our author rests his +assurance is found to be a hypothesis of Volkmar [79:2], built upon a +statement of John Malalas, which I shall now proceed to examine. The +words of John Malalas are-- + + 'The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when + the visitation of God (_i.e._ the earthquake) occurred. And at that + time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was + martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: emarturêse]) before him + ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because + he reviled him.' [79:3] + +The earthquake is stated by Malalas to have occurred on the 13th of +December, A.D. 115. On these statements, combined with the fact that the +day dedicated to St Ignatius at a later age was the 20th of December +[79:4], Volkmar builds his theory. It will be observed that the cause of +the martyr's death, as laid down by Volkmar, receives no countenance +from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the +irritating language used to the emperor. + +Now this John Malalas lived not earlier than the latter half of the +sixth century, and possibly much later. His date therefore constitutes +no claim to a hearing. His statement moreover is directly opposed to the +concurrent testimony of the four or five preceding centuries, which, +without a dissentient voice, declare that Ignatius suffered at Rome. +This is the case with all the writers and interpolators of the Ignatian +letters, of whom the earliest is generally placed, even by those critics +who deny their genuineness, about the middle or in the latter half of +the second century. It is the case with two distinct martyrologies +[80:1], which, agreeing in little else, are united in sending the martyr +to Rome to die. It is the case necessarily with all those Fathers who +quote the Ignatian letters in any form as genuine, amongst whom are +Irenæus and Origen and Eusebius and Athanasius. It is the case with +Chrysostom, who, on the day of the martyr's festival, pronounces at +Antioch an elaborate panegyric on his illustrious predecessor in the see +[80:2]. It is the case with several other writers also, whom I need not +enumerate, all prior to Malalas. + +But John Malalas, it is said, lived at Antioch. So did Chrysostom some +two centuries at least before him. So did Evagrius, who, if the earliest +date of Malalas be adopted, was his contemporary, and who, together with +all preceding authorities, places the martyrdom of Ignatius in Rome. If +therefore the testimony of Malalas deserves to be preferred to this +cloud of witnesses, it must be because he approves himself elsewhere as +a sober and trustworthy writer. + +As a matter of fact however, his notices of early Christian history are, +almost without exception, demonstrably false or palpably fabulous +[80:3]. In the very paragraph which succeeds the sentence quoted, he +relates how Trajan had five Christian women burnt alive; the emperor +then mingled their ashes with the metal from which the vessels used for +the baths were cast; the bathers were seized with swooning-fits in +consequence; the vessels were again melted up; and out of the same metal +were erected five pillars in honour of the five martyrs by the emperor's +orders. These pillars, adds Malalas, stand in the bath to the present +day. As if this were not enough, he goes on to relate how Trajan made a +furnace and ordered any Christians, who desired, to throw themselves +into it--an injunction which was obeyed by many. Nor when he leaves the +domain of hagiology for that of chronology, is this author any more +trustworthy. For instance, he states that Manes first propounded his +doctrine in the reign of Nerva, and that Marcion still further +disseminated the Manichean heresy under Hadrian [81:1]. An anachronism +of a century or more is nothing to him. + +We have seen by this time what authority suffices, in our author's +judgment, to 'demonstrate' a fact; and no more is necessary for my +purpose. But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is +capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier +authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words +[Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of +martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes +of witnessing to the faith: the expression [Greek: epi Traïanou] again +is ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of Trajan,' or +'in the presence of Trajan.' A blundering writer like Malalas might have +stumbled over either expression [81:2]. + +The objections of our author have thus been met and answered; and +difficulties which admit of this easy explanation cannot, I venture to +think, be held to have any real weight against even a small amount of +external testimony in favour of the Epistles. The external testimony +however is considerable in this case [81:3]. The Epistle of Polycarp, +which purports to have been written so soon after this journey of +Ignatius through Asia Minor that the circumstances of the martyr's death +were not fully known there, speaks of his letters in language which is +entirely applicable to the existing documents. Our author indeed +declares this Epistle also to be spurious. But Irenæus, the pupil of +Polycarp, bears testimony to the existence of such an Epistle; and I +pledge myself to answer in a subsequent paper the objections urged +against its genuineness by our author and others [82:1]. Besides this, +Irenæus, writing about A.D. 180-190, quotes a characteristic and +distinctive passage from the Epistle to the Romans, not indeed +mentioning Ignatius by name, but introducing the quotation as the words +of a member of the Christian brotherhood. And again, in the first half +of the next century Origen cites two passages from these letters, +ascribing them directly to Ignatius. I say nothing of the later and more +explicit references and quotations of Eusebius, important as these are +in themselves. Our author indeed seems to consider this amount of +testimony very insufficient. But even if we set Polycarp aside, it would +hardly be rash to say that the external evidence for at least two-thirds +of the remains of classical antiquity is inferior. We Christians are +constantly told that we must expect to have our records tested by the +same standards which are applied to other writings. This is exactly what +we desire, and what we do not get. It is not easy to imagine the havoc +which would ensue, if the critical principles of the Tübingen school and +their admirers were let loose on the classical literature of Greece and +Rome. + +External testimony therefore leaves a very strong presumption in favour +of the genuineness of the Ignatian letters in one form or other; and +before rejecting them entirely, we are bound to show that internal +evidence furnishes really substantial and valid objections to their +authenticity. It is not sufficient, for instance, to allege that the +saint's desire for martyrdom, as exhibited in these Epistles, is +extravagant, because we have ample testimony for believing that such +extravagance (whether commendable or not) was highly characteristic of +the faith and zeal of the early Christians when tried by persecution. +Nor again, is it of any avail to produce some eccentricities of thought +or language, because there is no _a priori_ reason why St Ignatius +should not have indulged in such eccentricities. + +Unless therefore really solid objections can be urged, we are bound by +all ordinary laws of literary evidence to accept as genuine at all +events the shortest form in which these Epistles are presented to us. In +other words, the Curetonian letters at least must be received. And as +these satisfy all the quotations and references of the second and third +centuries (though not those of Eusebius in the first half of the +fourth), perhaps not more is required by the external testimony. Against +the genuineness of these it may be presumed that our author has advanced +what he considered the strongest arguments which the case admits; and I +have answered them. I am quite aware that other objections have been +alleged by other critics; but it will be sufficient here to express a +conviction that these have no real force against even the slightest +external testimony, and to undertake to meet them if they are +reproduced. Thus all the supposed anachronisms have failed. Bochart, for +instance, was bold enough to maintain that the Ignatian Epistle to the +Romans could not have been written before the time of Constantine the +Great, because 'leopards' are mentioned in it, and the word was not +known until this late age. In reply to Bochart, Pearson and others +showed conclusively, by appealing (among other documents) to the +contemporary Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (who suffered +when Geta was Cæsar, about A.D. 202), that 'leopards' were so called +more than a century at least before Constantine, while they gave good +reasons for believing that the word was in use much earlier. I am able +to carry the direct evidence half a century farther back. The word +occurs in an early treatise of Galen (written about the middle of the +second century), without any indication that it was then a new or +unusual term. This passage, which (so far as I am aware) has been +hitherto overlooked, carries the use back to within some forty years, or +less, of the professed date of the Ignatian letters; and it must be +regarded as a mere accident that no earlier occurrence has been noticed +in the scanty remains of Greek and Roman literature which bridge over +the interval. Of the institution of episcopacy again, it is sufficient +to say that its prevalence in Asia Minor at this time, whatever may have +been the case elsewhere, can only be denied by rejecting a large amount +of direct and indirect evidence on this side of the question, and by +substituting in its place a mere hypothesis which rests on no basis of +historical fact. + +On the other hand, the Epistles themselves are stamped with an +individuality of character which is a strong testimony to their +genuineness. The intensity of feeling and the ruggedness of expression +seem to bespeak a real living man. On this point however it is +impossible to dwell here; anyone who will take the pains to read these +Epistles continuously will be in a better position to form a judgment on +this evidence of style, than if he had been plied with many arguments. + +But if the Curetonian letters are the genuine work of Ignatius, what +must we say of the Vossian? Were the additional portions, which are +contained in the latter but wanting in the former, also written by the +saint, or are they later interpolations and additions? This is a much +more difficult question. + +As a first step towards answering this question, we may observe that +there is one very strong reason for believing that the Vossian letters +cannot have been written after the middle of the second century. The +argument from silence has been so often abused, that one is almost +afraid to employ it at all. Yet here it seems to have a real value. The +writer of these letters, whoever he was, is evidently an orthodox +Catholic Christian, and at the same time a strong controversialist. It +is therefore a striking fact that he is altogether silent on the main +controversies which agitated the Church, and more especially the Church +of Asia Minor, in the middle and latter half of the second century. +There is not a word about Montanism or about the Paschal controversy. It +is difficult to believe that such a writer could have kept clear of +these 'burning' questions, if he had lived in the midst of them. Even +though his sense of historical propriety might have preserved him from +language involving a positive anachronism, he would have taken a +distinct side, and would have made his meaning clear by indirect means. +Again, there is nothing at all bearing on the great Gnostic heresies of +this age. The doctrines of the Marcionites, of the Valentinians, even of +the Basilideans (though Basilides flourished under Hadrian), are not +touched. On the contrary, the writer several times uses language which +an orthodox churchman, writing in the second half of the second century +or later, would almost certainly have avoided. Among other expressions +he salutes the Church of the Trallians 'in the _pleroma_'--an expression +which could not escape the taint of heresy when once Valentinus had +promulgated his system, of which the pleroma was the centre. Nor again, +is it likely that such a writer would have indulged in expressions +which, however innocent in themselves, would seem very distinctly to +countenance the Gnostic doctrine of the inherent evil of matter, as for +instance, where he says that he has not in him any 'matter-loving +([Greek: philoülon]) fire (of passion),' [85:1] and the like. The +bearing of these facts has (so far as I remember) been overlooked, and +yet it is highly important. + +Having regard to these and similar phenomena, I do not see how it is +reasonable to date the Vossian Epistles after the middle of the second +century. But still it does not follow that they are genuine; and +elsewhere I had acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who +ascribed them to an interpolator writing about A.D. 140 [85:2]. Now +however I am obliged to confess that I have grave and increasing doubts +whether, after all, they are not the genuine utterances of Ignatius +himself. The following reasons weigh heavily in this scale. (1) +Petermann's investigations, which have been already mentioned, +respecting the Armenian version and its relation to a pre-existing +Syriac version, throw a new light on the Curetonian letters. When it is +known that there existed a complete version of the Vossian letters in +this language, the theory that the Curetonian letters are excerpts +becomes at least highly plausible, since the two sets of Syriac letters +were certainly not independent the one of the other. (2) Notwithstanding +Cureton's assertions, which our author has endorsed, the abruptness of +the Curetonian letters is very perplexing in some parts. Subsequent +writers, even while maintaining their genuineness, have recognised this +difficulty, and endeavoured to explain it. It is far from easy, for +instance, to conceive that the Ephesian letter could have ended as it is +made to end in this recension. (3) Though the Vossian letters introduce +many historical circumstances respecting the journey of Ignatius, the +condition of the Church of Antioch, and the persons visiting or visited +by him, no contradictions have yet been made out; but, on the contrary, +the several notices fit in one with another in a way which at all events +shows more care and ingenuity than might be expected in a falsifier. (4) +All the supposed anachronisms to which objection has been taken in these +Epistles fail on closer investigation. More especially stress has been +laid on the fact that this writer describes Christ as God's 'eternal +Logos, not having proceeded from Silence;' [86:1] and objectors, have +urged that this expression is intended as a refutation of the +Valentinian doctrine. Pearson thought it sufficient to reply that the +Valentinians did not represent the Logos as an emanation from Silence, +but from an intermediate Æon; and when the treatise of Hippolytus was +discovered, an answer seemed to be furnished by the fact that Silence +held a conspicuous place in the tenets of the earlier sect of Simonians, +and the Ignatian expression was explained as a reference to their +teaching. But fresh materials for the correction of the Ignatian text, +which Cureton and Petermann have placed in our hands, seem to show very +clearly (though these editors have overlooked the importance of the +facts) that in the original form of the passage the words 'eternal' and +'not' were wanting; so that the expression stood, 'Who is His Logos, +having proceeded from Silence.' They are omitted in the Armenian version +and in the passage as cited by Severus of Antioch [87:1]; while the +paraphrase of the Long Recension seems to point in the same direction, +though this is more doubtful. Severus more especially comments on the +quotation, so that his reading is absolutely certain. Such a combination +of early authorities is very strong evidence in favour of the omission. +Moreover it is difficult to explain how the words, if genuine, should +have been omitted; whereas their insertion, if they were no part of the +original text, is easily accounted for. In the middle of the fourth +century, Marcellus of Ancyra expressed his Sabellianism in almost +identical language [87:2]; he spoke of Christ as the Logos issuing from +Silence; and there was every temptation with orthodox scribes to save +the reputation of St Ignatius from complicity in heretical opinions, and +at the same time to deprive Marcellus of the support of his great name. +I call attention to these facts, both because they have been overlooked, +and because the passage in question has furnished their main argument to +those who charge these Epistles with anachronisms. + +Of the character of these Epistles, it must suffice here to say that the +writer at all events was thoroughly acquainted with the manner and +teaching of St Ignatius. As regards the substance, they contain many +extravagances of sentiment and teaching, more especially relating to the +episcopal office, from which the Curetonian letters are free and which +one would not willingly believe written by the saint himself. But it +remains a question, whether such considerations ought to outweigh the +arguments on the other side. At all events it cannot be shown that they +exhibit any different type of doctrine, though the mode of +representation may seem exaggerated. As regards style, the Curetonian +letters are more rugged and forcible than the Vossian; but as selected +excerpts, they might perhaps be expected to exhibit these features +prominently. + +For the reasons given I shall, unless I am shown to be wrong, treat the +Curetonian letters as the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the +Vossian letters will be accepted as valid testimony at all events for +the middle of the second century. The question of the genuineness of the +latter will be waived. I fear that my indecision on this point will +contrast disadvantageously with the certainty which is expressed by the +author of _Supernatural Religion_. If so, I am sorry, but I cannot help +it. + + + + +IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. + +[MAY, 1875.] + + +Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the most important person in the history +of the Christian Church during the ages immediately succeeding the +Apostles. In the eyes of his own and the next generations, Clement of +Rome appears to have held a more prominent position, if we may judge +from the legendary stories which have gathered about his name; but for +ourselves the interest which attaches to Polycarp is far greater. This +importance he owes to his peculiar position, rather than to any marked +greatness or originality of character. Two long lives--those of St John +and of Polycarp--span the period which elapsed between the personal +ministry of our Lord and the great Christian teachers living at the +close of the second century. Polycarp was the disciple of St John, and +Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp. We know enough of St John's +teaching, if the books ascribed to him in our Canon are accepted as +genuine. We are fully acquainted with the tenets of Irenæus, and of +these we may say generally that on all the most important points they +conform to the theological standard which has satisfied the Christian +Church ever since. But of the intermediate period between the close of +the first century and the close of the second, the notices are sparse, +the literature is scanty and fragmentary. Hence modern criticism has +busied itself with hypothetical reconstructions of Christian history +during this interval. It has been maintained that the greater part of +the writings of our Canon were unknown and unwritten at the beginning of +this period. It has been supposed that there was a complete +discontinuity in the career of the Christian Church throughout the +world. The person of Polycarp is a standing protest against any such +surmises. Unless Irenæus was entirely mistaken as to the teaching of +his master, unless the extant Epistle ascribed to Polycarp is altogether +spurious, these views must fall to the ground. It is indispensable for +the advocates of the Tübingen theory respecting the origin of the +Christian Church and the Scriptural Canon to make good both these +positions alike. Otherwise it can have no standing ground. My object in +the following investigations is to show that neither position is +tenable. + +Polycarp was born more than thirty years before the close of the first +century, and he survived to the latter half of the second. The date of +his birth may be fixed with some degree of certainty as A.D. 69 or 70. +At all events it cannot have been later than this. At the time of his +martyrdom, which is now ascertained to have taken place A.D. 155 or 156 +[90:1], he declared that he had served Christ eighty-six years [90:2]; +and, if this expression be explained as referring to the whole period of +his life (which is the more probable supposition), we are carried back +to the date which I have just given. + +Thus Polycarp was born on the eve of a great crisis, which was fraught +with momentous consequences to the Church at large, and which more +especially made itself felt in the Christian congregations of his own +country, proconsular Asia. The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the autumn +of the year 70. But at the final assault the Christians were no longer +among the besieged. The impending war had been taken as the signal for +their departure from the doomed city. The greater number had retired +beyond the Jordan, and founded Christian colonies in Pella and the +neighbourhood. But the natural leaders of the Church--the surviving +Apostles and personal disciples of Christ--had sought a home elsewhere. +From this time forward it is neither to Jerusalem nor to Pella, but to +proconsular Asia, and more especially to Ephesus as its metropolis, that +we must look for the continuance of the original type of Apostolic +doctrine and practice. At the epoch of the catastrophe we find the +Apostle John for a short time living in exile--whether voluntary or +constrained, it is unnecessary to inquire--in the island of Patmos. Soon +after this he takes up his abode at Ephesus, which seems to have been +his head-quarters during the remainder of his long life [91:1]. And John +was not alone in choosing Asia Minor as his new home. More especially +the companions of his early youth seem to have been attracted to this +neighbourhood. Of two brother Apostles and fellow-countrymen of +Bethsaida this is distinctly recorded. Andrew, the brother of Simon +Peter, appears in company with John in these later years, according to +an account which seems at least so far trustworthy [91:2]. The presence +of Philip, the special friend of Andrew [91:3], in these parts is +recorded on still better authority [91:4]. Philip himself died at +Hierapolis in Phrygia; but one of his three daughters was buried at +Ephesus, where perhaps he had resided at an earlier date. Among other +personal disciples of Christ, not otherwise known to us, who dwelt in +these districts of Asia Minor, Aristion and a second John are mentioned, +with whom Papias, the friend of Polycarp, had conversed [91:5]. + +Among these influences Polycarp was brought up. His own words, to which +I have already alluded, seem to show that he was born of Christian +parentage. At all events he must have been a believer from early +childhood. If his parents were Christians, they probably received their +first lessons in the Gospel from the teachers of an earlier date--from +St Paul who had planted the Churches of Asia Minor, or from St Peter who +appears to have watered them, [92:1] or from the immediate disciples of +one or other of these two Apostles. But during the childhood and youth +of Polycarp himself the influence of St John was paramount. Irenæus +reports (and there is no reason for questioning the truth of his +statement) that St John survived to the reign of Trajan [92:2], who +ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98. Thus Polycarp would be about +thirty years old at the time of St John's death. When therefore Irenæus +relates that he was appointed bishop in Smyrna 'by Apostles,' [92:3] the +statement involves no chronological difficulty, even though we interpret +the term 'bishop' in its more restricted sense, and not as a synonyme +for presbyter, according to its earlier meaning. Later writers say +distinctly that he was appointed to the episcopal office by St John +[92:4]. + +At all events, he appears as Bishop of Smyrna in the early years of the +second century. When Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to +martyrdom, he halts at Smyrna, where he is received by Polycarp. At a +later stage in his journey he writes to his friend. The tone of his +letter is altogether such as might be expected from an old man writing +to a younger, who nevertheless held a position of great responsibility, +and had shown himself worthy of the trust. After expressing his +thankfulness for their meeting, and commending his friend's steadfast +faith, which was 'founded as on an immovable rock,' he proceeds:-- + + Vindicate thine office in all diligence, whether in things carnal + or in things spiritual. Have a care for unity, than which nothing + is better. Sustain all men, even as the Lord sustaineth thee. + Suffer all men in love, as also thou doest. Give thyself to + unceasing prayer. Ask for more wisdom than thou hast. Keep watch, + and preserve a wakeful spirit.... Be thou wise as the serpent in + all things, and harmless always as the dove.... The time requireth + thee, as pilots require winds, or as a storm-tossed mariner a + haven, so that it may find God.... Be sober, as God's athlete.... + Stand firm as an anvil under the stroke of the hammer. It becomes a + great athlete to endure blows and to conquer.... Show thyself more + zealous than thou art.... Let nothing be done without thy consent, + neither do thou anything without God's consent, as indeed thou + doest not [93:1]. + +The close of the letter is addressed mainly to the Smyrnæans, enforcing +their reciprocal obligations towards their bishop. + +This letter, if the additional matter in the Vossian Epistles may be +trusted, was written from Troas, when the martyr was on the point of +embarking for Neapolis [93:2]. The next stage of his journey would bring +him to Philippi, where he halted. Thence he proceeded by the great +Egnatian road across the continent to the Hadriatic, on his way to Rome. + +Shortly after this, Polycarp himself addresses a letter to the +Philippians. He had been especially invited by his correspondents to +write to them, but he had also a reason of his own for doing so. During +this season of the year, when winter had closed the high seas for +navigation, all news from Rome must travel through Macedonia to Asia +Minor. At Smyrna they had not yet received tidings of the fate of +Ignatius; and he hoped to get early information from his correspondents, +who were some stages nearer to Rome where, as Polycarp assumed, his +friend had already suffered martyrdom [93:3]. + +This was the occasion of the letter, which for various reasons possesses +the highest interest as a document of early Christian literature, though +far from remarkable in itself. + +Its most important feature is the profuseness of quotation from the +Apostolic writings. Of a Canon of the New Testament, strictly so called, +it is not probable that Polycarp knew anything [93:4]. This idea was +necessarily, as Dr Westcott has shown, the growth of time. But of the +writings which are included in our Canon he shows a wide knowledge and +an ample appreciation. In this respect he may not unprofitably be +compared with Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, there is good reason to +believe, was a Hellenist Jew [94:1]; he must have been brought up in a +familiar acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures. On the other +hand Polycarp, as we have already seen, was probably the son of +Christian parents; at all events he was educated from his earliest +childhood in the knowledge of the Gospel; he had grown up in the society +of Apostles and Apostolic men. This contrast of education makes itself +apparent in the writings of the two Fathers. Though there are clear +indications in Clement that he was acquainted with many of the Apostolic +Epistles, yet his quotations are chiefly taken from the Old Testament. +Again and again he cites continuous passages, and argues from them at +length. But with Polycarp the case is different. The New Testament has +exchanged places with the Old, at least so far as practical use is +concerned. Notwithstanding its brevity, Polycarp's Epistle contains +decisive coincidences with or references to between thirty and forty +passages in the New Testament [94:2]. On the other hand, with the single +exception of four words from the apocryphal book of Tobit [94:3], there +is no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. Elsewhere +indeed he cites the words of Ps. iv. 4, but these are evidently quoted +from St Paul, and not directly from the Psalmist, as his context shows +[95:1]. + +Not less remarkable than the number of his quotations from the New +Testament is their wide range. Of the Evangelical references I shall +have occasion to speak in a subsequent article. Besides these there is a +strong coincidence with the Acts which can hardly be accidental [95:2]; +and there are passages or expressions taken from most of the Apostolic +Epistles. Among the latter the most decisive examples frequently refer +to those very Epistles which modern criticism has striven to discredit. +It cannot reasonably be questioned for instance, that Polycarp was +acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians and with the two Epistles +to Timothy. Of the indisputable references to the First Epistle of St +Peter I have already spoken in a former paper [95:3]. + +But the most important fact, in its bearing on recent controversy, is +the relation of the writer to St Paul. According to the hypothesis of +the Tübingen school, there was a personal antagonism between St Paul and +St John, and an irreconcilable feud between their respective schools. It +is therefore with special interest that we look to see what the most +eminent scholar of the beloved disciple says about the Apostle of the +Gentiles. Now St Paul occupies quite the most prominent place in +Polycarp's Epistle. This prominence is partly explained by the fact that +he is writing to a Church of St Paul's founding, but this explanation +does not detract from its value. St Paul is the only Apostle who is +mentioned by name; his writings are the only Apostolic writings which +are referred to by name; of his thirteen Epistles, there are probable +references to as many as eleven [95:4]; there are direct appeals to his +example and his teaching alike: there is even an apology on the writer's +part for the presumption of seeming to set himself up as a rival to the +Apostle by writing to a Church to whom he had addressed an Epistle +[96:1]. Altogether the testimony to the respect in which St Paul is held +by the writer is as complete as language can make it. If therefore the +Epistle be accepted as genuine, the position of the Tübingen school must +be abandoned. + +From considering the phenomena of the extant Epistle, we pass by a +natural transition to the second point which I proposed to investigate, +the traditions of the author's teaching. + +Polycarp was no longer a young man, when his Epistle was written. But he +lived on to see a new generation grow up from infancy to mature age +afterwards; and as the companion of Apostles and the depositary of the +Apostolic tradition, his influence increased with his increasing years. +Before he died, even unbelievers had come to regard him as the 'Father +of the Christians.' + +Of his later years a glimpse is afforded to us in the record of an +eye-witness. Among the disciples of his old age were two youths, +companions for the time, but destined to stand far apart in after life-- + + 'Like cliffs that had been rent asunder;' + +the elder, Florinus, who became famous afterwards as a heretical leader; +the younger, Irenæus, who stood forward as the great champion of +orthodoxy. The following is the remonstrance addressed by Irenæus to +his former associate after his defection:-- + + These opinions, Florinus, that I may speak without harshness, are + not of sound judgment; these opinions are not in harmony with the + Church, but involve those adopting them in the greatest impiety; + these opinions even the heretics outside the pale of the Church + have never ventured to broach; these opinions the elders before us, + who also were disciples of the Apostles, did not hand down to thee. + For I saw thee, when I was still a boy ([Greek: pais ôn eti]), in + Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring + prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well + with him. For I distinctly remember ([Greek: diamnêmoneuô]) the + incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence; for + the lessons received in childhood ([Greek: ek paidôn]), growing + with the growth of the soul, become identified with it; so that I + can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to + sit when he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and + his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses + which he held before the people, and how he would describe his + intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and + how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard + from them about the Lord, and about his miracles, and about his + teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of + the life of the Word [97:1], would relate altogether in accordance + with the Scriptures. To these (discourses) I used to listen at the + time with attention by God's mercy which was bestowed upon me, + noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and by the grace + of God, I constantly ruminate upon them faithfully ([Greek: + gnêsiôs]). And I can testify in the sight of God, that if the + blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he + would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his + wont, 'O good God, for what times hast Thou kept me, that I should + endure such things?' and would even have fled from the place where + he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. And indeed, + this can be shown from his letters which he wrote either to the + neighbouring Churches for their confirmation, or to certain of the + brethren for their warning and exhortation [97:2]. + +Unfortunately the chronological notices are not sufficiently precise to +enable us to fix the date either of this intercourse with Polycarp, or +of the letter to Florinus in which Irenæus records it. In the year 155 +or 156 Polycarp died; in the year 177 Irenæus became Bishop of Lyons. +Putting these two facts together, we may perhaps assume that Irenæus +must have been a pupil of Polycarp somewhere between A.D. 135-150. The +mention of the 'royal court' seems at first sight to suggest the hope of +a more precise solution; but even if this notice be taken to imply the +presence of the Emperor for the time being in Asia Minor, our +information respecting the movements of Hadrian and his successors is +too scanty to afford ground for any safe inference [98:1]. + +Of the later career of Florinus, we are informed that he was at one time +a presbyter of the Roman Church; that he afterwards fell away, and +taught his heresy in the metropolis; that in consequence Irenæus +addressed to him this letter from which I have given the extract, and +which was also entitled 'On Monarchy' or 'Showing that God is no--the +author of evil' ([Greek: poiêtên kakôn])--this being the special heresy +of Florinus; and that afterwards, apparently by a rebound, he lapsed +into Valentinianism, on which occasion Irenæus wrote his treatise on +the Ogdoad [98:2]. As the treatise of Irenæus on the Ogdoad can hardly +have been written later than his extant work on Heresies, in which +Valentinianism is so fully discussed as to render any such partial +treatment superfluous, and which dates from the episcopate of +Eleutherius (A.D. 177-190), we are led to the conclusion that the letter +to Florinus was one of the earliest writings of this Father. + +Thus we are left without any means of ascertaining the exact age of +Irenæus when he sat at the feet of Polycarp. But beyond this +uncertainty his testimony is as explicit as could well be desired. All +experience, if I mistake not, bears out his statement respecting the +vividness of the memory during this period of life. In a recent trial, +the most fatal blot in the evidence was the inability of a pretender to +give any information respecting the games and studies, the companions, +the familiar haunts, of the school and college days of the person with +whom he identified himself. It is the penalty which mature age pays for +clearer ideas and higher powers of generalisation, that the recollection +of facts becomes comparatively blurred. Very often an old man will +relate with perfect distinctness the incidents of his youth and early +manhood, while a haze will rest over much of the intervening period. +Those who have listened to a Sedgwick after a lapse of sixty or seventy +years repeating anecdotes of the 'statesmen' in his native dale, or +describing the circumstances under which he first heard the news of the +battle of Trafalgar, will be able to realize the vividness of the +stories which the aged Polycarp would tell to his youthful pupil of his +intercourse with the last surviving Apostle--the memory of the narrator +being quickened and the interest of the hearer intensified, in this +case, by the conviction that they were brought face to face with facts +such as the world had never seen before. + +One incident more is recorded of this veteran preacher of the Gospel. In +the closing years of his life he undertook a journey to Rome, where he +conferred with the bishop, Anicetus. The main subject of this conference +was the time of celebrating the Passion. Polycarp pleaded the practice +of St John and the other Apostles with whom he had conversed, for +observing the actual day of the Jewish Passover, without respect to the +day of the week. On the other hand, Anicetus could point to the fact +that his predecessors, at least as far back as Xystus, who succeeded to +the see soon after the beginning of the century, had always kept the +anniversary of the Passion on a Friday and that of the Resurrection on a +Sunday, thus making the day of the month give place to the day of the +week. Neither convinced the other, but they parted good friends. This +difference of usage did not interfere with the most perfect cordiality; +and, as a sign of this, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the +Eucharist in his stead [100:1]. About forty years later, when the +Paschal controversy was revived, and Victor, a successor of Anicetus, +excommunicated the Asiatic Churches, Irenæus, though himself an +observer of the Western usage, wrote to remonstrate with Victor on this +harsh and tyrannical measure. An extract from his letter is preserved by +Eusebius, in which these incidents respecting his old master are +recorded [100:2]. Irenæus insists strongly on the fact that "the +harmony of the faith" has never been disturbed hitherto by any such +diversities of usage. + +To this visit to Rome Irenæus makes another reference in his extant +work against Heresies. The perfect confidence with which he appeals to +the continuity of the Apostolic tradition, and to the testimony of +Polycarp as the principal link in the chain, gives a peculiar +significance to this passage, and no apology is needed for quoting it at +length. After speaking of the succession of the Roman bishops, through +whom the true doctrine has been handed down to his own generation +without interruption, he adds-- + + And (so it was with) Polycarp also, who not only was taught by + Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse ([Greek: + sunanastrapheis]) with many that had seen Christ, but also received + his appointment in Asia from Apostles, as Bishop in the Church of + Smyrna, whom we too have seen in our youth ([Greek: en tê prôtê + hêmôn hêlikia]) for he survived long, and departed this life at a + very great age, by a glorious and most notable martyrdom, having + ever taught these very things, which he had learnt from the + Apostles, which the Church hands down, and which alone are true. To + these testimony is borne by all the Churches in Asia, and by the + successors of Polycarp up to the present time, who was a much more + trustworthy and safer witness of the truth than Valentinus and + Marcion, and all such wrong-minded men. He also, when on a visit to + Rome in the days of Anicetus, converted many to the Church of God + from following the aforenamed heretics, by preaching that he had + received from the Apostles this doctrine, and this only, which was + handed down by the Church, as the truth. And there are those who + have heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he + went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed + away from the room without bathing, with the words, 'Let us flee, + lest the room should indeed fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of + the truth, is within.' Yea, and Polycarp himself also on one + occasion, when Marcion confronted him and said, 'Dost thou + recognize me?' answered, 'I recognize the firstborn of Satan.' Such + care did the Apostles and their disciples take not to hold any + communication, even by word, with any of those who falsify the + truth, as Paul also said, 'A man that is a heretic after a first + and second admonition, avoid; knowing that such an one is perverted + and sinneth, being self-condemned.' Moreover, there is an Epistle + of Polycarp addressed to the Philippians, which is most adequate + ([Greek: hikanôtatê]), and from which both his manner of life and + his preaching of the truth may be learnt by those who desire to + learn and are anxious for their own salvation. And again, the + Church in Ephesus, which was founded by Paul, and where John + survived till the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the + tradition of the Apostles [101:1]. + +I have given these important extracts at length because they speak for +themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many +arguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenæus, when he +thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he +holds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before +him. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the +present generation maintains that Irenæus was mistaken from beginning +to end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of +the Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that St John, as an +Apostle of the Circumcision, must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the +doctrine and work of St Paul; and that Polycarp, as a disciple of St +John, must have shared that aversion, and cannot therefore have +recognized the authority of the Apostle of the Gentiles. + +It is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have +seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or have +attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this +revolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape +the notice of the next succeeding generations. I shall probably have +occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the Church at this +epoch. At present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal +testimony of Irenæus respecting Polycarp is by no means the only, or +even the greatest, impediment to this theory. He constantly appeals to +the Asiatic elders, the disciples and followers of the Apostles, in +confirmation of his statement. Among the Christian teachers of +proconsular Asia who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous +names, Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They +must already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyrdom. They +were not merely practical workers, but voluminous writers also. The +lists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of +topics; they handle questions of Christian ethics, of Scriptural +interpretation, of controversial divinity, of ecclesiastical order, of +theological metaphysics. Was there then any possibility of a mistake +here? To us the history of the Church during the second century is +obscure, because all this voluminous literature, except a few meagre +fragments, has been blotted out. But to the contemporaries and +successors of Irenæus it was legible enough. 'Who does not know,' +exclaims his own pupil Hippolytus, 'the books of Irenæus and Melito and +the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man?' [102:1] + +This mission of peace to Rome must have been one of the latest acts of +the old man's life. The accession of Anicetus to the see of Rome is +variously dated; but the earliest year is about A.D. 150, and an eminent +recent critic, who has paid special attention to the subject, places it +between A.D. 154 and A.D. 156 [103:1]. In the year 155, or 156 at the +latest, Polycarp fell a martyr. + +The details of his martyrdom are recorded in a contemporary document, +which takes the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, addressed +more immediately to the Church of Philomelium but challenging at the +same time a wider circulation [103:2]. The simplicity with which the +narrators record omens and occurrences easily explicable in themselves, +but invested by their surcharged feelings with a miraculous character, +is highly natural. The whole narrative is eminently touching and +instructive; but the details have little or no bearing on my immediate +purpose. It is sufficient to say that Polycarp had retired into the +country to escape persecution; that the populace, not satisfied with the +victims already sacrificed to their fury, demanded the life of Polycarp, +as the 'father of the Christians;' that his hiding-place was betrayed by +a boy in his service, under the influence of torture; that the +magistrates urged him to save his life by submitting to the usual tests, +by pronouncing the formula, 'Cæsar is Lord,' or offering sacrifice, or +swearing by the fortune of the Emperor, or reviling Christ; that he +declared himself unable to blaspheme a Master whom he had served for +eighty-six years, and from whom he had received no wrong; and that +consequently he was burnt at the stake, Jews and Heathens vying with +each other in feeding the flames. The games were already past; otherwise +he would have been condemned to the wild beasts--the usual punishment +for such contumacy. + +Polycarp was martyred during the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus. The +commonly received date of his death is A.D. 166 or 167, as given in the +Chronicon of Eusebius. Quite recently however, M. Waddington has +subjected the proconsular _fasti_ of Asia Minor to a fresh and rigorous +scrutiny [103:3]. This Statius Quadratus is mentioned by the orator +Aristides; and by an investigation of the chronology of Aristides' life, +with the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at +the result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155; and, as Polycarp +was martyred in the early months of the year, his martyrdom must be +dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan [104:1], and +substantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius [104:2], who however (for +reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here) postpones the +martyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments +seem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some +stumbling-blocks. The relations between St John and Polycarp for +instance, as reported by Irenæus and others, no longer present any +difficulty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap +each other is thus extended. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ very +excusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, being +unaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations. + +In this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness of the +Epistle ascribed to him; but the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has +taken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious, and I am +therefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence. + +So far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed that the +Epistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional +value. The instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can +claim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is +ascribed. The statement of Irenæus respecting the authorship of this +Epistle is explicit; and indeed, as the reference is not denied either +by the author of _Supernatural Religion_ or by other critics, like +Lipsius and Hilgenfeld, who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as +spurious, I am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our +author indeed is content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of +Irenæus is not ... entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse +with Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme +youth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent +communication with him.' [105:1] I do not see how the notice of Irenæus +justifies the statement that the period was short; but the passage has +been given above, and the reader may judge for himself. Nor does it seem +probable, considering that the communications between Asia Minor and +southern Gaul were close and frequent, that the pupil should altogether +have lost sight of the master whom he revered, when he migrated to his +new and distant home in the west. But, even though all this be granted, +the fact still remains, that the testimony is exceptionally good and +would in ordinary cases be regarded as quite decisive. I do not say that +it is impossible Irenæus could have been mistaken; there is always risk +of error in human testimony; but I maintain that, unless we are required +to apply a wholly different standard of evidence here from that which is +held satisfactory in other cases, we approach this Epistle with a very +strong guarantee of its authenticity, which can only be invalidated by +solid and convincing proofs, and against which hypothetical combinations +and ingenious surmises are powerless [105:2]. Whether the objections +adduced by the impugners of this Epistle are of this character, the +reader will see presently. + +From the external we turn to the internal evidence. We are asked to +believe that this letter was forged on the confines of the age of +Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. But can anything be more unlike the +ecclesiastical literature of this later generation, whether we regard +the use of the New Testament, or the notices of ecclesiastical order, or +the statements of theological doctrine? The Evangelical quotations are +still given (as in Clement of Rome) with the formula, 'The Lord said;' +the passages from the Apostolic Epistles are still, for the most part, +indirect and anonymous. Though two or three chapters are devoted to +injunctions respecting the ministry of the Church, there is not an +allusion to episcopacy from beginning to end. Though the writer's ideas +of the Person of Christ practically leave nothing to be desired, yet +these ideas are still held in solution, and have not yet crystallized +into the dogmatic forms which characterize the later generation. And +from first to last this Epistle is silent upon those questions which +interested the Church in the second half of the second century. Of +Montanism, of the Paschal controversy, of the developed Gnostic heresies +of this period, it says nothing. A supposed reference to Marcion I shall +have to discuss presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that +an allusion so vague and pointless as this would be must certainly have +missed its aim. + +But this argument from internal evidence gains strength when considered +from another point of view. The only intelligible theory--indeed, so far +as I remember, the only attempt at a theory--offered to account for this +Epistle by those who deny its genuineness or its integrity, connects it +closely with the Ignatian letters. If forged, it was forged by the same +hand which wrote the seven Vossian Epistles; if interpolated, it was +interpolated by the person who expanded the three genuine Epistles into +the seven. According to either hypothesis, the object was to recommend +the Ignatian forgery on the authority of a great Dame; the motive +betrays itself in the thirteenth chapter, where Polycarp is represented +as sending several of the Ignatian Epistles to the Philippians along +with his own letter. This theory is at all events intelligible; and, so +far as I can see, it is the only rational theory of which the case +admits. + +Let us ask then, whether there is any improbability in the +circumstances, as here represented. Ignatius had stayed at Philippi on +his way to martyrdom; the Philippians had been deeply impressed by their +intercourse with him; writing to Polycarp afterwards, they had requested +him to send them a copy of the martyr's letter or letters to him; he +complies with the request, and appends also copies of other letters +written by Ignatius, which he happened to have in his possession. Is +this at all unnatural? Suppose on the other hand, that the letter of +Polycarp had contained no such reference to Ignatius and his Epistles, +would it not have been regarded as a highly suspicious circumstance, +that, writing to the Philippians so soon after Ignatius had visited both +Churches, Polycarp should have said nothing about so remarkable a man? +When I see how this argument from silence is worked in other cases, I +cannot doubt that it would have been plied here as a formidable +objection either to the truth of the Ignatian story, or to the +genuineness of Polycarp's Epistle, or to both. My conclusion is that +this notice proves nothing either way, when it stands alone. If the +other contents of the Polycarpian Epistle are questionable, then it +enforces our misgivings. If not, then this use of the notice is only +another illustration of the over-suspicious temperament of modern +criticism, which, as I ventured to suggest in an earlier paper, must be +as fatal to calm and reasonable judgment in matters of early Christian +history, as it is manifestly in matters of common life. The question +therefore is narrowed to this issue, whether the Epistle of Polycarp +bears evidence in its style and diction or in its modes of thought or in +any other way, that it was written by the same hand which penned the +Ignatian letters. + +And here I venture to say that, however we test these documents, the +contrast is very striking; more striking in fact than we should have +expected to find between two Christian writers who wrote about the same +time and were personally acquainted with each other. I will apply some +of these tests. + +1. The stress which Ignatius lays on episcopacy as the keystone of +ecclesiastical order and the guarantee of theological orthodoxy, is well +known. Indeed it is often supposed that the Ignatian Letters were +written for this express purpose. In Polycarp's Epistle on the other +hand, as I have already said, there is no mention of episcopacy. He +speaks at length about the duties of the presbyters, of the deacons, of +the widows, and others, but the bishop is entirely ignored. More +especially he directs the younger men to be obedient to 'the presbyters +and deacons, as to God and Christ,' but nothing is said about obedience +to the bishop [108:1]. At a later point he has occasion to speak of an +offence committed by one Valens, a presbyter, but here again there is +the same silence. All this is quite intelligible, if the letter is +genuine, on the supposition either that there was a vacancy in the +Philippian bishopric at this time, or, as seems more probable, that the +ecclesiastical organization there was not yet fully developed; but it +is, so far as I can see, quite inconceivable that a forger whose object +was to recommend episcopacy should have pictured a state of things so +damaging to his main purpose. The supposed forger indeed shows himself +throughout quite indifferent on this subject. There is every reason for +believing that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna at this time; yet in the +heading of the letter he does not assert his title, but writes merely, +'Polycarp and the presbyters with him.' + +2. If we turn from ecclesiastical organization to doctrinal statement, +the contrast still remains. We meet with no such strong expressions as +are found in the Ignatian letters; Polycarp, never speaks of 'the blood +of God,' 'the passion of my God,' 'Jesus Christ our God,' and the like. +Even in the commoner modes of designating our Lord, a difference is +perceptible. Thus the favourite mode of expression with Ignatius is +'Jesus Christ' simply, which occurs nearly a hundred times; whereas in +Polycarp it is only found twice (one passage being a quotation). On the +other hand, the usual expression in Polycarp is 'Our Lord Jesus Christ,' +which apparently occurs only twice in the Ignatian Epistles, and in both +instances with various readings. Again the combination 'God and Christ,' +occurring three times in Polycarp, does not appear once in the Ignatian +letters [108:2]. + +3. The divergence of the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is +still more remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are together at +least five times as long as the Epistle of Polycarp, the quotations from +the Apostolic Epistles in the latter are many times more numerous, as +well as more precise, than in the former. Whole passages in Polycarp are +made up of such quotations strung together, while in Ignatius they are +very rare, being for the most part epigrammatic adaptations and isolated +coincidences of language or thought. Nor indeed is their range +coextensive. Thus the Epistle of Polycarp, as I pointed out in a former +article [109:1], is pervaded with the language of St Peter's First +Epistle, but in the Ignatian letters there is no trace of its use +[109:2]. + +4. But this divergence only forms part of a still broader and more +decisive contrast. The profuseness of quotation in Polycarp's Epistle +arises from a want of originality. The writer reproduces the thoughts +and words of others, because his mind is essentially receptive and not +creative. He is altogether wanting in independence of thought. On the +other hand, the Ignatian letters are remarkable for their individuality. +Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect. +They are full of idiomatic expressions, quaint images, unexpected turns +of thought and language. They exhibit their characteristic ideas, which +obviously have a high value for the writer, for he recurs to them again +and again, but which the reader often finds it extremely difficult to +grasp, owing to their singularity. I venture to think that any one who +will carefully consider these contrasts--more especially the last, as +extending over the whole field--must be struck with the impossibility of +the theory which makes this letter part of the assumed Ignatian +forgeries. This hypothesis requires us to believe that a very uncritical +age produced a literary fiction, which, for subtlety and naturalness of +execution, leaves the most skilful forgeries of the nineteenth century +far behind. + +And the hypothesis of interpolation is encumbered with difficulties of +the same kind, and hardly less considerable. This hypothesis was shaped +and developed by Ritschl [110:1], whose theory has been accepted by some +later writers. He supposes that the greater part of the Epistle is the +genuine production of the person whose name it bears, written however, +not immediately after the death of Ignatius, but in the later years of +Polycarp's long life. The three passages which relate to Ignatius, +together with other parts which he defines, he supposes to have been +interpolated by the same forger who amplified the three genuine letters +of the martyr of Antioch into the seven of the Vossian collection. But +if any one will take the passages which Ritschl has struck out as +interpolated, he will find that the general style is the same; that +individual expressions, more especially theological expressions, are the +same; that the quotations are from the same range of books, as in the +other parts, extending even to coincidences of expression with the +Epistle of Clement of Rome; and that altogether there is nothing to +separate one part from another, except the _a priori_ assumption that +the references to Ignatius must be unhistorical. I do not know whether +these facts have been pointed out before, and I cannot do more here than +hint at lines of investigation which any one may follow up for himself. +But when the phenomena are fully recognized, I venture to think that the +difficulties in Ritschl's theory will be felt to be many times greater +than those which it is framed to remove. + +Of the general character of the Epistle, as affecting the question of +its genuineness, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has said nothing. +But he has reproduced special objections which have been urged by +previous writers; and to these I wish to call attention, because they +are very good, and not unfavourable, illustrations of the style of +criticism which is in vogue with the negative school. + +1. Our author writes in the first place:-- + + We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, + for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the + epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held + to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers + to the martyr-journey (c. ix), but to the Ignatian Epistles which + are inauthentic (c. xiii), and the manifest inference is that it + also is spurious. + +Of the fabulous character of the martyr-journey I have already disposed +in my previous article on the Ignatian letters [111:1]. For the present +I reserve what I have to say concerning the assumed reference to the +'inauthentic' Epistles, as this objection will reappear again. + +2. Our author on a later page urges that-- + + In the Epistle itself, there are many anachronisms. In ch. ix the + 'blessed Ignatius' is referred to as already a considerable time + dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul + and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience: men who have + not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii he is + spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him, + 'and those who are with him.' + +To this objection I had already supplied the answer [111:2] which has +been given many times before, and which, as it seemed to me, the author +ought in fairness to have noticed. I had pointed out that we have only +the Latin version here, and that the present tense is obviously due to +the translator. The original would naturally be [Greek: tôn sun autô], +which the translator, being obliged to supply a substantive verb, has +carelessly rendered 'his qui cum eo _sunt_.' If any one will consider +what has been just said about the general character of the Epistle, he +will see that this is the only reasonable explanation of the fact, +whether we regard the work as genuine or not. If it is not genuine, the +forger has executed his task with consummate skill and appreciation; and +yet here he is charged with a piece of bungling which a schoolboy would +have avoided. It is not merely an anachronism, but a self-contradiction +of the most patent kind. The writer, on this hypothesis, has not made up +his mind whether Ignatius is or is not supposed to be dead at the time, +and he represents the fact differently in two different parts [112:1]. + +But our author apparently is quite unaware that [Greek: hoi sun autô] +might mean equally well, 'those who _were_ with him,' and those who +_are_ with him.' At least I cannot attach any other meaning to his +reply, in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere, and +speaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar.' +[112:2] If so, I can only refer him to Thucydides or any Greek +historian, where he will find scores of similar instances. I need hardly +say that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning +nothing more than 'his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied +according to the context or the known circumstances of the case. But I +am not sorry that our author has fallen into this error, for it has led +me to investigate the usage of Polycarp and his translator, and has thus +elicited the following facts:--(1) Unless he departed from his ordinary +usage, Polycarp would have employed the short expression [Greek: hoi sun +autô] or [Greek: hoi met' autou] in such a case. Thus he has [Greek: ou +sun autô] in the opening paragraph, and [Greek: tois ex humôn] in c. 9, +with other similar distances. (2) The translator, if he had the words +[Greek: tois sun autô] before him, would almost certainly supply the +substantive verb, as he has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo _sunt_ +presbyteri;' in c. 3, 'illis qui tunc _erant_ hominibus,' and 'quae +_est_ in Deo;' in c. 9, 'qui ex vobis _sunt_;' and probably also in c. +12, 'qui _sunt_ sub coelo' (the Greek is wanting in this last passage). +(3) The translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give +the wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle where +it was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point; +he has translated [Greek: hên kai eidete ... en allois tois ex humôn] +mechanically by a present tense, 'quam et vidistis ... in aliis qui ex +vobis _sunt_,' though the persons are mentioned in connection with St +Ignatius and St Paul, and though it is distinctly stated immediately +afterwards that they _all_ were dead, having, as we may infer from the +context, ended their life by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very +same blunder which I ascribe to him here. + +This objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the notices +which I have been considering suggest another reflection. Is the +historical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like +the invention of a forger? Would he have thought of placing himself at +the moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred, but +when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna? If he +had chosen this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of +leaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are +scattered through the Epistle--notices moreover, which, though entirely +consistent with each other, are so far from obvious that his translator +has been led astray by them, and that modern critics have woven out of +them these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel? + +3. But our author proceeds:-- + + Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already + knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written + by him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference + here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the + Smyrnæans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles + which are not included in the Syriac version. + +I have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive; but, if he +had been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not have known of his +Epistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian letters four claim to have +been written from Smyrna, when the saint was in some sense Polycarp's +guest, and two to have been written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven +Epistles, supposing them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost +necessarily have been acquainted with six. + +By the 'other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Polycarp is +supposed to recognize, I presume that our author means the four of the +Vossian collection, which have no place in the Syriac. If so, I would +reply that, supposing the three Syriac Epistles to represent the only +genuine letters _extant_, these Epistles themselves bear testimony to +the fact that Ignatius wrote several others besides; for in one passage +in these Syriac Epistles (_Rom._ 4) the martyr says, 'I write to _all +the Churches_ and charge _all men_.' And again, when Polycarp writes, +[Greek: tas epistolas Ignatious tas pemphtheisas hêmin hup' autou] it is +sufficient to advert to the fact that, like the Latin _epistolæ_, the +plural [Greek: epistolai] is frequently used convertibly with the +singular [Greek: epistolê] for a single letter [114:1], and indeed +appears to be so used in an earlier passage by Polycarp himself of +St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [114:2]; so that the notice is +satisfied by the single Epistle to Polycarp which is included in the +Syriac letters, and does not necessarily imply also the Epistle to the +Smyrnæans which has no place there. But of this passage generally I +would say, that though it may be a question whether the language does +not favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the +Curetonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle +of Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, by Irenæus, and +exhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of genuineness in itself. + +4. Our author then continues:-- + + Dallæus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts + the conclusion of the Epistle. + +In what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is +difficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which would naturally be +assigned to such personal matters; for it follows upon the main purport +of the letter, while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the +bearer and the final salutation. On the same showing the conclusion of +the greater number of St Paul's Epistles is 'abruptly interrupted.' + +5. The next argument is of another kind:-- + + The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the + Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not + exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he + refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in + speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenæus + to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in + Rome about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion 'the + first-born of Satan,' ([Greek: prôtotokos tou Satana]), and the + same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to every one who + holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies, + therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at + earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is + further confirmed by other circumstances. + +I will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting however +one or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investigations, to which I +have already alluded [115:1], oblige us to place Polycarp's visit to +Rome some few years before 160, since his death is fixed at A.D. 155 or +156. Again, Irenæus does not state that the interview between Polycarp +and Marcion took place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it +may have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region +Marcion was a native [115:2]. These however are not very important +matters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about A.D. +140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied the +expression 'first-born of Satan' to Marcion, while in the Epistle, +purporting to have been written many years before, he appears as using +this same expression of other Gnostic teachers. This argument is a good +illustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like Lipsius and +Hilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial mind, I imagine, this coincidence, +so far as it goes, would appear to point to Polycarp as the author of +the Epistle; for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the +one from oral tradition through Irenæus, the other in a written +document older than Irenæus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the +other, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is +much more probable. Irenæus, as he tells us in the context, was +acquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating +the story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently imported +into it the expression which he had read in the Epistle. But the +independence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do repeat +the same expressions again and again, and this throughout long periods +of their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies, +and so become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, and +in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he +had a habit of repeating favourite expressions. Irenæus, in a passage +already quoted, mentions his exclamation, 'O good God,' as one of these +[116:1]. + +Our author however declares that the passage in the Epistle which +contains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and his followers; +and, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before +A.D. 130-140 at the earliest, this fact, if it be a fact, condemns as +spurious a work which professes to have been written some years before. +But is there anything really characteristic of Marcion in the +description? Our author does not explain himself, nor can I find +anything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom I +am referred in his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves-- + + For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in + the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the + testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth + the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that + there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a + first-born of Satan [116:2]. + +To illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite +doctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by a +Nonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned with the +truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the doctrines of +episcopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptismal regeneration, +and the like. It is wholly silent about claims to Papal domination, +about infallibility, about purgatory and indulgences, about the worship +of the Virgin or of the Saints. Am I justified in concluding that the +writer is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome, +because the Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches, +holds the doctrines attacked? Would not any reasonable man draw the very +opposite inference, and conclude that the writer cannot mean the Church +of Rome, because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets +of that Church? + +So it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic sects, held +some views which are here attacked. But Marcion had also doctrines of +his own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. Marcion taught that the God of +the New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he +identified with the God of Nature; that these two Gods were not only +distinct but antagonistic; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine +feud between them; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to +rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This was the head and +front of his offending; and consequently a common charge against him +with orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes God.' [117:1] Of this there +is not a hint in Polycarp's denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the +authority of the Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he +confined his Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again, +Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married +persons. On these points also Polycarp is silent. + +But indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would +appear from the illustration which I have used. Not only is there +nothing specially characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies +denounced by Polycarp, not only were the doctrines condemned held by +divers other teachers besides, but some of the charges are quite +inapplicable to him. The passage in question denounces three forms of +heretical teaching, which may or may not have been combined in one sect. +Of these the first, 'Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has +come in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It way refer, +for instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the +spiritual Being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism, and +left Him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ +remained impassible [118:1]; or it may describe the pure docetism, which +maintained that our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His +birth and life and death alike were only apparent, and not real [118:2]; +or it may have some reference different from either. I cannot myself +doubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle of St John, +and there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the contemporary of the +Apostle [118:3]; but Polycarp may have used it with a much wider +reference. Under any circumstances, though it would no doubt apply to +Marcion, who held strong docetic views, it would apply to almost every +sect of Gnostics besides. The same may be said of the second position +attacked, 'Whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross,' which +might include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well. +But the case is wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth +the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there +is neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this type of error, and this +only, the description 'first-born of Satan' is applied in the text, and +of this I venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to Marcion. +No doubt Marcion, like every other heretical teacher of the second +century, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord' +by his tortuous interpretations; but he did not pervert them 'to his own +lusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is +recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century; the worst +charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an +ascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but +regard it as a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this +denunciation on Marcion, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the +Lord,' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts,' +though these contain the very sting of the accusation [119:1]. Obviously +the allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early Gnostic +teachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel. +We find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the +professed date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which +St Paul rebukes at Corinth [119:2]. We have still clearer indications of +it in the Pastoral Epistles; and when we reach the epoch of the +Apocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in the year 68 or +69, the evil is almost full blown [119:3]. This interpretation becomes +more evident when we consider the expression in the light of the +accompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying that +there was 'no resurrection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything +else than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so +broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences. +Here again, they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators +belonging to the Christian community at Corinth who maintained that +'there is no resurrection of the dead,' [120:1] and whose Epicurean +lives were a logical consequence of their Epicurean doctrine. And here, +too, the Pastoral Epistles supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at +a loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of +'the oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel +case of Hymenæus and Philetus, who taught that 'the resurrection had +already taken place,' [120:2] or in other words, that all such terms +must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual +change, the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present +world'. Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching is altogether +foreign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh, +and the future body of the redeemed [120:4]. This was a necessary tenet +of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this +sense only he denied a resurrection; and he did not deny a judgment at +all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or +punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged +to recognize a judgment in some form or other. His Supreme God indeed, +whom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an +avenger, but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging +and punishing to the Demiurge [120:5]. To revert to my illustration, +this is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge of +Erastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom he was +attacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the +Church of Rome. + +6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind:-- + + The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which + Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life, + and of which we first have evidence about A.D. 160, when he was + deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion. + +This argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any power, when they +remember that the ablest and most powerful Prime Minister whom +constitutional England has seen assumed the reins of government at the +early age of twenty-four. But Polycarp was not a young man at this time. +M. Waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we +take the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp was now in +his fortieth year at least; if the later date, he was close upon fifty. +He had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged +Apostle St John. He was specially commended by Ignatius, who doubtless +had spoken of him to the Philippians. History does not point to any +person after the death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high +among his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from +silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church. What wonder +then that the Philippians should have asked him to write to them? To +this request, I suppose, our author refers when he speaks of the writer +'assuming a position in the Church;' for there is nothing else to +justify it. On his own part Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He +associates his presbyters with himself in the opening address; he says +that he should not have ventured to write as he does, if he had not +received a request from the Philippians; he even deprecates any +assumption of superiority [121:1]. + +7. But our author continues:-- + + And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization of + that period. + +This argument must, I think, strike any one who has read the Epistle as +surprising. There is, as I have said already, no reference to episcopacy +from beginning to end [122:1]; and in this respect it presents the +strongest contrast to writings of the age of Irenæus, to which it is +here supposed to belong. Irenæus and his contemporaries are so familiar +with episcopacy as a traditional institution, that they are not aware of +any period when it was not universal; and more especially when they are +dealing with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary +of the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and +practice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle is a +strong testimony to its early date. + +8. Lastly, another argument is alleged:-- + + Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in + the injunction 'Pray for the kings' (Orate pro regibus), which, in + 1 Peter ii. 17, is 'Honour the king' ([Greek: ton basilea timate]), + which accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated + Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or better still, + with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his + colleague, A.D. 161. + +Here we have only to ask why _Orate pro regibus_ should be translated +'Pray for _the_ kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and the ghost of a +divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. There is no reason +whatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a +general reference. Even if the words had stood in the original [Greek: +huper tôn basileôn] and not [Greek: huper basileôn], the presence of the +article would not, according to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit +the reference to any particular sovereigns. But there is very good +reason for believing that the definite article had no place in the +original. The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with +the First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (§ 4), he combines two +passages which occur in close proximity in that Epistle; 'The love of +money is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. vi. 10): knowing therefore +that we brought nothing into the world, neither are we able to carry +anything out (1 Tim. vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes +highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same +Epistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers, +intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings, and for +all that are in authority' (ii. 2) [123:1], where it is [Greek: huper +basileôn]. After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other +expressions that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings +(Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest +possible range to his injunction; 'Pray for all the saints; pray also +for kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute and +hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc.' We may therefore bid +farewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. + +Our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the +authenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but who +certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt +to refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over in silence all +answers which have been given to the objections alleged by him. +Doubtless he considered them unworthy of notice. I have endeavoured to +supply this lacuna in his work; and the reader will judge for himself on +which side the weight of argument lies. + +The author of _Supernatural Religion_ in his Reply, which appeared in +the January number of the _Fortnightly Review_, pointed out two +inaccuracies in my first article. In adverting to his silence respecting +the occurrence of the Logos in the Apocalypse [123:2], I ought to have +confined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting +the doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the Apocalypse, where +especially some mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere +alluded, as his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the +Apocalypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he charges +Dr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be +true respecting Basilides. While commenting on his omission of Dr +Westcott's inverted commas in the extract which I gave [124:1], I +overlooked the fact that he had just before quoted Dr Westcott's text +correctly, as it stands in Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still +more difficult to understand how he could have brought this most +unwarrantable charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was +distinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of an +oversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I shall not +attempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, which he +throws back upon me. + +For the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of my +criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply. + +I cannot, for instance, take any blame to myself for not foreseeing the +misprints which our author pleads, because they must have baffled far +higher powers of divination than mine. Thus I found [124:2] the author +stating that the fourth Evangelist 'only once distinguishes John the +Baptist by the appellation [Greek: ho baptistês],' [124:3] whereas, as a +matter of fact, he never does so; and comparing the whole sentence with +a passage in Credner [124:4], to which the author refers in his +footnote, I found that it presented a close parallel, as the reader will +see:-- + +Während der Verfasser die | He [the author] _only once_ +beiden Apostel gleiches Namens, | distinguishes John the Baptist +Judas, sorgfältig unterscheidet | by the appellation [Greek: ho +(vergl. 14, 22), den Ap. Thomas | baptistês], whilst he carefully +näher bezeichnet (11, 16; 20, 24; | distinguishes the two disciples +21, 2) und den Apostel Petrus, | of the name of Judas, and always +nur Simon Petrus, oder Petrus, | speaks of the Apostle Peter as +nie Simon allein nennt (s. § 96, | 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' but +Nr. 3.), hat er es nicht für nöthig | rarely as 'Simon' only. +gefunden, den Täufer Johannes | +von dem gleichnamigen Apostel | +Johannes _auch nur ein einziges | +Mal_ durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho | +baptistês] zu unterscheiden | +(1, 6. 15. 19. 26, etc.). | + +Seeing that the two passages corresponded so closely [125:1] the one to +the other (the clauses however being transposed), I imagined that I had +traced his error to its source in the correspondence of the two +particular expressions which I have italicized, and that he must have +stumbled over Credner's 'auch nur ein einziges Mal.' He has more than +once gone wrong elsewhere in matters of fact relating to the New +Testament. Thus he has stated that the saying about the first being last +and the last first occurs in St Matthew alone of the Synoptic Gospels, +though it appears also in St Mark (x. 31) and (with an unimportant +variation) in St Luke (xiii. 30) [125:2]. Thus again, he can remember +'no instance whatever' where a New Testament writer 'claims to have +himself performed a miracle [125:3],' though St Paul twice speaks of his +exercising this power as a recognized and patent fact [125:4]. This +explanation of his mistake therefore seemed to me to be tolerably +evident. I could not have foreseen that, where the author wrote '_never_ +once,' the printer printed '_only_ once.' This error runs through all +the four editions. + +But the other clerical error which our author pleads was still further +removed from the possibility of detection. I had called attention +[125:5] to the fact that, in the earlier part of his book, our author +had written respecting the descent of the angel at Bethesda (John v. 3, +4)-- + + This passage is not found in the older MSS of the fourth Gospel, + and it was probably a later interpolation [126:1]. + +whereas towards the end of his second volume he had declared that the +passage was genuine; and I had pointed out that the last words stood +'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition, so that the +passage had undergone revision, while yet the contradiction had been +suffered to remain. + +In justice to our author, I will give his reply in his own words:-- + + The words 'it is argued that' were accidentally omitted from vol. + i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, 'and it is argued + that it was probably a later interpolation [126:2].' + +To this the following note is appended:-- + + I altered 'certainly' to 'probably' in the second edition, as Dr + Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of + exaggeration, but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that + I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, + reporting the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive + the absence of the words given above. + +This omission runs through four editions. + +But more perplexing still is the author's use of language. + +The reader will already have heard enough of the passage in Irenæus, +where this Father quotes some earlier authority or authorities who refer +to the fourth Gospel; but I am compelled to allude to it again. In my +first article I had accused the author of ignoring the distinction +between the infinitive and indicative--between the oblique and direct +narrative--and maintaining, in defiance of grammar, that the words might +very well be Irenæus' own [126:3]. In my second article I pointed out +that whole sentences were tacitly altered or re-written or omitted in +the fourth edition, and that (as I unhesitatingly inferred) he had found +out his mistake [126:4]. I have read over the passage carefully again in +its earlier form in the light of the explanation which the author gives +in his reply, and I cannot put any different interpretation on his +language. It seems to me distinctly to aim at proving two things: (1) +That there is no reason for thinking that the passage is oblique at all, +or that Irenæus is giving anything else besides his own opinion (pp. +326-331); and (2) That, even supposing it to be oblique, there is no +ground for identifying the authorities quoted with the presbyters of +Papias (pp. 331-334). With this last question I have not concerned +myself hitherto. It will come under discussion in a later article, when +I shall have occasion to treat of Papias [127:1]. It was to the first +point alone that my remarks referred. The author however says in his +reply that his meaning was the same throughout, that he knew all the +while Irenæus must be quoting from some one else, and that he 'did what +was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction.' +[127:2] Why then did he translate the oblique construction as if it were +direct? Why, after quoting as parallels a number of direct sentences in +Irenæus containing quotations, did he add, 'These are all direct +quotations by Irenæus, as is most certainly that which we are now +considering, which is introduced in precisely the same way?' [127:3] Why +in his fourth edition, in which he first introduces a recognition of the +oblique construction, did he withdraw all these supposed parallels, +which, if his opinion was unchanged, still remained as good for his +purpose (whatever that purpose might be) as they had ever been? Further +discussion on this point would obviously be wasted. I can only ask any +reader who is interested in this matter to refer to the book itself, and +more especially to compare the fourth [128:1] with the earlier editions, +that he may judge for himself whether any other interpretation, except +that which I and others besides myself [128:2] have put upon his words, +was natural. The author has declared his meaning, but I could only judge +by his language. + +I now proceed to notice some other of the chief points in our author's +reply; and perhaps it may be convenient in doing so to follow the order +adopted in my original article to which it is a rejoinder. + +1. In the first place then, the author is annoyed that I spoke +disparagingly of his scholarship [128:3]; and in reply he says that the +criticism in which I have indulged 'scarcely rises above the correction +of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb.' [128:4] I cannot help +thinking this language unfortunate from his own point of view; but let +that pass. If the reader will have the goodness to refer back to my +article, he will find that, so far from occupying the main part of it on +points of scholarship which have no bearing on the questions under +discussion, as the author seems to hint, I have taken up about +two-thirds of a page only [128:5] with such matters. In the other +instances which I have selected, his errors directly affect the argument +for the time being at some vital point. It would have been possible to +multiply examples, if examples had been needed. I might have quoted, for +instance, such renderings as [Greek: katabas peripateitô] 'come down let +him walk about [129:1];' or [Greek: Iousta tis en hêmin esti +Surophoinikissa, to genos Chananitis, hês to Thugatrion k.t.l.] 'Justa, +who is amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaanite by race, whose +daughter' etc. [129:2] Both these renderings survive to the fourth +edition. + +I must not however pass over the line of defence which our author takes, +though only a few words will be necessary. I do not see that he has +gained anything by sheltering himself behind others, when he is +obviously in the wrong. Not a legion of Tischendorfs, for instance, can +make [Greek: epangellomenon] signify 'has promised,' [129:3] though it +is due to Tischendorf to add that notwithstanding his loose translation +he has seen through the meaning of Origen's words, and has not fastened +an error upon himself by a false interpretation, as our author has done. +And in other cases, where our author takes upon himself the +responsibility of his renderings, his explanations are more significant +than the renderings themselves. Scholars will judge whether a scholar, +having translated _quem caederet_ [129:4], 'whom he mutilates,' could +have brought himself to defend it as a 'paraphrase' [129:5]. I am not at +all afraid that dispassionate judges hereafter will charge me with +having unduly depreciated his scholarship. + +But our author evidently thinks that the point was not worth +establishing at all. I cannot agree with him. I feel sure that, if he +had been dealing with some indifferent matter, as for instance some +question of classical literature, he would not have received any more +lenient treatment from independent reviewers; and I do not see why the +greater importance of the subject should be pleaded as a claim for +immunity from critical examination. It does not seem to me to be a light +matter that an author assuming, as the author of _Supernatural Religion_ +does, a tone of lofty superiority over those whom he criticizes, should +betray an ignorance of the very grammar of criticism. But in the present +case there was an additional reason why attention should be called to +these defects. It was necessary to correct a wholly false estimate of +the author's scholarship with which reviewers had familiarized the +public, and to divest the work of a prestige to which it was not +entitled. + +2. In the next place I ventured to dispute the attribute of impartiality +with which the work entitled _Supernatural Religion_ had been credited. +And here I would say that my quarrel was much more with the author's +reviewers than with the author himself. I can understand how he should +omit to entertain the other side of the question with perfect sincerity. +It appeared from the book itself, and it has become still more plain +from the author's Reply, that he regards 'apologists' as persons from +whom he has nothing to learn, and with whose arguments therefore he need +not for the most part concern himself. But the fact remains that the +reader has had an _ex parte_ statement presented to him, while he has +been assured that the whole case is laid before him. + +Of this one-sided representation I adduced several instances. To these +our author demurs in his reply. As regards Polycarp, I believe that the +present article has entirely justified my allegation. Of Papias, +Hegesippus, and Justin, I shall have occasion to speak in subsequent +articles. At present it will be sufficient to challenge attention to +what Dr Westcott has written on the last-mentioned writer, and ask +readers to judge for themselves whether our author has laid the case +impartially before them. + +Several of my examples had reference to the Gospel of St. John. Of these +our author has taken exception more especially to three. + +As regards the first, I have no complaint to make, because he has quoted +my own words, and I am well content that they should tell their own +tale. If our author considers the argument 'unsound in itself, and +irrelevant to the direct purpose of the work,' [131:1] I venture to +think that discerning readers will take a different view. I had directed +attention [131:2] to certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. +xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34) as implying other visits to Jerusalem which +these Gospels do not themselves record, and therefore as refuting the +hypothesis that our Lord's ministry was only of a single year's +duration, and was exercised wholly in Galilee and the neighbourhood +until the closing visit to Jerusalem--a hypothesis which rests solely on +the arbitrary assumption that the record in the Synoptists is complete +and continuous. Thus the supposed difficulty in St John's narrative on +this fundamental point of history disappears. In fact the Synoptists +give no continuous chronology in the history of our Lord's ministry +between the baptism and the passion; the incidents were selected in the +first instance (we may suppose) for purposes of catechetical +instruction, and are massed together sometimes by connection of subject, +sometimes (though incidentally) by sequence of time. In St. John, on the +other hand, the successive festivals at Jerusalem are the vertebræ of +the chronological backbone, which is altogether wanting to the account +of Christ's ministry in the Synoptists. We cannot indeed be sure even +here that the vertebræ are absolutely continuous; many festivals may +have been omitted; the ministry of Christ may have extended over a much +longer period, as indeed Irenæus asserts that it did [131:3]; but the +three passovers bear testimony to a duration of between two and three +years at the least. + +The second point has reference to the diction of the fourth Gospel, as +compared with the Apocalypse [131:4]. Here I am glad to find that there +is less difference of opinion between us than I had imagined. If our +author does not greatly differ from Luthardt's estimate of the language, +neither do I [132:1]. On the other hand, I did not deny, and (so far as +I am aware) nobody has denied, that there is a marked difference between +the Apocalypse and the Gospel, in respect of diction; only it is +contended that two very potent influences must be taken into account +which will explain this difference. In the first place, the subjects of +the two books stand widely apart. The apocalyptic purport of the one +book necessarily tinges its diction and imagery with a very strong +Hebraic colouring, which we should not expect to find in a historical +narrative. Secondly, a wide interval of time separates the two works. +The Apocalypse was written, according to the view which our author +represents 'as universally accepted by all competent critics,' about +A.D. 68, 69 [132:2]. It marks the close of what we may call the +_Hebraic_ period of St John's life--_i.e._, the period which (so far as +we can gather alike from the notices and from the silence of history) he +had spent chiefly in the East and among Aramaic-speaking peoples. The +Gospel on the other hand, according to all tradition, dates from the +last years of the Apostle's life, or, in other words, it was written (or +more probably dictated) at the end of the _Hellenic_ period, after an +interval of twenty or thirty years, during which St John had lived at +Ephesus, a great centre of Greek civilization. Our author appears to be +astonished that Luthardt should describe the 'errors' in the Apocalypse +as not arising out of ignorance, but as 'intentional emancipations from +the rules of grammar.' Yet it stands to reason, I think, that this must +be so with some of the most glaring examples at all events. A moment's +reflection will show that one who could write [Greek: apo ho ôn, +k.t.l.], 'from He that is,' etc. (Rev. i. 4), in sheer ignorance that +[Greek: apo] does not take a nominative case, would be incapable of +writing any two or three consecutive verses of the Apocalypse. The book, +after all allowance made for solecisms, shows a very considerable +command of the Greek vocabulary, and (what is more important) a +familiarity with the intricacies of the very intricate syntax of this +language. + +On the third point, to which our author devotes between three and four +pages, more explanation is required. I had remarked [133:1] on the +manner in which our author deals with the name 'Sychar' in the fourth +Gospel, and had complained that he only discusses the theory of its +identification with Shechem, omitting to mention more probable +solutions. To this remark I had appended the following note: + + Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar + with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not + mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that + there was no such place [as Sychar [Greek: Suchar]], and apologetic + ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is + altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages + in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or + Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 sq. Our + author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch ('Zeitschr. f. + Luth. Theol.' 1856, p. 240 sq). _He cannot have read the article, + for these Talmudic references are its main purport._ + +Our author in his reply quotes this note, and italicizes the passages as +they are printed here. I am glad that he has done so, for I wish +especially to call attention to the connection between the two. He adds +that 'an apology is surely due to the readers of the _Contemporary +Review_,' and, as he implies, to himself, 'for this style of criticism,' +to which he says that he is not accustomed [133:2]. + +I am not sorry that this rejoinder has obliged me to rescue from the +obscurity of a footnote a fact of real importance in its bearing on the +historical character of the fourth Gospel. As for apologizing, I will +most certainly apologize, if he wishes it. But I must explain myself +first. I am surprised that this demand should be made by the same person +who penned certain sentences in _Supernatural Religion_. I am not a +little perplexed to understand what canons of controversial etiquette he +would lay down; for, while I have merely accused him, in somewhat blunt +language, of great carelessness, he has not scrupled to charge others +with 'wilful and deliberate evasion,' with 'unpardonable calculation +upon the ignorance of his readers,' with 'a deliberate falsification,' +with 'disingenuousness' [134:1] and other grave moral offences of the +same kind. Now I have been brought up in the belief that offences of +this class are incomparably more heinous than the worst scholarship or +the grossest inaccuracy; and I am therefore obliged to ask whether he is +not imposing far stricter rules on others than he is prepared to observe +himself, when he objects to what I have said. Nevertheless I will +apologize; but I cannot do so without reluctance, for he is asking me to +withdraw an explanation which seemed to me to place his mode of +proceeding in the most favourable light, and to substitute for it +another which I should not have ventured to suggest. When I saw in his +text the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no such +place,' [134:2] and found in one of his footnotes on the same page a +reference to an article by an eminent Hebraist devoted to showing that +such a place is mentioned several times in the Talmud, I could draw no +other conclusion than that he had not read the article in question, or +(as I might have added), having read it, had forgotten its contents. The +manner in which references are given elsewhere in this work, as I have +shown in my article on the Ignatian Epistles, seemed to justify this +inference. His own explanation however is quite different.-- + + My statement is, that it is admitted that there was no such place + as Sychar--I ought to have added, 'except by apologists, who never + admit anything'--but I thought that in saying, 'and apologetic + ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty,' I had + sufficiently excepted apologists, and indicated that many + assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose. + +Certainly this qualifying sentence needed to be added; for no reader +could have supposed that the author intended his broad statement to be +understood with this all-important reservation. Unfortunately however +this explanation is not confined to 'apologists.' As I pointed out, it +is adopted by M. Neubauer also, who (unless I much mistake his position) +would altogether disclaim being considered an apologist, but who +nevertheless, being an honest man, sets down his honest opinion, without +considering whether it will or will not tend to establish the +credibility of the Evangelist. + +But after all, the really important question for the reader is not what +this or that person thinks on this question, but what are the facts. And +here I venture to say that, when our author speaks of 'assertions and +conjectures' in reference to Delitzsch's article, such language is quite +misleading. The points which the Talmudical passages quoted by him +establish are these:-- + +(1) A place called 'Suchar,' or 'Sychar,' is mentioned in the Talmud. +Our author speaks of 'some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat +similar, but not identical, name.' But the fact is, that the word +[Greek: Suchar], if written in Hebrew letters, would naturally take one +or other of the two forms which we find in the Talmud, [Hebrew: Sukh'r] +(Suchar) or [Hebrew: Sykh'r] (Sychar). In other words, the +transliteration is as exact as it could be. It would no doubt be +possible to read the former word 'Socher,' and the latter 'Sicher,' +because the vowels are indeterminate within these limits. But so far as +identity was possible, we have it here. + +(2) The Talmudical passages speak not only of 'Sychar,' but of +'Ayin-Sychar,' _i.e._, 'the Well of Sychar.' + +(3) The 'Well of Sychar' which they mention is in a corn-growing +country. This is clear from the incident which leads to the mention of +the place in the two principal Talmudical passages where it appears, +_Baba Kamma_ 82b, _Menachoth_ 64b. It is there stated that on one +occasion, when the lands in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem were laid +waste by war, and no one knew whence the two loaves of the Pentecostal +offering, the first-fruits of the wheat harvest, could be procured, they +were obliged ultimately to bring them from 'the valley of the Well of +Sychar.' Now the country which was the scene of the interview with the +Samaritan woman is remarkable in this respect--'one mass of corn, +unbroken by boundary or hedge'[136:1]--as it is described by a modern +traveller; and indeed the prospect before Him suggests to our Lord, as +we may well suppose, the image which occurs in the conversation with the +disciples immediately following--'Lift up your eyes, and look on the +fields; for they are white already to harvest.' [136:2] It is true that +the Talmudical passages do not fix the locality of their 'Ayin-Sychar;' +but all the circumstances agree. It was just from such a country as this +(neither too near nor too far distant for the notices) that the +Pentecostal loaves would be likely to be procured in such an emergency. + +The reader will draw his own conclusions. He will judge for himself +whether the unqualified statement, 'It is admitted that there was no +such place as Sychar,' is or is not misleading. He will form his own +opinion whether a writer, who deliberately ignores these facts, because +they are brought forward by 'apologists who never admit anything,' is +likely to form an impartial judgment. + +The identification of Sychar with Askar, to which recent opinion has +been tending, is a question of less importance. Notwithstanding the +difficulty respecting the initial _Ain_ in the latter word, an +identification which has commended itself to Oriental scholars like +Ewald and Delitzsch and Neubauer can hardly be pronounced impossible. I +venture to suggest that the initial Ain of 'Askar' may be explained by +supposing the word to be a contraction for _Ayin-Sychar_, the 'Well of +Sychar.' This corruption of the original name into a genuine Arabic word +would furnish another example of a process which is common where one +language is superposed upon another, _e.g._, Charter-house for +Chartreuse. + +3. The third point to which I called attention [137:1] was the author's +practice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty. This +seemed to me to be a very grave offence, which deserved to be condemned +by all men alike, whatever their opinions might be. And in the present +instance I considered that the author was especially bound to abstain +from such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as he +was otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. Moreover, the +offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had +especially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his +moderation of tone, and for his generous appreciation of the position +and arguments of his adversaries. + +This is our author's reply-- + + Dr Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that 'Dr Westcott's honour may + safely be left to take care of itself.' It would have been much + better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble + it by such advocacy. If anything could check just or generous + expression, it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot; but + nevertheless, I again say, in the most unreserved manner, that + neither in this instance, nor in any other, have I had the most + distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like Dr + Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose + earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at + any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is + by orthodox views in general, and on the Canon in particular, he + sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and + unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements + which should be more impartially made [137:2]. + +I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this +explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it +redressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's +meaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine +respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet +reserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,' +of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,' +of 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very +passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with +yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and +'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting +Basilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling +matter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his +rebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which +could only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so +grievously misrepresented his true meaning. + +I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he +has brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I +certainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he +deserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came +forward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with +attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have +been no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed +with him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant +'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary readers would +imagine, that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty. I +am content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an +unconscious bias. + +In our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument, +there is one point which seems to call for observation. Of all my +remarks, the one sentence which I should least have expected to incur +his displeasure, is the following:-- + + Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the + first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous + [138:2]. + +I fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own opinion +into other words. I imagined that he himself wished the second and third +parts to be regarded as a work of supererogation. Was I altogether +without ground for this belief? I turn to the concluding paragraph of +the first part, and I find these words:-- + + Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of + testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the + reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which + is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize + that, _even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels + could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds_, the + testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their + contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--_would be + utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles_ [139:1]. + +What does this mean, except that even though it should be necessary to +concede every point against which the author is contending in the second +and third parts, still the belief in the Gospel miracles is irrational? +Is the language which I have used at all stronger than our author's own +on this point? But I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of +opinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the +first part [139:2]. + +For some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely thank the +author, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with either the +tone or the substance of the preceding reply. I trust that I have +already relieved him from the apprehension that I should confine myself +to 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped that some of the topics in my first +article might have been laid aside for ever, but his reply has compelled +me to revert to them. He does me no more than justice when he credits me +with earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. But it +seems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more +intense in my case than in his; for (to say nothing else), as I read +history, the morality of the coming generations of Englishmen is very +largely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at +issue between us. As he has withheld his name, he has deprived me of the +pleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect. Thus he +has placed me at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and +can speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that one who +has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far +entitled to every consideration. And, if this had been all, I should +have entertained and expressed the highest respect for him, however +faulty his processes might appear to me, and however dangerous his +results. But, when I observed that the author, not content with ignoring +the facts and reasonings, went on to impugn the honesty of his +opponents; when I noticed that again and again the arguments on one side +of the question were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other +side were altogether omitted; when I perceived that he denied the +authenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of every +reference, which made against him; when in short I saw that, however +sincere the writer's personal convictions might be, the critical portion +of the work was stamped throughout with the character of an +advocate's _ex parte_ statement, I felt that he had forfeited any claim +to special forbearance. For the rest, I do not wish to be unjust to the +book, and I am sorry if, while attempting to correct an exceedingly +false estimate, I have seemed to any one to be so; but I do not see any +good in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the +heart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of +the highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think that so much +energetic work had been thrown away. If the publication of this book +shall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most +momentous subjects, it will have achieved an important result. But I +would wish to add one caution. No good will ever come from merely +working on the lines of modern theorists. Perhaps the reader will +forgive me if I add a few words of explanation, for I do not wish to be +misunderstood. I should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German +writers, I used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any +recent theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it is +the German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to men of this stamp. +All diligent students of early Christian history must have derived the +greatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research, +and frequently also from the acute analysis, even of writers of the most +extreme school. But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating +speculations should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to +exercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will take the +pains to read Irenæus through carefully, endeavouring to enter into his +historical position in all its bearings, striving to realize what he and +his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New +Testament and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all, +resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines, +will be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early +history of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which +have issued from the German press during the last half century. + + + + +V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. + +[AUGUST, 1875.] + + +Two names stand out prominently in the Churches of proconsular Asia +during the age immediately succeeding the Apostles--Polycarp of Smyrna, +and Papias of Hierapolis. Having given an account of Polycarp in my last +article, I purpose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These +two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition. +Papias, writes Irenæus, was 'a hearer of John and a companion of +Polycarp.' [142:1] On the latter point we may frankly accept the +evidence of Irenæus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely +to be misinformed here. But to the former part of the statement +objections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike; and it +will be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into +its credibility. Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St +John, still his age and country place him in more or less close +connection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact +which gives importance to his position and teaching. + +Papias wrote a work entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' in +five books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved, +chiefly by Irenæus and Eusebius. The object and contents of this work +will be discussed hereafter; but it is necessary to quote at once an +extract which Eusebius has preserved from the preface, since our +estimate of the date and position of Papias will depend largely on the +interpretation of its meaning. + +Papias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to whom the +work was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as follows [143:1]:-- + + But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my + interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and + remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing + their truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those + who have so very much to say ([Greek: tois ta polla legosin]), but + in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign + commandments, but in those [who record] such as were given from the + Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And + again, on any occasion when a person came [in my way] who had been + a follower of the elders ([Greek: ei de pou kai parêkolouthêkôs tis + tois presbuterois elthoi]), I would inquire about the discourses of + the elders--what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or + by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the + Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the + disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so + much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a + living and abiding voice ([Greek: ou gar ta ek tôn Bibliôn tosouton + me ôphelein hupelambanon, hoson ta para zôsês phônês kai + menousês]). + +This passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, though +Irenæus calls Papias a hearer of John, + + Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly + does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of + the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses, + that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their + friends. + +Then follows the extract which I have given; after which Eusebius +resumes:-- + + Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the name of + John. The former of these he puts in the same list with Peter and + James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly intending + the Evangelist; but the second John he mentions after an interval + ([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside + the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he + distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account + of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in + Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, + each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John. + +Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the +author of the Apocalypse, he continues:-- + + Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from + those who had been their followers ([Greek: tôn autois + parêkolouthêkotôn]), but says that he himself was an immediate + hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them + many times in his writings, and records their traditions. + +The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers, +who maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both +passages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his +interpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed +with the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that +John is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence +the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,' +this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper +name. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle +and John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from +inconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion. + +But it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenæus was +incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support +to the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of +Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenæus does +not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed +from any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp +while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he +had other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor +indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that +he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias +himself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this +confusion which Eusebius lays to his charge; and the value of his +testimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby. + +It will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias professes to +derive the traditions of 'the elders,' with which he illustrated his +expositions, from two different sources. He refers _first_, to those +sayings which he had heard from their own lips, and _secondly_, to those +which he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers. +What class of persons he intends to include under the designation of +'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would +include not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal +disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other +words, the term with him is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in +the first generation. This meaning is entirely accordant with the usage +of the same title elsewhere. Thus Irenæus employs it to describe the +generation to which Papias himself belonged [145:1]. Thus again, in the +next age, Irenæus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus [145:2]. And, +when we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using the term so as to +include even writers later than Irenæus, who nevertheless, from their +comparative antiquity, were to him and his generation authorities as +regards the traditions and usages of the Church [145:3]. Nor indeed did +Papias himself invent this usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for +instance, we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' [145:4]; +where the meaning is defined by the list which follows, including Old +Testament worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this +sense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very nearly to +our own usage of 'fathers,' when we speak of the Fathers of the Church, +the Fathers of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Fathers, and the like. + +Thus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not +office, but authority and antiquity [146:1]. It is equivalent to 'the +ancient' or 'primitive worthies' [146:2]. But at its last occurrence in +the extract of Papias, where it is applied to the second John, this is +apparently not the case. Here it seems to be an official title, +designating a member of the order of the presbyterate. Though modern +critics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word [Greek: +presbuteros] in the same context, it would create no difficulty to the +contemporaries of Papias, to whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a +common mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,' +and to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself. +Instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two +senses, official and non-official, in the same passage [146:3]. + +Of the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, we can only +name with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter John; but as regards +these Eusebius is explicit. To them the Apostle John may perhaps be +added, as we have seen, on the authority of Irenæus. Beyond these three +names we have no authority for extending the list, though there is a +possibility that in very early life he may have met with others, more +especially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in these +parts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from the words of +his preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal +disciples of the Lord had not been great. It was probably confined to +the earlier part of his life, before he had any thought of writing his +book; and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and +fragmentary. When he set himself to collect traditions for this special +purpose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the information +collected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders. + +We are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias; but, as a +preliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say something +about the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in +connection with him. In my article on Polycarp, I pointed out that +recent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom +several years farther back, and that some chronological difficulties +attaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed [147:1]. A +similar difficulty meets us in the case of Papias; and it disappears in +like manner, as I hope to show, before the light of criticism. The +_Chronicon Paschale_, which was compiled in the first half of the +seventh century [147:2], represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about +the same time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in +the year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date his +birth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to a very +advanced age. But there is a certain difficulty [147:3] in supposing +that one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted +with so many personal disciples of our Lord. No earlier writer however +mentions the date, or even the fact, of the martyrdom--not even +Eusebius, who has much to say both about Papias and about the +martyrologies of this epoch; and this absence of confirmation renders +the statement highly suspicious. I believe that I have traced the error +to its source, which indeed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition +of the passage in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the +History of Eusebius [148:1], will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale. + + + CHRONICON PASCHALE. | EUSEBIUS. + | +In the 133rd year of the Ascension | At this time _very severe +of the Lord _very severe persecutions | persecutions having disturbed_ +having dismayed_ ([Greek: | ([Greek: anathorubêsantôn]) +anasobêsantôn]) _Asia_, many were | _Asia, Polycarp_ is perfected by +_martyred_, among whom _Polycarp_.... | _martyrdom_ ... and in the same + | writing concerning him were + | attached other martyrdoms ... + * * * * * | and next in order ([Greek: hexês]) + | memoirs of _others_ ([Greek: + | allôn]) also, who were martyred +and in _Pergamum others_ ([Greek: | _in Pergamum_, a city of Asia, +heteroi]), among whom was PAPIAS and | _are extant_ ([Greek: pheretai]), +many others ([Greek: alloi]), whose | Carpus and PAPYLUS and a woman +martyrdoms _are extant_ ([Greek: | Agathonice.... +pherontai]) also in writing.... | + | + * * * * * | * * * * * + | +_Justin_, a philosopher of the | And at the same time with these +word received among us ([Greek: tou | ([Greek: kata toutous]) _Justin_, +kath' hêmas logou]), _having | also who was mentioned shortly +presented a second book in defence of | before by us, _having presented +the doctrines received among us_ to | a second book in defence of the +Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus, | doctrines received among us_ to +the emperors, _is decorated_ not | the aforementioned rulers, _is +long after _with the divine_ crown of | decorated with divine martyrdom_, +_martyrdom, Crescens_ accusing (?) | a philosopher _Crescens_ ... +him. | having hatched the plot against + | him, etc. + +The sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual phrases, +alike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived his information +from the History of Eusebius [148:2]. But either he or his transcriber +has substituted a well known name, _Papias_, for a more obscure name, +_Papylus_. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in +his copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change. +It is only necessary to write the two names in uncials, [Greek: PAPIAS +PAPYLOS], to judge of its likelihood [149:1]. This explanation indeed is +so obvious, when the passages are placed side by side, that one can only +feel surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the +martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they +are), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the +author of _Supernatural Religion_, that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom +under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of +the Apostles' [149:2]. + +Thus we are left to infer the date of Papias entirely from the notices +of his friends and contemporaries; but these will assist us to a very +fair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at least two personal +disciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter John. If we suppose that +they were among the youngest disciples of our Lord, and lived to old +age, we shall be doing no violence to probability. Obviously there were +in their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with +them possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or later, +and have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their intercourse +with Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85-95, or thereabouts. (2) +He was acquainted with the daughters of Philip, who dwelt with their +father at Hierapolis, where they died in old age. Whether this Philip +was the Apostle, as the earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as +others suppose [149:3], is a question of little moment for my immediate +purpose--the date of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be +the same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to +Jerusalem, A.D. 58, apparently as already grown up to womanhood [149:4]. +On the former supposition they would belong to the same generation, and +probably would be about the same age. As a very rough approximation, we +may place their birth about A.D. 30, and their death about A.D. 100-110. +(3) Papias is called by Irenæus a 'companion' of Polycarp, whose life +(as we saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 [150:1]. The word admits a +certain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something +approaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices affecting +his relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of +the two. At all events Eusebius discusses him immediately after Ignatius +and Quadratus and Clement, _i.e._ in connection with the fathers who +flourished in the reign of Trajan or before; while the notice of +Polycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history, where it +occurs in close proximity with Justin Martyr [150:2]. This arrangement +indicates at all events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having +been martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his surviving +to so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have inserted his +account of him in this place. If it is necessary to put the result of +these incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias +was probably born about A.D. 60-70. + +But his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of +his personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing of the remote past +[150:3]. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical +records had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be +wrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or +even later. Our author places it at least as late as the middle of the +second century [150:4]. + +The opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at this early +date, and had conversed with these first disciples, are not without +importance, even though his own mental calibre may have been small. But +the speculations of the Tübingen school have invested them with a +fictitious interest. Was he, or was he not, as these critics affirm, a +Judaic Christian of strongly Ebionite tendencies? The arguments which +have been urged in defence of this position are as follows:-- + +1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian. The +Chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with +Eusebius, who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the +Apostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense. This tendency +appears also in the one passage which Irenæus quotes from Papias. But +the answer to this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception, +with the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears +combined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found in Justin +Martyr, in Irenæus, in Tertullian [151:1]. It is found even in the +unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas [151:2], +which is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism +to everything Judaic. + +2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius does not mention +his quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline writings of the Canon. I +have already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the +'Silence of Eusebius' [151:3]. I have shown that Papias might have +quoted St Paul many times, and by name, while nevertheless Eusebius +would not have recorded the fact, because it was not required by his +principles or consistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that +this interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where we +are able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly +wrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it would most certainly +conduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the Ignatian Epistles +was an Ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts +of the case [152:1]. + +3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because he quoted +the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first place, however, the +premiss is highly questionable. Eusebius does not say, as in other +cases, that Papias 'uses' this Gospel, or that he 'sets down facts from' +it [152:2], but he writes that Papias relates 'a story about a woman +accused of many sins before the Lord' (doubtless the same which is found +in our copies of St John's Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), and he adds 'which +the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' [152:3]. This does not +imply that Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it +there. Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which +Eusebius alludes, 'from oral tradition'([Greek: ek paradoseôs +agraphou]). But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion +does not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is +quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, though these two +fathers accepted our four Gospels alone as canonical [152:4]. It may +even be quoted, as Jerome asserts that it is, and as the author himself +believes [152:5], by the writer of the Ignatian letters, a most +determined anti-Ebionite. If Papias had cited the Gospel according to +the Hebrews only once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because +he made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena; whereas +he would have passed over any number of quotations from the Canonical +Gospels in silence. + +As all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have failed, we are +led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other +quarters. + +And here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias was bishop of +Hierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. At all events he +seems to have lived there from youth; for his acquaintance with the +daughters of Philip, who resided in this city, must have belonged to the +earlier period of his life. Now Papias was a designation of the +Hierapolitan Zeus [153:1]; and owing to its association with this god, +it appears to have been a favourite name with the people of Hierapolis +and the neighbourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions +belonging to this city and district [153:2]. In one instance we read of +a 'Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name 'Zeus-begotten' being +apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the Phrygian word [153:3]. +We find mention also in Galen of a physician belonging to the +neighbouring city of Laodicea, who bore this name [153:4]. Altogether it +points to a heathen rather than a Jewish origin. + +But more important than his name, from which the inference, though +probable, is still precarious [153:5], are his friendships and +associations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of Polycarp [153:6]. +The opinions of Polycarp have been considered in it previous article +[153:7]; and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of Ebionite +leanings in his case is not only unsupported, but cannot be maintained +except by an entire disregard of the evidence, which is of different +kinds, and all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias +therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence, +that his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his +friend's. Moreover, the five books of Papias were read by Irenæus and +by Eusebius, as well as by later writers; and, being occupied in +interpretation, they must have contained ample evidence of the author's +opinions on the main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the +Catholic--the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle Paul, +the conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore important to +observe that Irenæus quotes him with the highest respect, as an +orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of Apostolic tradition. +Eusebius again, though he is repelled by his millennarianism, calling +him 'a man of very mean capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage +him in every way, has yet no charge to bring against him on these most +important points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last. +Anastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half of the +sixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox, according +to the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five General +Councils, had the work of Papias in his hands. He mentions the author by +name twice; and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the +highest admiration. Papias is to him 'the great,' 'the illustrious' +[154:1]. + +But indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of +Papias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that Papias 'employed +testimonies from the First Epistle of John.' How far this involves a +recognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall have to consider hereafter. At +present it is sufficient to say that this Epistle belongs to the class +of writings in our Canon which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism. + +It may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. But +unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one +form of Christian belief--or unbelief either. + +The work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of +the Lord,' or (more strictly), 'of Dominical Oracles' [155:1]. But what +was its nature and purport? Shall we understand the word 'exposition' to +mean 'enarration,' or 'explanation'? Was the author's main object to +construct a new Evangelical narrative, or to interpret and explain one +or more already in circulation? This is a vital point in its bearing on +the relation of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring +what Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly assumes +the former alternative without attempting to discuss the question. Yet, +if this assumption is wrong, a very substantial part of his argument is +gone. + +The following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author of +_Supernatural Religion_ towards this question:-- + + This work was less based on written records of the teaching of + Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from + tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his + contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any + written works with which he was acquainted [155:2]. + +I venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his information +that Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with +which he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of +this writer which have been hitherto published. + +After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been +given above, our author resumes:-- + + It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels, + he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely + nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was + evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the + discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously + existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated + by his own words, and by the title of his work, [Greek: Logiôn + kuriakôn exêgêsis] [156:1]. + +'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to +believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is +made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has +appealed to Cæsar, and to Cæsar he shall go. + +What then is the natural interpretation of the title 'Exposition of +Oracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a +preconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else +but explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the +original word [Greek: exêgêsis] might, in other connections, be used in +reference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same +which it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words, +it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has +an exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when, +speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces +into his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine +Scriptures' ([Greek: graphôn theiôn exêgêseis]), or when he says that +Irenæus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions +of Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is +used more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as +we shall see presently, by Irenæus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of +Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his +context shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1]. + +'The title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the +kind which our author assumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not +suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of +an existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more +strongly, when from the title we turn to the words of the preface; +'_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along with my +interpretations_ ([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermêneiais]) to all that I +learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.' +Here the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the +unambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important +point. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something. +Of what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the +interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned +subsequently, being introduced to illustrate the interpretations. The +words which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,' +which (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The +expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one +meaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the +passage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following +sequence.--(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the +preceding passage, for it is assumed in the extract itself. (2) The +interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object +of the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows, +were subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a +slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong +attraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and +illustrate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of +language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations +[158:1]. + +A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his +preface is accidentally preserved by Irenæus [158:2]. This father is +discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the +saying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of +the fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in +my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally, +and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of +flesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by +appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels--the +one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those +who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke +xiv. 13, 14); the other the assurance that those who have forsaken +houses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now _in +this present time_ (Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30) +[158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by +an earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises +to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they +have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of +the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance. + + As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that + they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those + times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow, + each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand + branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each + twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand + grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty + measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold + of one of their clusters, another shall cry, "I am a better + cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain + of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things + Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an + ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, + for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying, + 'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when + Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such + growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord + said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].' + +I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in +this story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, as it passed +through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my +purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the +preface of Papias would lead us to expect: _first_, the saying or +sayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels: _secondly_, the +interpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial; +_thirdly_, the illustrative story, derived from oral tradition, which +relates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along +with his interpretation' [159:1]. + +So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the +disparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently asserted by our +author and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly +explained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a +different aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works +commenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and +written Gospels, but between oral and written _aids to interpretation_. +Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or +John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to +their authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than +the capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his +critical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have +been highly important. + +The leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute a correct +narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false +exegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The +opening passage of Irenæus supplies the answer. This father describes +the Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek: +ta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said' +([Greek: exêgêtai kakoi tôn kalôs eirêmenôn ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we +have the very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenæus +after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism. +If, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the +Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic +doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended +in the same way as Irenæus, though probably to a greater degree. The +Gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were +almost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenæus and +Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as +recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians, +Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same +way. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic +literature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent +the work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very +appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when +he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the +Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years. +Basilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1] +(A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion +in Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla +legousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching +foreign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing +this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus, +as from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false +interpretations of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from +several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general +character of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria +quotes it under the title of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible +too, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias +wrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his +school. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism +was rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent. + +This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from +the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And +it alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that +Eusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for +otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without +expostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies +these 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges +him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand +report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the +account of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set +down in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value +outside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation +repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same +events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the +language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about +which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's +record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his +one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any +false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book +to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1] + +But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,' +can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere +supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives +written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the +obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for +his work. + +An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been +maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not +our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the +author of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will +be necessary in refutation of it. + +The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by +St Mark, is as follows:-- + + And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter + of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, + without however recording in order what was either said or done by + Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; + but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted His + instructions to the needs [of his hearers] but had no design of + giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [_or_ discourses] + ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn] + _or_ [Greek: lôgon]). So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus + wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his + one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any + false statement therein. + +Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark, +the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is +apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately +before. + +Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that +Papias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the +Evangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena +in it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place, +it is not a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are +not recorded in _strict chronological order_. These two phenomena are +explained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were +necessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St +Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary +and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher +having no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could +not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge +for an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before +him some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings +or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those +which he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he +desires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel, +as I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the +author of the Muratorian Canon. + +This is the plain and simple inference from the passage; and we have +only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of +our St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied. +As regards _completeness_, it is sufficient to call attention to the +fact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and +above all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards +_order_ again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a +'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events +exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be +strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the +narrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our +Lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by +notices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if +the author had derived his information in the way reported by the +Presbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any +important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it +'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement' +[165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but +if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of +Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant +transpositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to +bring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how +far this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no +doubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person +obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself +describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall +not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of +'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which +refers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not +require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed +however, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the +other two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in +view was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the +Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another +Synoptic narrative, but _from St John_? I shall return to this question +at a later point in these investigations. + +Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present +Gospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by +the Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias +becomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The +novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the +assumption. + +Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that +he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which +the work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the +present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it' [166:1]. But +others are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with +this difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They +will venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest, +indication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the +remains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date +which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenæus was already grown +up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that +Irenæus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of +Papias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to +Christian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of Papias. +They will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and +holding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the +conviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the +title-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven +and earth for analogies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry +their investigations further, and discover that Irenæus not only +possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present +ending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part +of the original work. They will then pass on to the Muratorian author, +who probably wrote some years before Irenæus, and, remembering that +Irenæus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they +will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of +the Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with +Irenæus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the +traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is +mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two +Evangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously +questioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria +and Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also +possessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of +testimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a +loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing +in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently +substituted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and +consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was +received by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt +against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite +commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.' + +Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale +denunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of +his own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question +of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of +the _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian +Fathers] _ever_ indulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same +time to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent +criticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of +Irenæus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2]. +They will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in +Dionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' anticipates by nearly +sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the +differences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse +[167:3]. + +From St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of +this Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a +case of mistaken identity. + +After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:-- + + But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made [by + Papias]: 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the + Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he + could.' + +The assumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the +authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in +which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded +as highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been +wide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove +conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just +as the [Greek: hôs ephên] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that +it was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence +of a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged +edge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind +in any criticisms which the passages suggest. + +In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each +man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no +authoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be +correct. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the +time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his +book, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but +'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the +tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything +depends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He +does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by +others:-- + + Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past + tense, [Greek: hêrmêneuse], as contrasting the time when it was + necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period + when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no + longer necessary for them to do so [169:1]. + +Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as +follows:-- + + The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is + at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was + requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no + recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. + There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion + that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version, + although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of + some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however, + imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2]. + +Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard +pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous +use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are +perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without +alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether +obscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact +is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes +'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the +necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it +implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias +wrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no +respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not +from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only +infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past +tense. + +But, if a Greek St Matthew existed in the time of Papias, we are +forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose +that it was any other than our St Matthew. As in the case of St Mark, so +here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of +improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem +verbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a +mistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the +improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of +the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would +be. + +The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as +regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does +not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not +have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know +exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this +fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact +relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to +the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our +First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been +translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more +than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous +Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been +nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may +have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena. +Or on the other hand he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the +mistake which some later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel +according to the Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the +absence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile +we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to +the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself. + +Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias +speaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's +life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is +urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek: +xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this +explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked +upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement, +of the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how +or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give +this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This +hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has +found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have +been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by +disengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond +to this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without +its attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but +hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its +acceptance. + +Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases +largely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our +actual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same +sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely +influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language +is only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection +of discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who +apparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at +all. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias +expresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have +expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our +New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents +were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided +too is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be +swayed by any bias in this direction. + +Indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties. In +the first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such +'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers +from Pantænus and Irenæus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of +St Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in +Hebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it +is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so +as to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and +as our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the +more important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew +St Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of +discourses. + +Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis. +Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on +grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that +Papias mentions only the _sayings_ of Christ, not because St Matthew +recorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with +these, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the +great storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however +think that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek: +logoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia] +('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are +expressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of +Antioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the +Oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of +the Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which +occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the +Gospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges +that 'however much the signification [of the expression 'the oracles,' +[Greek: ta logia]] became afterwards extended, it was not then at all +applied to doings as well as sayings'; and again, that 'there is no +linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, +to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which were +oracular or divine [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must +involve one or both of these two assumptions; _first_, that books which +were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called +oracles, unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings; +_secondly_, that the Gospel of St Matthew in particular could not at +this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike are +contradicted by facts. + +The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St Paul, for +instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews, that they +had the keeping of the 'oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we suppose +that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this +expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis, +of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them +as professed to give the direct sayings of God? Would he, or would he +not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1 +Cor. xi. 8 sq), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq), of +Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 sq)? Does not the main part of his argument +in the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend much more on the narrative of +God's dealings than of His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle +to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' +(v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the +divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct +precepts of the Old Testament. But, if the language of the New Testament +writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their +contemporary Philo. In one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, +'The Lord God is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in +another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in +Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him +should kill him' [174:1]. From this and other passages it is clear that +with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly +Clement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have +studied the oracles of God,' [174:2] and immediately he recalls to their +mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of which the +point is not any divine precept or prediction, but _the example of +Moses_. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who +'pervert the oracles of the Lord.' [174:3] How much he included under +this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not +write [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta +logia] 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in +Papias--but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,' +which form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker. +Again Irenæus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current +among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta +kuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning, +yet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as +the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a +saying, but an incident in the Gospels--the healing of the ruler's +daughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to +sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find +that the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,' +while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the +'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly +Origen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the +oracles of God' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two +passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is +contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St +Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,' +[175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages +might be largely extended. + +This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully +substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But +our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias +himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If +Papias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather +'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include +narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from +the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the +contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely +with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in +other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the +sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the +corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its +use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father, +as we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order +the things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou +Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within +the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our +Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who +consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of +giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch +hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]). Here the obvious +inference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is +equivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta] +the first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause +corresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however, +following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the +oracles,' explains it differently [176:1]. + + There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: ê lechthenta + ê prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses, + but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly + distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of + what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a + collection of his discourses [176:2]. + +This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the +extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same +context; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the +extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested +by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading +idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St +Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in +question is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek: +taxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If +our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a +contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work +relating sayings only; and [Greek: logiôn], as bringing out this idea, +would demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hôsper tôn logiôn +suntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely +subordinated to other words in the clause. + +The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) +can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai]) +in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles' +([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical +Scriptures' (_Dominicae Scripturae_, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])--an +expression occurring in Irenæus and in Dionysius of Corinth +[177:1]--or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any +difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the _second_ of the two +assumptions which I mentioned above--namely, that no Evangelical record +could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the +use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture. +This assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew +is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the +quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural +reference--'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author +puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt +to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the +proper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the +only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two +quotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew +could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words, +it is a _petitio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on +any showing, was written before the date which our author himself +assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70, +or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the +later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century. +If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it +could _à fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote. + + + + +VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. + +_Continued._ + +[OCTOBER, 1875.] + + +It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone +survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew +and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different. +Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our +author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer. +I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1], +that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that +the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles +which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2], +while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes +a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a +test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only +pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give, +traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is +not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer +to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by +name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of +times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel +not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would +not have cared to record the fact. + +All this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is +unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he +does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am +quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it +is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction +which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between +_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_ +the Gospels on the other? + +At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He +quotes a passage from my article, in which it is directly stated +[179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances +where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical +Scriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes +anonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not +mention the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts-- + + That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the + Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by + Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, + might be set down as much to oversight as intention [179:3]. + +Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own +argument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the +single direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New +Testament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is +the single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus. +What would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat +for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the +Alps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without +having noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could +have overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked +anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any +omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any +fairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care, +by his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed +quotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other +supposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous +and direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven +Epistles of St Paul in Irenæus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a +word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence +can be placed on the author's use of language. + +But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for +discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment, +but I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he +finds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary +sense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him, +that under certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a +particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever +we are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances, he acts +in precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes, +but systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and +the Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and +however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he +adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of +these books. + +But our author asks [180:2], + + Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias + known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he + would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded + their information? And is it either possible or permissible to + suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information + regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius + would have omitted to quote it? + +To the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible +to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only +possible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite +alternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the +motive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any +preference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for +supposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St +Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they +were connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an +exhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted. On +the contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we +take the passage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference +is that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage +where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another +authority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which +he found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of +the presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the +divergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring +from the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or +might not, have been able to communicate information respecting it, +beyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared +to repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or +might not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him +to repeat his information, assuming he had received any from them. + +As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed +surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius +as he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and +impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself +have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this +matter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of +the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had +reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I +should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an +illustration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John +the disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root +out that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and +long before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that +effect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it; +because Irenæus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and +Eusebius does not allude to the fact. + +But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his +knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it' +[182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have +cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should +have arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing +altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed +by Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have +said, as Irenæus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay +upon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia' +[182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were +to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the +French who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the +genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been +altogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the +Gospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later +generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have +communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not, +there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage. + +So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I +drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But +elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he +boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:-- + + The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of + Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both + from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When + any ancient writer 'has something to _tell about_' the Gospels, + 'any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record + it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this + work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1]. + +What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have +quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the +Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing +on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of +that Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting +its composition? + +So again a few pages later, he writes-- + + Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were + used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these + was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, + record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the + legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is + that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2]. + +Yes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording +any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of +times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares +to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words +would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference +which will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores +another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and +practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets +down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but, +as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our +four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his +procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note +every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he +deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical +Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single +instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenæus, he +singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas +[184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very +considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles? + +But the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the +unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two +meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several +instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last +edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying +the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he +writes of Dionysius [184:3]-- + + EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION [184:4]. + | +It is certain that, had Dionysius | It is certain that had Dionysius +_mentioned_ books of the New | _said anything about_ books +Testament, Eusebius would, as | of the New Testament, Eusebius +usual, have stated the fact. | would, as usual, have stated the + | fact. + +And again of Papias [184:5]-- + + EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION. + | +Eusebius, who never fails to | Eusebius, who never fails to +_enumerate the works of the New | _state what the Fathers say about +Testament to which the Fathers | the works of_ the New Testament, +refer_, does not pretend that | does not mention that Papias +Papias knew either the Third or | knew either the Third or Fourth +Fourth Gospels. | Gospels. + +These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression, +'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by +the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts. + +Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly +ignored. Thus he still writes-- + + The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not + mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth + Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1]. + +I have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on +this side. + +Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus-- + + It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say + particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by + Eusebius [185:2]. + +I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is +all the other way. + +I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may +indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or +even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the +writer himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of +Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel +confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of +_Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others, +they must be ultimately accepted in the main. + +The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the +use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one +way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject. + +Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have +been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into +less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to +five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we +find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek. + +As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate. +They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they +will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and +Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in +the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's +record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the +author of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not +warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the +purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the +overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears +to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least +there is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently +be referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It +must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been +unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of +Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at +this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent +document [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence +derivable from Papias himself. + +The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have +a combination of circumstantial evidence, which is greater than we had +any right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a +very high degree of probability. + +1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 'has employed +testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from +that of Peter.' The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily +carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship +in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree +of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged +facts. + +But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is +not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection +between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a +preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a +commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the +two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written +or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of +disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and +circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of +correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the +Evangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden +transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and +looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--'He that saw, it hath +borne record ... that _ye_ might believe.' 'These things are written that +_ye_ might believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we +may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the +Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could +guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of +the last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders--'This +is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these +things, and _we know_ that his testimony is true.' After the narrative +is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First +Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with +the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles +proper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle's name. It +begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this +hypothesis) has preceded--'That which was from the beginning, which we +have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our +hands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard +declare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of +the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by +associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the +authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he +changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name--'I write.' The +opening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is +explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the +Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the +main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of +Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the +Epistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is +illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came +forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so +much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this +point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would +attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power. + +This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the +Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is +strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved. +The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written +about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more +than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage +relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards. + + The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage + describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins + with the closing sentence in the description of the Second + Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: 'At which however he + was present, and so he set them down.' + + 'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.' + The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the + Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he + compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither did + _he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down + incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his + narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues-- + + 'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal) + disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his + fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for + three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been + revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of + the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own + name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes + suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various + elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the + Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer, + since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit, + concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His + intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in + despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the + magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder + then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle + ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we + have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have + handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows + himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a + recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.' + + After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous + writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_ + Epistles of St John as received in the Church. + +I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with +Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the +account which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel +[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account; +the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have +been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the +results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be +regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to +ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical +insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth. +But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject. +The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and +Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some +earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript +in which it occupied this position. + +But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius +respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his +earlier editions:-- + + As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we + must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from + some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from + these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made + a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the + so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds + [191:1]. + +In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to +produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and +I emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can +test gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not +proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter. +In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my +article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point. + +Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he +has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted +above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I +offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion +here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.; +Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:-- + + The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note + relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the + First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which + he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_, + which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by + Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch + unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But + no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and + unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author + speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations + from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous. + +I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St +Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal; +almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the +resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies +in his preface:-- + + I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p. + 483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I + used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of + Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I + trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1]. + +Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the +words:-- + + Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the + Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more + definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions + [192:2]. + +But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as +elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he +leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to +c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately +ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and +very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was +quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were +meant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to +the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The +charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which +no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own +explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he +regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled +me to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted +in these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by +early writers. + +2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius +supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel. +The extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are +all the more important because they are incidental. In the words, 'What +was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or +by John or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in +which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this +order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural +order, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these +four hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold +in the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic +Evangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said +indeed that the position assigned to the name of John by Papias in his +enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote +a Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so +important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this +argument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account +can be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 'in +order of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and +John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James +here mentioned is the Lord's brother) at all events next but one. This +would have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any +Judaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is +imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it +is a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and +associated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom +alone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of +John and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis, +it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition. + +Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our +Lord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any +intermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as +'coming from the Truth's self' [193:1] ([Greek: ap' autês tês +alêtheias]). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is confined +to the Fourth Gospel. + +3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenæus, we meet with other evidence +pointing to the same result. I refer to a passage with which the readers +of these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to +it more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its +connection with Papias. Irenæus writes [194:2]:-- + + As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed + worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy + the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the + brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be + seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say] + moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of + them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth + sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the + first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall + dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that + therefore our Lord has said, 'In my Father's abode are many + mansions' ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for + all things are of God, who giveth to all their appropriate + dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto + all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy. + And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who + are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The + presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the + arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they + advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, + and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His + work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 'for He must + reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc. [194:3] + +I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this +passage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are +mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference +to our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel are attributed to the elders +who are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that 'it +is unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of +Papias,' He urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of +presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of +Irenæus may with equal right be ascribed' [195:1]; in another, that +'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the +exegesis of his own day' [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient +to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists +whom Irenæus recognized; to the other, that when Irenæus wrote there +were no 'disciples of the Apostles' living, so that he could have used +the present tense in speaking of them. + +This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance. +Critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the +presbyters in Irenæus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter +may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into +the account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence +the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This +caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without +limitation. The reports in Irenæus are of two kinds. In some cases he +repeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives +his information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is +prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall +generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though +there may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenæus is +most commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions +of the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral +teaching; for he writes, 'The presbyter used to say,' 'The presbyter +would entertain us with his discourse,' 'The old man, the disciple of +the Apostles, used to dispute' [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the +passage before us he employs the present tense, 'As the elders say,' +'The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say,' he is clearly +referring to some _document_. No one would write, 'Coleridge maintains,' +or 'Pitt declares,' unless he had in view some work or speech or +biographical notice of the person thus quoted. + +We may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us Irenæus +is citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at +issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether +this book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the +supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to +my position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of +the same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons +combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to +Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he +himself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural passages are +interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the +interpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his +Expositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological +topics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are +limited by the language, which confines our search to written documents. +So far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenæus, no Christian +work which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at +the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, 'The elders, +the disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The connection with a previous +passage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the +thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenæus gives the +direct reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in +the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are +now concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these +two passages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us +in answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction. +(i) The subject of the two passages is the same. They both treat of the +future kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view +as a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the +authorities in the two passages are described in similar terms. In the +first passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw +John, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told that +'Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not +clear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or +the class to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he +represents. Since Irenæus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John, +this latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable +as the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question +at issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in the +opening as 'the elders' simply, and at the close as 'the elders, the +disciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second +passage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description, as +if they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the +persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The +subject is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it +extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion +starts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about drinking the fruit +of the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders, +recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal +interpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the +believers. Irenæus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell +the reign of peace on God's Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This +leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of +Israel and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are +interpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth. +Creation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be +inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah +lxvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains the +interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying concerning the +many mansions in His Father's house. A few lines lower down Irenæus +refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he +had started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends. + +These seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to +Papias. And probably the two passages which I have been considering do +not stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenæus +writes [198:2]:-- + + Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is + written 'And God planted a paradise....;' and he was cast out + thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also + the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were + translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for + righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was + carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the + end of all things ([Greek: heôs sunteleias]), preluding immortality. + +On this passage our author remarks:-- + + It seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of + the Apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters + the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v. + 36. §§ 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1]. + +With this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is nothing +whatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am obliged to join issue. +It seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there +is the description of the authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the +Apostles,' which exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own +preface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This +latter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which +strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenæus. +The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a +terrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world, +to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenæus +says, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom +these two respectively are types; their translation preludes the +immortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second passage where +paradise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the +'many mansions' in the Father's house. But it is clear from this latter +passage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted +must have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position +there assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom +does not explain itself, and must have required some previous +discussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy +himself with this subject? + +The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we +have seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his +'Hexaemeron' [200:2] that 'the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated +the sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the +Church of Christ.' They 'said that there was a certain _spiritual_ +paradise' [200:3]. Among these 'more ancient interpreters,' of whom he +gives a list, he names 'the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of +John the Evangelist, and Irenæus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated +together as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of +the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to +these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is +impossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression 'the +delight of the paradise,' in the saying of the elders reported by +Irenæus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the +Prince of Tyre is addressed, 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise +of God;' and that Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom +he had previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their +views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 'where +God seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from +heaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the 'stones +of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards +quotes in illustration our Lord's words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan +as lightning fall from heaven' [201:1]. 'See,' he concludes, 'we have +heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of +delight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii. +16)' + +From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the +Apocalypse, bearing the names of Oecumenius and Arethas, which was +published by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On +Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of +St Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there +was a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man, +the other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds-- + + Seeing then that Michael, the chief captain [of the heavenly + hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago + cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as + Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst + of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because + 'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the + coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more + completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers, + especially of Papias ([Greek: kai paterôn paradosis kai Papiou]), a + successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse + with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning + the war in these express words: 'It so befell that their array,' + that is, their warlike enterprise, 'came to nought; for the great + dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil, + was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his + angels' [201:3]. + +I turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that 'the above-mentioned +interpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the +teaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the +Ophites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the +ground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the +woman, the whole race of mankind had been born' [202:1]. This notice +again confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of +Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus +everything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of +ancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it +has at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings +of the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenæus, must be +attributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenæus cites by name in +the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add +my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of +Irenæus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the +exegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the +eyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially +Irenæus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony +to the debt of Irenæus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by +early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to +concern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the +obligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they +had all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work, +tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for +word, from Irenæus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not +acknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which +Hippolytus takes with his master Irenæus, might well have been taken by +Irenæus himself with his predecessor Papias. + +4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story concerning +a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and he adds that it is +'contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.' + +The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken +in adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel, +vii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope, +the _Codex Bezæ_, the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in +sin.' In the _Apostolic Constitutions_ [203:1], where this incident is +briefly related, the woman is described as 'having sinned.' And again +Rufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of +the Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an +adulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of +Eusebius. + +But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where +it stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is +wanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally +absent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it +is not referred to, as part of St John's Gospel, before the latter half +of the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is +expressed in language quite foreign to St John's style, and it +interrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating +Christ's discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast' of +Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the +ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and +the illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple +area. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own +person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows +directly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living +water_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks 'again' ([Greek: palin]), +and declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But +the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative, +introducing a change of time, of scene, of subject. + +On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced +here, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above +anything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and +followers, 'whose character and idiosyncrasies,' as Mr Mill says, 'were +of a totally different sort' [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to +imagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the +loftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in +its moral tendencies. + +But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John's +Gospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was +originally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript, to +illustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 'Ye judge after the +flesh; I judge no man.' This hint he has not followed up, but it seems +to me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most +authorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands +after vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel. +This is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the +first instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on +a page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a +place somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the +narrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to +the end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it +at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate +position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an +independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on +critical grounds, it is not easy to say. + +But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have +we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which Papias derived +from the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give +a place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its +introduction as an illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus +be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29, +as described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or +transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his +margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews; +and hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezæ_, the oldest Greek +manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is +remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides +this pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom +He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work +of Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some +strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters +more or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikôtera]),' which Papias derived from +oral tradition. + +5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark +in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the +Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing +alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher +importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of +Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same +motive. + +The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has +been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting +for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is +mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First +Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the +Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen +posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as +dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information +respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from +having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If +the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up +by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke, +he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but +_neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the +flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the +other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a +personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of +other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there +must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the +faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main +points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At +the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the +record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for +himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has +written what he himself had seen and heard. + +Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the +coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it +stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The +Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's +account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First +Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what +object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at +least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the +Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions +Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the +First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together +in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is +quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations +existing between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which +gives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a +preceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.' +Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the +reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son +saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's +notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably +have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the +resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was +acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast +between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St +John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly +natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder +respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as +we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its +relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two +drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could +not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be +strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other +evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_ +and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield +many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few +years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the +Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian +writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius +Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps +immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the +showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one +another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the +Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively. + +It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St +Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect +much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did +Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We +may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the +secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call +attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but +a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this +father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this +very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii. +1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the +evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbatôn]), whereas +St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week +[Greek: tê mia tôn sabbatôn]; and among other explanations which he +offers is the following:-- + + The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the + translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published + [Greek: paredôke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person + who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the + hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbatôn] [208:1]. + +He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might +arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day +of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was +yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have +borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from +him. + +But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must +have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius +must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have +had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and +none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed +circumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter +of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a +fragment from a passage in Irenæus which intimately affects the +relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the +middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate +purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I +can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural +Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenæus, he says, +'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than +to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not +indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius. +Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it +baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the +difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly +before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a +topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once +started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover +it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice +over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits +which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his +readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has +passed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further +information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his +notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we +may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material +which this father afforded for such extracts. + +6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late +anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would +be decisive on the point at issue. + +In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is +assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:-- + + The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the + Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in + corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a + beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in + his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque + libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John, + correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But + Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him, + because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat), + was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him + from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1]. + +No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains +such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of +Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the +endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to +dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When +attention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf, +Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a +spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged +five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had +gathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them +'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he +assigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name +of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it +had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been +recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric' +books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this +source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a +notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius +Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1]. + +This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or +trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover +these titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five +genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books +'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in +error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of +Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin +lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as +Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who +will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and +which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again +does the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this +theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the +twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katêxiôtai]), +continues:-- + + For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of + him, says in the second book [Greek: logô] of the 'Oracles of the + Lord' ([Greek: tôn kuriakôn logiôn]) that he was slain by the Jews, + having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the + prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3] + +Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is +attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting +directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of +John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the +ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly +quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias' +book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it +by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most +easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom +Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or +two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in +the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti +Iôannês [men hupo tou Rhômaiôn basileôs katedikasthê marturôn eis +Patmon, Iakôbos de] hupo Ioudaiôn anêrethê], 'Papias says that John [was +condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness +(to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1]. + +The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and +we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS. +This passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different +sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an +anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a +confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that +between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenæus in the same +context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best +explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather +than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be +read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth +century, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for +EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which +should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the +false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to +Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having +reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on +somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own +Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body' +[Greek: eti en tô sômati kathestôtos]. In this contrast between the +story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips +during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc +in corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place. +The word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have +been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel +had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have +repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other +hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can +hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was +derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would +be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may +have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_ +wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos +autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek: +apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias +himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is +suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also. +Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius +would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made +thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the +whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence. +Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I +considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its +companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so +flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not, +like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding +centuries. + +But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which +he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias +recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:-- + + Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the + Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility' + ([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its + Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the + book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show + that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the + author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a + witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4]. + +This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics +of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works +cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether +they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second. +In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single +writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the +authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or +two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the +Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this +negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference +arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown +[215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and +references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the +authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church +writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in +the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been +entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely +what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the +Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The +inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the +direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or +section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the +second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the +Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and +(what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a +contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel +in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of +the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other +hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far +as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The +most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the +Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the +use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented +on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show +hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike +are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike +are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by +Irenæus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the +third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them +on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first +distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books +appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle +or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues +entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend +to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he +questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the +Apocalypse. + + + + +VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. + +[FEBRUARY, 1876.] + + +It has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a +remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive +disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony +Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is +reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a +century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial +throne A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the +earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted +disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of +a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly +rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian +society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal +influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly +missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct, +more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the +other Apostles. + +Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St +John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the +veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author +of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as +writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but +also of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose +teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very +school [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the +neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways +for the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenæus, +who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate +disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as +preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic +doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the +elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord' +[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying +more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the +Apostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to +face' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord' +[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also +were pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have +their succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders, +disciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere. +The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of +Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the +middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years +before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of +Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third +quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of +whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man, +when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged +him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church. + +Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of +Christendom in literary activity, during the second century. This +pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already +mentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and +primitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the +Asiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the +pressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the +arena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main +subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have +involved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with +its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem, +would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the +Apocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal +controversy courted investigation into the relations between the +narratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism, +resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's +Epistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to +preserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a +less degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with +Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics, +could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of +Irenæus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of +written documents--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of +authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our +New Testament Canon. To men like Irenæus or Eusebius, who had this +extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church +generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging +to it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its +orthodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or by studied panegyric, is +a fact of real moment. + +Over and above this relation to the books of the New Testament +generally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention, +and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the +writers belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what +indications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they +recognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be +learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they +accorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles. + +Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1]. +In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel +has been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of +the latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the +testimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be; +while, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in +themselves warrant any inference on this point. + +The next extant document in chronological order is the account of +Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D. +155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of +Pontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter +the brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their +martyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested by some +remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the +outset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pass that the Lord might +exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for +Polycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord' +[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type +of hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and +imaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and +mediæval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal +conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document. +Some of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the +parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate +is Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The +time of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath,' as it is +here called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from +information elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his +employ. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly +compared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our +Lord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When +apprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back to the city +[221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal +entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as +against a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will +of God be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time +that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a +valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much +violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7]. + +Most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of +the Passion, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists alone or in common +with St John. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in +which the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where +the writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their +mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice +came from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp' +[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice +those of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the +voice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as +imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in +consequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2], +though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild +beasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates +this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the +manner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel +Jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die' +[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time, +for His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of +punishment; but by an accidental turn of circumstances He was +transferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled +[222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the +body of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to +him and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are +told, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood' [222:6]. The +parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the +crucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress +on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these +hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We +saw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we +have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8]. +And lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was +accomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of +Polycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been +and shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added +that the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the +phraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true +God' [223:2]. + +MELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second +century. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able +to assign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,' +he himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of +Asia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the +fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate +should probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are +informed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180) +[223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the +colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of +prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his +brother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of +the year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology +to the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their +statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of +Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from +internal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the +latest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works +comprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must +have extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall +probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as +an author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon +after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century +Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to +their rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be +inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous +contemporaries, but died a natural death. + +These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early +part of the second century, within a very few years after the death of +St John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have +been a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at +an advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had +conversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have +survived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications +between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other, +were easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on +one occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure +to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if +circumstances did not throw him directly in their way. + +Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the +same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the +succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders, +whose authority Irenæus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a +prominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom +Clement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is +quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the +generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by +Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by +Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome. + +I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius +gives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be +complete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the +contents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together +at Cæsarea. The titles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal +Festival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On +the Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_, +_On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body +[and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of +Christ_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and +on the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to +Antonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides +these works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted +elsewhere under the titles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the +Passion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these +may perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under +other names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal, +exegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have +furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for +determining his exact theological position. To them it must have been +clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St +John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write +on the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth +Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a +controversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself +respecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which +have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances, +from which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in +the twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday. + +Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_, +which is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised passages +from the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the +Christian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Sôtêros kai pasês tês +pisteôs hêmôn]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been +accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical +import of the several passages, as Melito understood them. In the +preface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work +had been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East +and visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself +respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list. +The language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes +that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_ +books' ([Greek: mathein tên tôn palaiôn bibliôn eboulêthês akribeian]). +He adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate +information respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribôs +mathôn ta tês palaias diathêkês biblia]).' From these expressions Dr +Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a +corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of +the New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural +Religion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what +nobody denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,' +did not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so +refer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire +misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The +contention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself +signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another +collection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and +reiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to +the existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the +force of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this +implied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to +read the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without +throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have +therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for +the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in +maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New +Testament literature. + +And if this reference is suggested by strict principles of exegesis, it +alone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a +century, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle +bearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a passage found in St +Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is +a fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter +which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic +Epistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before +Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical +Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as +being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious +services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the +subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact +that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual +practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia +Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating +the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It +is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of +certain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical +Scriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a +fact that Irenæus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor, +writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito, +quotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of +the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more +especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the +Churches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with +the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations +of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do +not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the +New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the +banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this +state of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the +Syriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made careful +inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the +very land where those Scriptures had their birth. + +The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered +[228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence +of the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate +his general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken. +The genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously +questioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve +every consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be +set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all +those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of +_Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he +evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On +the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such +interpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of +'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either +suspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in +circulation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments +have been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish +interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second +century. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may +confidently assume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree +with me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr, +in Irenæus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. +Only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than +redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt +on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were +certainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some +mediæval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to +anonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Passing away of the +Blessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Passion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's +reflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered +quite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great +majority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the +most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do +not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take +the fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and +I refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this +ancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection. + +We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next +age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been +in circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the +former point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke +of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the +latter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with +Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus and +Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man' [230:1]. +The fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully +with both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their +superior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of +the same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version. +They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed +antithesis. + +Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted +by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of +Christ [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:-- + + The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the + miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and + assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at + the same time, He assured us of His two essences ([Greek: + ousias])--of His Godhead by miracles in the three years after His + baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek: + chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his + immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata + sarka]), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, although He was + true God from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alêthês proaiônios + huparchôn]). + +The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the +general considerations which have been already discussed, partly on +special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must +here be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of +Melito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation. +It has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment, +since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age; +but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if +so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word +([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that +there may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But +the work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by +Anastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism +attacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick +of the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On +the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part +of the fourth century, was one of the principal figures in the Arian +controversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions +of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so +comparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no +instance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion +between the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the +Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of +Melito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of +Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted, +is a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if +their genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed +later than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal +statements. + +But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author +of _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to +postulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply +the facts thus assumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited +cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will +find themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty +years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar +passage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration +of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned by St +John. + +Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not +only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but +because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical +history and doctrine [232:1]. + + We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to + those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, + that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the + Word of God: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator + together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all + things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the + law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings + Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel, + and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the + Father the Son, in God God, the King for ever and ever. For this is + He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with + Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who + was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with + Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and + the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at + Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who + was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was + worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered + together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the + maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who + appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who + was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was + condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was + hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the + dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who + sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those + that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light + of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are + captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of + the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the + Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, God who is of God, the Son who + is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen. + +This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to +evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of +doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments +ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these +fragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two +exceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in +Greek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness. +But the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into +a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of +Melito rested. + +And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are +derived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some +unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as +wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized +our four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And, +when they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most) +Irenæus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate +relations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again +and again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the +traditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that +the Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning, +it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the +solution is so very obvious. + +But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment +taken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports +to be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are +mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be +pronounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are. + +1. He writes first: + + They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac + translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless. + +The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, classical +and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely +dependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has +shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is +accepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is +found to be satisfactory, and _à priori_ probabilities are very strongly +against the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth +exception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion +has its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other +principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to +believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour +thieves and liars. + +2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions, +and here he tells us that-- + + The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything + else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of + theological development. + +It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on +this point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style +of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus +and Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially +true of the passage under consideration. What the 'later stage of +theological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the +contrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all +theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all +the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though +it lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic +of the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon; +but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a +quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the +conception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin. +Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God +before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord, +sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word, +while sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek: +archistratêgos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun +([Greek: tô tou Nauê Iêsou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ +is 'King and Priest and God and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain +and Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the +Scriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third passage he says that the same +Person, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, went +forth from the Father before all created things through His power and +counsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and +Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in +another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man +through the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these passages stand alone. This +same conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through +it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained. + +Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite +statement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is +introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he +has mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at +which Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the passage before us the +only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin' +(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the +same kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the +statements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the +Virgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he +will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1]. + +3. But our author states also: + + In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of + the same passage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the + extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly + ascribed to Irenæus. + +This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed +attention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate +in his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the +shorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same +as our passage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences, +'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to +those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc., +as quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenæus, runs thus: +'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ +was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised +from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth +for ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of God,' etc. +[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that +in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the passage in its original +setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenæus, it has been +altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently. +The reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted, +while the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the +Prophets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know, +did make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as +is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and +the correspondence of language in this opening passage with the +dedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is +sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and +external alike, requires us to ascribe the passage. But, if so, how came +the name of Irenæus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I +think not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenæus should +introduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either +anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already +had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of +their predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In +this particular case, Irenæus may or may not have acknowledged his +obligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double +ascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention +another fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, 'The +saying of Irenæus' [237:2]. I turn to the passage, and I find that it +contains not the words of Irenæus himself, but of Papias quoted by +Irenæus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has +entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenæus directly mentions +Papias as his authority. + +The attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears +clearly enough from the title of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of +Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and +also from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the +form of a servant' [237:4]. + +CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of +Melito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years. +His date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an +Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and +as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering +Legion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written +before that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons, +though not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much +later [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close +of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and +judging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been +very recent [238:3]. + +Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the +titles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned), +_Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books), +_Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings +_Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tês Phrugôn haireseôs], which he +places later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list +comprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were +extant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three +works only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On Godliness_, is +not in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author +also are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them' +[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from +a treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and +Theodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encratites +[238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his +works, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material +for a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings +against the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his +relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is +attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates, +and by Photius [239:1], from different points of view. + +Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves +the name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these +voluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal +Festival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal +Chronicle_. + +The first runs as follows:-- + + There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions, + acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper + subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the + fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His + disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened + bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they + interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the + law ([Greek: asumphônos nomô]), and on their showing the Gospels + seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei + kat' autous ta euangelia]). + +The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the +same context. + + The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great + sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that + was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being + judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands + of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns + of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same + that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and + blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the + passover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre. + +If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on +the same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about +A.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious. +In the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of +reconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with +the narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he asserts that the date +fixed for the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can +only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two +accounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are +reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in +harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the +14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the antitype, must have been +crucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question +whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed +is that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at +least St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received +documents to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this +respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or +in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty +in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears +out the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the +blood is taken from the Fourth Gospel; but a theological interpretation +is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist. +Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the +subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike +suggest that the Fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when +they were written. + +But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ meets the inference by denying +the genuineness of the extracts. I hardly think, however, that he can +have seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement. He +elsewhere asserts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that +the Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the 14th Nisan +was the day of the Last Supper or the day of the Crucifixion, the +Quartodecimans maintaining the former [240:1]. In other words, he +believes that it was the anniversary, not of the Passion, but of the +Last Supper, which the Quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the 14th, +and that therefore, as they pleaded the authority of St John for their +practice, the Fourth Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle, +since it represents the Passion as taking place on the 14th. As I have +before intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me to be +altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. But it depends, +for such force or plausibility as it has, almost solely on these +fragments from ancient writers quoted in the _Paschal Chronicle_, of +which the extracts from Apollinaris are the most important. If therefore +he refuses to accept the testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_ to their +authorship, he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests. + +On this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The authorship of these +extracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers [241:1], but on +entirely mistaken grounds; and at the present time the consensus among +critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. 'On the +genuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now +no more dispute, writes Scholten [242:1]. Our author however is far too +persistent to let them pass. Their veracity has once been questioned, +and therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the +witness-box. + +It may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their +genuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest, and I will +therefore consider his objections. They are twofold. + +1. He urges that the external testimony to their authorship is +defective. His reasoning is as follows [242:2]:-- + + Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passion, and + quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and + antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this + fragment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of + his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome, + Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works; nor + is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, nor + by any of those who took part in the great controversy. + +Here is a tissue of fallacies and assumptions. In the first place, it is +a _petitio principii_, as will be seen presently, that Apollinaris was +an antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, there is not the +smallest evidence, nor any probability, that Apollinaris would have +written before Melito, so that the latter could have quoted him. How, +again, has our author learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having +composed such a work'? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not seen +the work when he composed his list of the writings of Apollinaris; but +it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence. The very +language in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list +seems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers, +which he had not read or seen himself. Theodoret does not 'enumerate +other of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to +the reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing the sects of +the Severians and Montanists respectively, that Apollinaris had written +against them [243:1]. There is not the smallest reason why he should +have gone out of his way in either passage to speak of the work on the +Paschal Festival, supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where +else does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be made to +yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise? Nor +again does Jerome, in the passage to which our author refers in his note +[243:2], allude to a single work by this writer, but simply mentions him +by name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature. +Elsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings +[243:3], but there he simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius +again, the statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether +misleading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, which he +read during his embassy, but he does not profess to give a list; and he +says distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author +which he had not seen. Who the 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate +other of his works,' I am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last +sentence, 'Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, +Irenæus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of the +treatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short fragments are +preserved. He does not mention any person in these, nor could he have +done so without going out of his way. For the rest, Clement is reported +by Eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it +by Melito's treatise on the same subject [243:4]. Eusebius is there +discussing Melito, and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite +out of place. What ground is there then for the assumption that Clement +did not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius has not recorded the fact? +When at a later point Eusebius comes to speak of Clement, he says of +this father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions +Melito and Irenæus and _certain others_, whose explanations also he has +given' [244:1]. Why may not Apollinaris have been included among these +'certain others' whom Clement quoted? The same fallacy underlies our +author's reference to Irenæus. The work of Irenæus is lost. Eusebius, +it is true, preserves some very meagre fragments [244:2]; but in these +not a single writer on either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is +mentioned, not even Melito. Irenæus may have quoted Apollinaris by name +in this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name in his extant +work on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius does not care to record +the fact. All this assumed silence of writers whose works are lost is +absolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the +_Paschal Chronicle_. + +2. But secondly; our author considers that the contents of these +fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to Apollinaris. His +argument is instructive [244:3]. + + It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the + most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and his + own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on the + 14th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the + country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this + fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert + to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so vast + and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised + contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic Churches + at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, and in + doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates + represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their + fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John + himself? + +with more to the same effect. + +I will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views +on the point at issue in the Quartodeciman controversy. Certainly I +cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is +here put. But what, if the writer of these fragments was not an +'isolated convert to the views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself? +What, if the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of +the last Supper, but of the Passion, so that Melito himself would have +heartily assented to the criticisms in these fragments? [245:1] This is +the obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in +Eusebius, and in Irenæus as quoted by Eusebius; and it gains +confirmation from these fragments of Apollinaris. It seems to me highly +improbable that Apollinaris should have been an exception to the +practice of the Asiatic Churches. So far I agree with our author. But +this is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the +Quartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the genuineness of +the fragments attributed to Apollinaris. + +After this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief +representatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth while +to call attention to a statement of Irenæus in which he professes to +record the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting +the credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the chronology of our Lord's life +and ministry [245:2]. + +The Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, sought for +analogies to the thirty æons of their pleroma, or supra-sensual world, +in the Gospel history. Among other examples they alleged the thirty +years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the Gospel +chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by +themselves. At the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He +had completed His twenty-ninth and was entering upon His thirtieth year, +and His ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month, 'the +acceptable _year_ of the Lord' foretold by the prophet. Irenæus +expresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the +deep things of God should have overlooked the commonest facts of the +evangelical narrative, and points to the three passovers recorded in St +John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of +the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenæus has an _à priori_ reason +of his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than thirty years. He +came to sanctify every period of life--infancy, childhood, youth, +declining age. It was therefore necessary that He should have passed the +turn of middle life. From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still +reckoned young (_juvenis_). + + But from his fortieth and fiftieth year he is already declining + into older age, which was the case with our Lord when he taught, as + the Gospel and all the elders who associated with John the disciple + of the Lord in Asia testify that John delivered this account. For + he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of them + saw not only John, but other Apostles also, and heard these same + things from their lips, and bear testimony to such an account. + +Irenæus then goes on to argue that the same may be inferred from the +language of our Lord's Jewish opponents, who asked: 'Thou art not yet +fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' This, he maintains, could +not properly be said of one who was only thirty years of age, and must +imply that the person so addressed had passed his fortieth year at +least, and probably that he was not far off his fiftieth. + +On this passage it must be remarked that the Valentinian chronology was +derived from a _prima facie_ interpretation of the Synoptic narrative; +whereas the Asiatic reckoning, which Irenæus maintains, was, or might +well have been, founded on the Fourth Gospel, but could not possibly +have been elicited from the first three Gospels independently of the +fourth. + +On this question generally I have spoken already in a former paper +[247:1]. Though it seems probable that our Lord's ministry was confined +to three years, yet there is not a single notice in any of the four +Gospels inconsistent with the hypothesis that it extended over a much +longer period, and that He was some forty years old at all events at the +time of the Passion. The Synoptic narratives say absolutely nothing +about the interval which elapsed between the Baptism and the Passion. St +John mentions three passovers, but he nowhere intimates that he has +given an exhaustive list of these festivals. The account of Irenæus +therefore is not so unreasonable after all; and we need not have +hesitated to accept it, if there had been any definite grounds for doing +so. + +It will be seen however, that Irenæus, while maintaining that our Lord +was forty years old, grounds his opinion mainly on a false inference +from John viii. 57. At the same time he adduces the testimony of the +Gospel and 'all the elders,' not for this particular view of our Lord's +age, but for the more general statement that He was past middle life; +and this vagueness of language suggests that, though their testimony was +distinctly on his side as against the Valentinians, it did not go beyond +this. It is very far from improbable indeed, that he borrowed this very +interpretation of John viii. 57 from one of these Asiatic elders, just +as we have seen him [247:2] elsewhere borrowing an interpretation of +another passage of this Gospel (xiv. 2) from the same source. But, as he +has here forced the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to say more than it +really does say, so also he may have strained the testimony of 'all the +elders' in the same direction. Yet the broad fact remains that he +confidently appeals to them in support of a chronology suggested by the +Fourth Gospel, but certainly not deducible from the Synoptic narratives. + +And the extant remains of this school support the appeal so qualified. +We have seen that its two most famous authors, Melito and Apollinaris, +distinctly follow the chronology of the Fourth Evangelist, the one in +the duration of the Lord's ministry, the other in the events of the +Paschal week [248:1]. + +Of the special references to these fathers of the Asiatic Church, which +appear elsewhere in Irenæus, it is sufficient to say that in one +instance an elder is represented as quoting a saying of our Lord +contained only in the Gospel of St John [248:2] while the words ascribed +to another are most probably suggested by the language of the same +Evangelist [248:3]. This latter elder, whose speculations are given at +great length, also introduces two direct quotations from St Paul's +Epistles, and treats the Apostle's authority throughout as beyond +dispute [248:4]. + +The last father of the Asiatic school, whom it will be necessary to +mention, is POLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus. When Victor of Rome in the +closing years of the second century attempted to force the Western usage +with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians, Polycrates wrote to +remonstrate. The letter is unhappily lost, but a valuable extract is +preserved by Eusebius [248:5]. In this the writer claims to speak +authoritatively on the subject of dispute, owing to the special +opportunities which he had enjoyed. He states that he had received the +observance of the 14th by tradition from his relations, of whom seven +had been bishops; he says that he had conferred with the brethren from +all parts of the world; and he adds that he had 'gone through every holy +scripture.' When we remember the question at issue, and recall the +language of Apollinaris respecting the Gospels, in writing on the same +subject, we see what is implied in this last sentence. The extract, +which is short, contains only two references to the writings of the New +Testament. The one is to the Fourth Gospel; St John is described in the +very words of this Gospel, as 'he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord' +([Greek: ho epi to stêthos tou Kuriou anapesôn]) [249:1]. The other is to +a book of the Pauline cycle, the Acts of the Apostles; 'They that are +greater than I,' writes Polycrates, 'have said, _We must obey God rather +than men_' [249:2]. + +We have now reached the close of the second century, and it is not +necessary to pursue the history of the School of St John in their +Asiatic home beyond this point. But in the meantime a large and +flourishing colony had been established in the cities of southern Gaul, +and no account of the traditions of the school would be adequate which +failed to take notice of this colony. This part of the subject however +must be left for a subsequent paper. Meanwhile the inferences from the +notices passed under review cannot, I think, be doubtful. Out of a very +extensive literature, by which this school was once represented, the +extant remains are miserably few and fragmentary; but the evidence +yielded by these meagre relies is decidedly greater, in proportion to +their extent, than we had any right to expect. As regards the Fourth +Gospel, this is especially the case. If the same amount of written +matter--occupying a very few pages in all--were extracted accidentally +from the current theological literature of our own day, the chances, +unless I am mistaken, would be strongly against our finding so many +indications of the use of this Gospel. In every one of the writers, from +Polycarp and Papias to Polycrates, we have observed phenomena which bear +witness directly or indirectly, and with different degrees of +distinctness, to its recognition. It is quite possible for critical +ingenuity to find a reason for discrediting each instance in turn. An +objector may urge in one case, that the writing itself is a forgery; in +a second, that the particular passage is an interpolation; in a third, +that the supposed quotation is the original and the language of the +Evangelist the copy; in a fourth, that the incident or saying was not +deduced from this Gospel but from some apocryphal work, containing a +parallel narrative. By a sufficient number of assumptions, which lie +beyond the range of verification, the evidence may be set aside. But the +early existence and recognition of the Fourth Gospel is the one simple +postulate which explains all the facts. The law of gravitation accounts +for the various phenomena of motion, the falling of a stone, the jet of +a fountain, the orbits of the planets, and so forth. It is quite +possible for any one, who is so disposed, to reject this explanation of +nature. Provided that he is allowed to postulate a new force for every +new fact with which he is confronted, he has nothing to fear. He will +then + "gird the sphere + With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er, + Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb," + +happy in his immunity. But the other theory will prevail nevertheless by +reason of its simplicity. + + + + +VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. + +[AUGUST, 1876.] + + +In the preceding papers I have investigated the testimony borne by the +Churches of Asia Minor to the Canonical Gospels, and more especially to +the Fourth Evangelist. The peculiar value of this testimony is due to +the close personal relations of these communities with the latest +surviving Apostles, more particularly with St John. At the same time I +took occasion incidentally to remark on their attitude towards St Paul +and his writings, because an assumed antagonism between the Apostle of +the Gentiles and the Twelve has been adopted by a modern school of +critics as the basis for a reconstruction of early Christian history. I +purpose in the present paper extending this investigation to the +Churches of Gaul. The Christianity of Gaul was in some sense the +daughter of the Christianity of Asia Minor. + +Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of the second +century we have no certain information. It seems fairly probable indeed +that, when we read in the Apostolic age of a mission of Crescens to +'Galatia' or 'Gaul' [251:1], the western country is meant rather than +the Asiatic settlement which bore the same name; and, if so, this points +to some relations with St Paul himself. But, even though this +explanation should be accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later +tradition indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is +impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies these +comparatively recent stories. + +The connection between the southern parts of Gaul and the western +districts of Asia Minor had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul +was indebted for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like +Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six centuries +before the Christian era; and close relations appear to have been +maintained even to the latest times. During the Roman period the people +of Marseilles still spoke the Greek language familiarly along with the +vernacular Celtic of the native population and the official Latin of the +dominant power [252:1]. When therefore Christianity had established her +head-quarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the Gospel should +flow in the same channels which had already conducted the civilization +and the commerce of the Asiatic Greeks westward. + +At all events, whatever we may think of the antecedent probabilities, +the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A.D. 177, under +Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the +Rhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its +extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the +Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant +historical notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the +martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from +the persecuted Churches, addressed to 'the brethren that are in Asia and +Phrygia' [252:2]. The communities thus addressed, it will be observed, +belong to the district in which St John's influence was predominant, and +which produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in +the preceding papers--Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates. +Of the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall +speak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the very +fact of their addressing the communication to these distant Churches +shows the closeness of the ties which connected the Christians in Gaul +with their Asiatic brethren. Moreover, in the body of the letter it is +incidentally stated of two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia +Minor--Attalus a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from +Phrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul;' while +nearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs the most +conspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, who was more than +ninety years old when he suffered. A later tradition makes him a native +of Asia Minor [253:1]; and this would be a highly probable supposition, +even if unsupported by any sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from +unlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has +not preserved the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he +must have been a growing boy when St John died; and through him the +Churches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the full light of +history, are linked directly with the Apostolic age. + +Immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these +distant parts of Christendom was manifested in another way. The +Montanist controversy was raging in the Church of Phrygia, and the +brethren of Gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted +points [253:2]. To this communication they appended various letters of +the martyrs, 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in +Asia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent Irenæus, then a +presbyter, as their delegate with letters of recommendation to +Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of conferring with him on this +same subject [253:3]. + +Some twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a close, another +controversy broke out, relating to the observance of Easter, in which +again the Asiatic Churches were mainly concerned; and here too we find +the Christians of Gaul interposing with their counsels. When Victor of +Rome issued his edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia +Minor, Irenæus wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion +however did not merely represent his own private views, for we are +especially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in Gaul over +whom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the Roman bishop alone, but he +exchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the Churches +concerning the question which had been stirred' [254:1]. + +Bearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we have a right +to infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most part inherited the +traditions of the Asiatic school of St John, we look with special +interest to the documents emanating from these communities. + +The Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, already mentioned, +is the earliest of these. The main business of the letter is a narrative +of contemporary facts, and any allusions therefore to the Canonical +writings are incidental. + +But, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the references to St +Paul, for instance, there can be no doubt. Thus the martyrs and +confessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that _the sufferings +of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which +shall be revealed in us_,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in +the Greek is given _verbatim_ as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again, +they are described as 'imitators of Christ, _who being in the form of +God thought it not robbery to be equal with God_,' where in like manner +a sentence of twelve words stands _verbatim_ as we find it Phil. ii. 6. +No one, I venture to think, will question the source of these passages, +though they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation. +Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is +called 'the pillar and ground' ([Greek: stulon kai hedraiôma]) of the +Christians at Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or +that when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water, +received a revelation rebuking him for 'not using _the creatures of +God_, in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and _gave +thanks_ to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. These passages +show the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards St +Paul; but I have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation +which prevails in this letter, and thus indicating what we are to expect +in other cases. + +From the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations analogous to +these. + +Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told, that though +young he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias ([Greek: +sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zachariou marturia]), for verily +([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of +the Lord blameless_.' Here we have the same words and in the same order, +which are used of Zacharias and Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover, +it is stated lower down of this same martyr, that he was 'called the +paraclete (or advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in +himself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This maybe compared +with Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy +Ghost.' + +The meaning of the expression 'The testimony of Zacharias' ([Greek: tê +tou Zachariou marturia]) has been questioned. It might signify either +'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or +'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom. I cannot doubt +that the former explanation is correct; for the connecting particle +([Greek: goun]) shows that the assertion is intended to find its +justification in words which immediately follow, '_he walked in all the +commandments_,' etc. I need not however dwell on this point, for the +author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself adopts this rendering [255:1]. +Yet with an inconsistency, of which his book furnishes not a few +examples, though he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently +ignores the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis +which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected. + +An early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, who is +mentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between the temple and the +altar (Matt. xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the father of the Baptist. +And in the extravagant romance called the Protevangelium, which is +occupied mainly with the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the +Baptist's father is represented as slain by Herod 'at the vestibule of +the temple of the Lord' [256:1]. Our author therefore supposes that +these Christians of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some +apocryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of +Zacharias. + +Whether this identification which I have mentioned is true or false it +is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again do I care to discuss +the question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it, and +so believed the Baptist's father to have fallen a martyr. I am disposed +on the whole to think that they did. This supposition, which however +must remain uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with +Vettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment as regards +the point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's Gospel has +(according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives) no +reference whatever to the martyrdom; and therefore affords no ground for +the assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any +account of or any reference to the death of the Baptist's father. + +But, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification +(and this assumption, whether true or false, was very natural), our +Third Gospel itself does furnish such a reference; and they would thus +find within the limits of this Gospel everything which they required +relating to Zacharias. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ indeed +represents the matter otherwise; but then he has overlooked an important +passage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels which ought +surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how +the Fathers, 'utterly uncritical' though they were, should ever quote +any writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy, he says, +'There can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in +the Protevangelium, and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not +based upon Luke, _in which there is no mention of his death_' [257:1]. +Here and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi. +51, 'the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the +temple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned in St +Matthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also. + +But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third Gospel in +this way, what will he say to those with the Acts? In this same letter +of the Gallican Churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their +persecutors 'like Stephen the perfect martyr, _Lord, lay not this sin to +their charge._' Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them +another Acts containing words identical with our Acts, just as he +supposes them to have had another Gospel containing words identical with +our Third Gospel? Or will he allow this account to have been taken from +Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter case, if they +had the second treatise which bears the name of St Luke in their hands, +why should they not have had the first also? + +Our author however does not stop here. He maintains that these same +writers quoted not only from a double of St Luke, but from a double of +St John also [258:1]. 'That was fulfilled,' they write, 'which was +spoken by the Lord, saying, _There shall come a time in which whosoever +killeth you will think that he doeth God service_,' where the words of +St John (xvi. 2) are exactly reproduced, with the exception that for +'There cometh an hour when' ([Greek: erchetai hôra hina]) they +substitute 'There shall come a time in which' ([Greek: eleusetai kairos +en hô]. This substitution, which was highly natural in a quotation from +memory, is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from +the Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to some +apocryphal gospel which has perished. No such gospel however is known to +have existed. Moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse +of the Fourth Gospel, and the expression itself is remarkable--far more +remarkable than it appears in the English version ([Greek: latreian +prospherein tô Theô]), not 'to do God service,' but 'to offer a religious +service to God'). I may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the +Paraclete, already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the +writers, and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence +with St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. Here, as +elsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not advance anything +which is demonstrably impossible, he may pile one improbability upon +another without endangering the stability of his edifice. + +But even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive +this accumulation of improbabilities, it will appear absolutely +untenable in the light of contemporary fact. Irenæus was the most +prominent and learned member of the Church from which this letter +emanated, at the very time when it was written. According to some modern +critics he was the actual composer of the letter; but for this there is +no evidence of any kind. According to our author himself he was the +bearer of it [259:1]; but this statement again is not borne out by +facts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenæus was intimately mixed +up with all the incidents, and he cannot have been ignorant of the +contents of the letter. Now this letter was written A.D. 177 or, as our +author prefers, A.D. 178, while Irenæus published his third book before +A.D. 190 at all events, and possibly some years earlier. Irenæus in +this book assumes that the Church from the beginning has recognized our +four Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of _Supernatural +Religion_ maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before, at +the outside, the very Church to which Irenæus belonged, in a public +document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our +Canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more Apocryphal Gospels +instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are +actually found in our Canonical Gospels. + +Here then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what must be the fate of +a writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts, when he comes to +deal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful +weighing of probabilities? + +From this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and Lyons, we are +led to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican father, whose name has +already been mentioned several times, and who is the most important of +all witnesses to the Canonical writings of the New Testament. + +The great work of Irenæus is entitled _Refutation and Overthrow of +Knowledge falsely so called_, and consists of five books. The third book +was published during the episcopate of Eleutherus, who was Bishop of +Rome from about A.D. 175 to A.D. 190; for he is mentioned in it as still +living [260:1]. It must therefore have been written before A.D. 190. On +the other hand it contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX +[260:2]; and Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published +till the reign of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). Unfortunately Epiphanius, the +authority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement, +contradicts himself in this same passage, which is full of the grossest +chronological and historical blunders [260:3]. No stress therefore can +be laid on his statement; nor indeed can we regard its truth or +falsehood as of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial +whether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of +Eleutherus. As the several books were composed and published separately, +the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has a right to suppose, though he +cannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written during the +episcopate of Victor (A.D. 190-198 or 199). But in his partiality for +late dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged. +If the fourth and fifth books 'must,' as he confidently asserts, have +been written some years after the third, it follows by parity of +reasoning, that the first and second must have been written some years +before it. Yet, with a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very +same sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the +latest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third must date +from that epoch [261:1]. + +With the respective dates of the several books however we need not +concern ourselves; for they all exhibit the same phenomena, so far as +regards the attitude of the author towards the Canonical writings of the +New Testament. On this point, it is sufficient to say that the authority +which Irenæus attributes to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, +the Epistles of St Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the +Apocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate of the Church +Catholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats +them as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testament; he +cites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes them to the +respective authors whose names they bear; he regards them as writings +handed down in the several Churches from the beginning; he fills his +pages with quotations from them; he has not only a very thorough +knowledge of their contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with +and a recognition of them in his readers [262:1]. + +In the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his +Valentinian opponents directly from the Scriptures. This leads him to be +still more explicit. He relates briefly the circumstances under which +our Four Gospels were written. He points out that the writings of the +Evangelists arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He +shows that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved +by a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches can be +traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely +with the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. He maintains on the other +hand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent +growth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels +alone were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that this had +been so from the beginning. His Valentinian antagonists indeed accepted +these same Gospels, paying especial deference to the Fourth Evangelist; +and accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also +superadded other writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a +different type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the +exclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four Gospels +alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature +of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four +regions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church +therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be +supported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is +represented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as +four living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize +the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The +predominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are +four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is +therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number +of the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of +God, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel. + +What is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine +that the documents which Irenæus regards in this light had been +produced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly +full-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken +their position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the +Prophets, as the very voice of God? + +The author of _Supernatural Religion_ seems to think that no explanation +is needed. 'The reasons,' he writes, 'which he [Irenæus] gives for the +existence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the +Church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, +and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments' +[263:1]. Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenæus, +but treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the +difference in, the world between the value of the same man's evidence as +to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of +his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy +analogies are _pro tanto_ an evidence of the firm hold which this +quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above +all, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of +Irenæus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is +unconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this +last consideration which led me to speak of Irenæus as the most +important witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and +to which I wish to direct attention. + +The birth of Irenæus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell, +and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other +writers again have adopted intermediate positions. I must frankly say +that the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand, +those who have placed it as late as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on +the ground of the relation of Irenæus to Polycarp in his old age +[264:1], and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D. +167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered +A.D. 155 or 156 [264:2], it may be presumed that these critics would now +throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther +back, _i.e._ to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it +should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I +have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention [265:1], he was +probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a +matter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is, +that he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age +by two distinct personal links, if not more. + +Of his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken [265:2]. Polycarp +was the disciple of St John; and, as he was at least eighty-six years +old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon +thirty when the Apostle died. Irenæus was young when he received +instruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as 'still +a boy,' in another as 'in early life.' If we reckon his age as from +fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the +expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all +events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's +conversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but +his very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he +remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and +other personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the +Lord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were 'altogether in +accordance with the Scriptures' [265:3]. + +But Irenæus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship +also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which +POTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the +latter in A.D. 177 or 178. With Pothinus therefore he must have had +almost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety +years old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St +John died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already +seen [265:4], that like Irenæus himself Pothinus came originally from +Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential +position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past +history of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which +we are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed +to the Evangelists and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he +could remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other +day, when he was already advanced in life. + +In one passage in his extant work, Irenæus gives an account of +elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself +'listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been +disciples,' _i.e._ personal followers of Christ [266:1]. It seems most +natural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the +'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John +the presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under +the designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp more +especially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he +forms a third direct link of connection between Irenæus and the +Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of +Irenæus with him was frequent and intimate. 'The elder,' writes +Irenæus, 'used to say,' 'The elder used to refresh us with such +accounts of the ancient worthies,' 'The elder used to discuss.' Indeed +the elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated +in a former paper [266:2], that Irenæus is here reproducing notes of +lectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct +or indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not +concerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has +been said in a previous paper [266:3]. I wish now merely to call +attention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse +with this elder Irenæus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of +the earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic +writings. + +Nor were these the only exceptional advantages which Irenæus enjoyed. +When he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his +testimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at +least. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle +life he stayed for some time in Rome, having gone there on an important +public mission [267:1]. Before and after this epoch he for many years +held a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover +actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in +all the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we +happen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on 'All the Heresies,' +delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a +diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and +dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such +letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less +elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant +work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced +him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately +concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the +Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to +remark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in +the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and +here again the relation between the narratives of St John and the +Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was +contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against +Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the +Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally +we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians. + +Thus Irenæus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness, +but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority. +All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by +denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and +Irenæus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box. + +The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor +less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than +other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional +blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not +unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome +believes in the story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of +repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine +honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make +statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the +religion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias +may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an Ælian. The +work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On +the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian +fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several +excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen +contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance +with the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement +of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same +day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say +nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his +faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again, +the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of +Irenæus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which +emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may +appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many +monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations +among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as +elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a +gross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such +hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can +be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit +confidence, when their statements serve his purpose. + +Now Irenæus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He +possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an +opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach +of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a +considerable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no +parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His +work is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His +traditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes +dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether +in his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who +refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate +Emperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly +superstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other +showing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenæus betrays +no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and +comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned. + +And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The +recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact +which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in +previous writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the +Church repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version, +already existing when Irenæus published his work and representing the +Canon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these +only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before +him, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these, +and these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the +Alexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the +feet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in +Italy, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing, +on the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed +down by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence +of view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament +was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of +the fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides +in the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can +only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing +that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other +documents, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past +singled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a +position of exceptional authority. + +One other remark on the testimony of Irenæus suggests itself before +closing. Irenæus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of +his work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject +of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are +either epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any +references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and +incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at +this early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the +Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old +Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the +martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous; +or apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of +the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him +to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the +Jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenæus is +the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of +Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And +here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise. + +If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to +read Irenæus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which +perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived +ideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be +accused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few +paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each +successive page of a long and elaborate work. + + + + +IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1]. + +[MAY, 1877.] + + +All that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an +Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers +call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common +confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be +accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his +life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this +capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards +Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As +a Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin +Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in +bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by +the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had +among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one +of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have +spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria +and the neighbouring countries. + +After the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his +opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly +orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused +views closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his +new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But +he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more +especially the doctrine of Æons, which he derived from the Valentinian +school [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that, +'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's) +Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour, +and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2]. +Where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian +thought lightly of St Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is +quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's +Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle +in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The +Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in +all respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been +corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our +author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St +Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some +[273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point +to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those +of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to +Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul. +At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of +marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must +therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them +must be rejected as spurious. + +The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as +we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this +father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be +treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much +variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing +Justin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius; +but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended +towards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian +seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after +this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox +Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenæus wrote his first book, +Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of +this father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D. +190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if +we may assume that the 'Assyrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions +among his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we +have another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in +which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195; +and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters, +whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the +tuition of Pantænus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection +with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we +shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of +Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier, +or it may have extended some few years later. + +Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the +ancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the +Greeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not +very long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed +before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a +heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain +chronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it +as 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to +acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years +too late, the point is not worth contending for. + +As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the +Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles, +who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred +books, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus +the _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from +the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with +quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work +that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the +Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards +our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such +that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and +accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt. + +The passages are here placed side by side:-- + + TATIAN. | ST JOHN. + | +'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma +Theos]), § 4. | ho Theos]), iv. 24. + | +'And this then is the saying | 'And the light shineth in the +([Greek: to eirêmenon]); The | darkness, and the darkness +darkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not' +([Greek: hê skotia to phôs ou | ([Greek: kai hê skotia auto ou +katalambanei]), § 13. | katelaben]), i. 5. + | +'Follow ye the only God. All things |'All things were made through +have been made by Him, and apart | Him, and apart from Him was +from Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta +([Greek: panta hup' autou kai chôris | di' autou egeneto kai chôris +autou gegonen oude hen]), § 19. | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3. + + +In the last passage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek: +oude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated +in this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following +sentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.' + +Besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with +which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be +disputed. + +It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these; +and yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them. + +The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says +nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have +regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it +is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel. + +Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it +with the expression ([Greek: to eirêmenon]), which is used in the New +Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40, +Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be +'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;' +that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused +perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously +'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the +Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its +most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian +are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying +of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand, +the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this +coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back +on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and +other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not +touch the point of the resemblance. + +On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth +Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but +then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo] +for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author +also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any +language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like +the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the +coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are +extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation +which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression. + +So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere +does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative +evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability +that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances +as in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain. + +It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the +Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance +of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a +Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the +name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in +question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural +Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary +therefore to examine the witnesses:-- + +1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian +composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the +Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai +sunagôgên ouk oid' hopôs tôn euangeliôn suntheis to dia tessarôn touto +prosônomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some +persons) even to the present day.' + +This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on +the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is +altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the +writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]) regarding +them' [278:1]. + +His inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether +unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal +knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of +books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not +understand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic +English it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is +equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it +implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed +at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen +against Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work +which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself +quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but +disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of +Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall +see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat +strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal +literature, should have remained unacquainted with it. + +2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural +Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of +Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of +the foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new +converts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with +the Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It +seems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed +this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly +read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a +_Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence +however it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its +neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is +obviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is +assigned to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth +or sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to +have been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore +must have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good +reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to which +Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with +Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore +cannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At +the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements +respecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it +much earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may +be its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_, +adopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the +Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this +work however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from +other sources. Nor is it far to seek. + +3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers, +Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a +commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius +Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and +died A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as +follows [280:2]:-- + + Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, + selected and patched together from the Four Gospels and constructed + a Gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_. On + this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement + was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also + called Aphthonius, constructed a Gospel after the likeness of the + _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to + the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that + Diatessaron and could not find it, and in consequence constructed + this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with + several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in + them, and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not + often met with. + +This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two +older works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by +Tatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a +later date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about +A.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in +his _Letter to Carpianus_, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite +different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. The +_Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing +with the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the Gospel of St +Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by +side with it the parallel passages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The +principle of the one work was _amalgamation_; of the other, +_comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could confuse them, +though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_. Eusebius keeps them quite +distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told, +he quotes both works in the same place [281:2]. When therefore he +relates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, +he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that +the _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it +was therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose +it for commenting upon. + +It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two +_Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that +confusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this +particular author, who shows himself in this passage altogether +trustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or +Mr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate? + +4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father +Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the +year 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see +till his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote +his treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:-- + + He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_, + cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other passages as show + the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh. + This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect, + but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did + not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in + all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more + than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our + parts ([Greek: tais par' hêmin ekklêsiais]). All these I collected + and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four + Evangelists. + +The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his +diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1]. +The proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its +circulation in these parts. + +It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical +character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials +before Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a +judgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any +reasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here +mentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the +same which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of +_Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this +_Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is +unnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the +intelligence of the reader. + +Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending +to the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in +common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the +fifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a +compilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise +and convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists +themselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could +commence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which, +as we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in +the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for +otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but passages which +offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies, +were excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice +under cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in +itself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what +might have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially +mentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1]. + +In this general convergence of testimony however, there are two +seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural +Religion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean. + +1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of +the fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D. +374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been +composed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_' +[284:2]. + +Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This +_Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct +evangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this +Gospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was +exclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this +assertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian. +But this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its +contents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne +some resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he +meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is found +literally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether +characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters +not) he assigns it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his +Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel +according to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different +document. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was +constructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it +resemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions, +and additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the +Hebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not +answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the +genealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all +copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More +especially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of +Christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this +Gospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His +Messianic claims. + +How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple +blunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface +his pages. He had not seen the _Diatessaron_: this our author himself +says. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of +Syria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in +these same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the +identification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the +broadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of +the Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in +the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author, +who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony +of all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence +of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an +Epiphanius. + +2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of _Supernatural Religion_, 'was +not only called _Diatessaron_, but according to Victor of Capua, it was +also called _Diapente_ ([Greek: dia pente]) "by five," a complication +which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its +composition.' + +This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the +actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does +not himself call it _Diapente_, but says that Eusebius called it +_Diapente_. This makes all the difference. + +Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an +anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], and began in +consequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in +Eusebius of such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed +to the Canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the +_Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the +work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour +of the latter, because it does not give St Matthew continuously and +append the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states +Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this +anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress. + +There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship; +for, though the work is constructed on the same general plan as +Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it +does contain the genealogies. It belongs therefore, at least in its +present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius. + +But we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which +commences as follows:-- + + Ex historia quoque ejus (_i.e._ Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir + eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor + compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum _Diapente_ imposuit. + +Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he +repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's _Diatessaron_, except what +Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius +before us, and find that Eusebius does not call it _Diapente_ but +_Diatessaron_. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without +exception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was +probably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS +belonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was +made by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text +of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself, +who knew Greek, says _ex quatuor_, which requires _Diatessaron_, and the +work which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages +from our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written +_Diapente_ himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the +blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2]. + +Thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our +author, [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical +theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's +Diatessaron [287:3]. + + * * * * * + +[The actual _Diatessaron_ of Tatian has since been discovered, though +not in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the +subject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and +scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (_The Diatessaron of Tatian_ +1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found. +Ephraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of +this Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836. +I had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and +the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might +throw light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew +that it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I +did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift +its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered +enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by +Moesinger under the title of _Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a +Sancto Ephraemo doctore Syro_ Venet. 1876, just about the time when I +wrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years +after. Later still an Arabic translation of the _Diatessaron_ itself has +been discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (_Tatiani Evangeliorum +Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc._, 1888). On the relation of Victor's +_Diatessaron_, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent +of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's +_Diatessaron_. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which +was supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be +unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all +be abandoned.] + + + + + +APPENDIX + + +_The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural +Religion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same +Review, I have given it a place here._ + + + + +DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. + +[MAY, 1878.] + + +In a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the +Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (_bien réellement_) +Luke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work +he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the +later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the +author, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with +the rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding +from a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the +authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as +it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when +attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be +out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative +which recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords +so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of +contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and +topography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the +year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the +large mass of evidence already existing. + +1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly +dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus +assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman +dominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of +provincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a +proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an +imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of proprætor ([Greek: +antistratêgos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutês]). Thus the use of the terms +'proconsul' and 'proprætor' was changed; for, whereas in republican +times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had +previously held the offices of consul and prætor respectively at home, +they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the +provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the +governors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the +provinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant +modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and +military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to +the Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an +imperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be +impossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact +historical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a +proconsul or a proprætor. The province of Achaia is a familiar +illustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to +Corinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a proprætor. Just +at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler +therefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke. + +Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same +accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had +charged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their +mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later +forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official +designations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this +writer, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the +Emperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two +provinces of Asia and Africa but prætors to the rest on their +list,--among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the +conclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of Cyprus would be +called a proprætor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus, +though a prætorian province, was often handed over _honoris causa_ to +be administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore +that Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a +solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by +flatterers on an official whose proper designation was proprætor. The +error illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less +dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and +Africa, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two +consuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to +send ex-prætors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces +under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and +unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented +the Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held +previously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2]. + +The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly +stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces +(B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the +historian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in +the first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus +and Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in +exchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in +question (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer. +'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also' +[294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the +Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample +evidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of +proconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of +Claudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed +the province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a +third, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a +later date, under Hadrian, we come across a proprætor of Cyprus +[294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of +the province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the +close of the same century (A.D. 198)--under Severus--it is again +governed by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition. + +Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established; +but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul +mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's +inscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of +parts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given +as [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.' +On this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus +of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the +suppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the +suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently, +thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the +proconsul of this inscription. + +Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that +'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned +elsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the +first book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one +Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not +this have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have +observed, only one other person bearing it [295:1]--probably a +descendant of this Cyprian proconsul--is mentioned, of whom I shall have +something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later. +Only one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny +is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that +writer. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it +would be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir +Rutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the +opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his +Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had +resided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books +of Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably +be explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the +second book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to +the situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of +Venus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book +again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives +some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and +the bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book, +in which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the +last-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they +are early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the +list. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which +contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we +should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of +this kind. + +From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to the Sergius +Paulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius +(A.D. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three +or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius +Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.D. 150, and was +hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.D. 168 (on this latter +occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held +the Prefecture of the City [296:1]. He is probably also the same person +who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a +Christian martyrdom [296:2]. This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many +features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike +are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive +disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may +suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with +the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to +the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the +Apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of +Galen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as +well as in philosophical studies;' he is especially mentioned as a +student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen +interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust +the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two +accounts. The same expression, 'who is also Paul' ([Greek: ho kai +Paulos]), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, +and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of +criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author +of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen; and conversely I +have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But if so, +the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find +favour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely +furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms +so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is +suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us +as 'Sergius who is also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in +the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus +simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in +which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name +Paulus only. + +2. The transition from General Cesnola's _Cyprus_ to Mr Wood's _Ephesus_ +carries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of St +Paul. Here, again, we have illustrative matter of some importance. The +main feature in the narrative of the Acts is the manner in which the +cultus of the Ephesian Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's +sojourn in that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would +hardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing +collection [297:1]. We seem to be reading a running commentary on the +excited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are informed that +'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the +goddess, and statues erected and altars consecrated to her, on account +of the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' ([Greek: tas hup' autês +geinomenas enargeis epiphaneias]); that 'the greatest proof of the +reverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name, being +called Artemision among ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians +and the other nations of Greece and their respective cities;' that +during this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held, +and more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own +Ephesian goddess' ([Greek: tê trophô tês idias theou tês Ephesias]); and +that therefore 'the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet that +the whole of this month which bears the divine name ([Greek: ton +epônumon tou theiou onomatos]) should be kept holy, and dedicated to the +goddess,' has decreed accordingly. 'For so,' concludes this remarkable +document, 'the cultus being set on a better footing, our city will +continue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time.' The sense +of special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame, which +pervades the narrative in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than +by this decree. But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly +enhance the effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as 'the +great goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 'the +supremely great goddess ([Greek: hê megistê theos]) Artemis.' To her +favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. She has +not only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her essenes, her +divines ([Greek: theologoi]), her choristers ([Greek: humnôdoi]), her +vergers ([Greek: skêptouchoi]), her tire-women or dressers ([Greek: +kosmêteirai]), and even her 'acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of +these terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her; +endowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images; decrees +are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her birthday is +again and again mentioned. She is seen and heard everywhere. She is +hardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the Great Theatre. This +last-mentioned place--the scene of the tumult in the Acts--is brought +vividly before our eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears +as the recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed, +and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the +leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against +St Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by +memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the +'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion, 'What man is there +that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the +great goddess Artemis?' he had only to point to the inscriptions which +lined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones would have cried out +from the walls in response to his appeal. + +Nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by St Luke +less complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned in the +narrative--the Roman proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), the governor of +the province and supreme administrator of the law, translated 'deputy' +in our version; the recorder ([Greek: grammateus]) or chief magistrate +of the city itself, translated 'town-clerk;' and the Asiarchs ([Greek: +Asiarchai]), or presidents of the games and of other religious +ceremonials, translated 'the chief of Asia.' All these appear again and +again in the newly-discovered inscriptions. Sometimes two of the three +magistracies will be mentioned on the same stone. Sometimes the same +person will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch, +either simultaneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially +frequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix +every date. + +But besides these more general illustrations of the account in the Acts, +the newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in +the narrative. Thus where the chief magistrate pronounces St Paul and +his companions to be 'neither sacrilegious ([Greek: hierosulous]) nor +blasphemers of our goddess' [299:1], we discover a special emphasis in +the term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing +to the mutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the special +offences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess. +'Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' ([Greek: estô hierosulia +kai asebeia]), says an inscription found in this very theatre [300:1], +though not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke. So again, +where the same speaker describes the city of Ephesus as the 'neocoros,' +the 'temple sweeper,' or 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we +find in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this +term so applied. Though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of +general application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of Ephesus on +coins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of other Asiatic +cities), it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity, but of +the Roman emperors. In this sense Ephesus is described as 'twice' or +'thrice sacristan,' as the case may be, the term being used absolutely. +There was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed +also to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible but +highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a +mutilated inscription [300:2]. By a highly probable but not certain +interpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin [300:3]. +There were analogies too which supported it. Thus the Magnesians are +styled on the coins 'sacristans of Artemis' [300:4]; and at Ephesus +itself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of +Artemis' [300:5]. Nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled +itself 'the nurse of Artemis' should also claim the less audacious title +of 'sacristan' to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty; +and (so far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr Wood's +inscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the city of the +Ephesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the Augusti according to +the decrees of the Senate and sacristan of Artemis' [301:1]. + +One other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, desirous of +pacifying the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms of law. 'If +Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, 'have a matter against any +one, assizes are held, and there are proconsuls [301:2]. Let them indict +one another. But if you have any further question (_i.e._, one which +does not fall within the province of the courts of justice), it shall be +settled in the lawful (regular) assembly.' By a 'lawful (regular) +assembly' ([Greek: ennomos ekklêsia]) he means one of those which were +held on stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to +those which were called together on special emergencies out of the +ordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be equally +'lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in which the words +were uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful.' It provides +that a certain silver image of Athene shall be brought and 'set at every +lawful (regular) assembly ([Greek: kata pasan nomimon ekklêsian]) above +the bench where the boys sit' [301:3]. + +With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient +literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial +times--the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and +perseverance of Mr Wood--comparable for its life-like truthfulness to +the narrative of St Paul's sojourn there in the Acts. + +I am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient Christian +writer, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, writing to the +Ephesians from Smyrna in the early years of the second century, borrows +an image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity, where the +statues, sacred vessels, and other treasures, of the temple are borne in +solemn procession. He tells his Christian readers that they all are +marching in festive pomp along the Via Sacra--the way of love--which +leads to God; they all are bearers of treasures committed to them,--for +they carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their sacred things, +in their heart [302:1]. The image was not new. It is found in Stoic +writers. It underlies the surname Theophorus, the 'God-bearer,' which +Ignatius himself adopted. But he had in his company several Ephesian +delegates when he wrote; and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us +that the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh +impulse at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most +important inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of +numerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the temple of +Artemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endowment for their +custody. In one of these (dated A.D. 104) it is ordained that the +treasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple +to the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly, and at the +gymnastic contests, and on any other days that may be directed by the +Council and the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming +the procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass through +the length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate and leaving by +the Coressian [302:2]. + + + + +[FOOTNOTES] + + +[1:1] _Supernatural Religion; An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine +Revelation._ Two Vols. Second Edition, 1874. [Subsequent editions are as +follows, Third and Fourth Editions (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions +(1875), Third Volume (1877), Complete Edition, in Three Vols. (1879).] + +[3:1] Iren. v. 36. 1, 2. + +[4:1] _S.R._ II. p. 328 sq. + +[4:2] _Canon_ p. 63, note 2. + +[4:3] The Greek is [Greek: Einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs +... kai dia touto _eirêkenai ton Kurion_ en tois tou patros mou monas +einai pollas k.t.l.] + +[4:4] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs: +'But ... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.] + +[5:1] [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.] + +[5:2] [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's +subsequent explanation is considered.] + +[5:3] [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (II. p. 328 n. 3), but +objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too +positive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see +below, p. 53 sq.] + +[5:4] Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of +'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting, "say they."' +Tischendorf's words are, 'Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den +Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the +German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words +are not Irenæus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any +idea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has +suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this +treatment of Tischendorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The language is +modified in ed. 4 (II. p. 326) 'Tischendorf renders the oblique +construction of the text by inserting "say they" referring to the +Presbyters of Papias,' where the point of grammar is silently conceded.] + +The reader may compare _S.R._ II. p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy +with which the "Great African" proceeds is all the better illustrated by +the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually +defines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never +existed etc.... he actually repeats the same charge on two other +occasions.' + +[6:1] _S.R._ II. p. 334. + +[6:2] [On the wording of this footnote in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is +omitted in ed. 6, where see II. p. 333.] + +[6:3] [See further on this subject below, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.] + +[7:1] _c. Cels._ i. 8. + +[7:2] _c. Cels._ viii. 76. + +[7:3] _S.R._ II. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) II. p. +229 sq.] + +[7:4] There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which +our author has not quoted, [Greek: allo suntagma ... en hô didaxein +epêngeilato.] + +[8:1] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 46).] + +[8:2] [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. +63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as [Greek: +pollachôs] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houtô makarizetai ... hoti +opsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.] + +[8:3] [[Greek: to rhêma] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but +[Greek: zêtêsantes] still remains 'they who inquire' (ii. p. 265).] + +[8:4] II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.] + +[8:5] II. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.] + +[8:6] I. p. 448, comp. p. 455. [The latter passage is struck out in ed. +6 (see I. p. 455); the former becomes 'committed no error'. See below, +p. 163.] + +[8:7] II. p. 384. + +[8:8] [But in ed. 6 (II. p. 384) I see that my translation is tacitly +substituted.] + +[8:9] [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see below, p. 129), but corrected in +ed. 6, which also omits the first clause.] + +[9:1] [Other errors in translation are given below, p. 129.] + +[9:2] I. p. 113. The last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in +the first edition (I. p. 103). Thus the passage has undergone revision, +and yet the author has not discovered the contradiction. [The author's +own explanation of this discrepancy is given below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (I. +p. 113) the sentence ends, 'and it is argued that it was probably a +later interpolation,' while in the Complete Edition (I. p. 113) it is +further qualified 'argued by some.'] + +[10:1] II. p. 421. [The argument in favour of the genuineness is +expanded in the Complete Edition (II. pp. 419-423).] + +[10:2] [See below, p. 163 sq.] + +[11:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. [And so throughout all the editions.] + +[11:2] [See below, p. 111.] + +[11:3] i. pp. 444-485. + +[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.] + +[12:1] I. p. 441. + +[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.] + +[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.] + +[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, 'For the arguments of +apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to Canon Westcott's work +_On the Canon_ pp. 112-139. Dr Westcott does not attempt to deny the +fact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our +Gospels; but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' ['seem +to us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author +had read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence +would doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by +arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.' + +[13:1] II. p. 411. + +[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different +purpose later on (II. p. 416). + +[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred +to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: "And thou didst try them +which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them +false."' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No +result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis ... than the fact +that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' _i.e._, after St Paul's +death. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one +definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between +the two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands +of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this +extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English +review of high character. + +[14:2] 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the season of persecution arrived, +and the constancy of Christians was tested in this very way, St Paul's +own principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from +even apparent complicity in idolatrous rites. There is every reason +therefore to believe that, if St Paul had been living when the +Apocalypse was written, he would have expressed himself not less +strongly on the same side. On the other hand these early Gnostics who +are denounced in the Apocalypse seem, like their successors in the next +generation, to have held that a Christian might conform to Gentile +practices in these matters to escape persecution. St Paul combats this +spirit of license, then in its infancy, in the First Epistle to the +Corinthians. + +[14:3] [On the diction of the Fourth Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.] + +[14:4] II. p. 445. + +[15:1] [_The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_ +(1872). Macmillans.] + +[15:2] Our author (II. p. 444) speaks of 'the works of imagination of +which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is +recognized by all.' Is this a true description of the world in the early +Christian ages? If not, it is nothing to the purpose. + +[15:3] II. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress on the _difference_ of theme. +[See below, p. 131 sq.] + +[15:4] [He does however mention the term elsewhere; see below, p. 123.] + +[15:5] II. p. 468, and elsewhere. + +[16:1] II. p. 451. + +[16:2] [These passages are added without comment in the Complete Edition +in a note on II. p. 453.] + +[16:3] [On this point see below, p. 131.] + +[17:1] II, p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, 271. [The statement stands +unchanged in the Complete Edition (II. p. 474 sq).] + +[17:2] [See further, p. 99 sq.] + +[17:3] II. p. 421. Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly +identify Sychar with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This +fact is not mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted' +['evident' ed. 6] 'that there was no such place [as Sychar, [Greek: +Suchar]], and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the +difficulty.' This is altogether untrue. Others besides 'apologists' +point to passages in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or +Sochar, or Sichar);' see Neubauer _La Géographie du Talmud_ p. 169 sq. +Our author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch _Zeitschr. f. +Luth. Theol._ 1856 p. 240 sq. He cannot have read the article, for these +Talmudic references are its main purport. + +[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133 +sq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.] + +[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete +Edition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).] + +[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).] + +[19:1] II. p. 423 sq. + +[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht für nöthig +gefunden, den Täufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes +auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistês] zu +unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25, +26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).' + +[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124 +sq.] + +[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459. + +[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which +Dr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileidês, kan Glaukian +epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermênea]. + +[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets +were inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been +worth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After +having been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is +cut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).] + +[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123 +sq.] + +[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.] + +[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.] + +[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.] + +[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57. + +[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.). + +[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135. + +[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq. + +[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's +conclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, +and Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace +with its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer +must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to +which he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the +whole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's +critical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the +suggestion, that the name of the fabulist Æsop is derived from +Solomon's "_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33: +_Die Sprüche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq. + +[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which +depends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of +Celsus (II. p. 228), etc. + +[25:3] [See further, p. 141.] + +[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.] + +[27:1] II. p. 484. + +[27:2] II. p. 487 sq. + +[27:3] II. p. 486. + +[27:4] II. p. 487 sq. + +[27:5] II. p. 489. + +[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490. + +[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv. + +[30:1] II. p. 492. + +[30:2] II. p. 492. + +[30:3] II. p. 492. + +[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to +the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have +occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations +from the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here +quoted. + +[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27. + +[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432. + +[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the +statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I +find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop +of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the +Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to +this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is +very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar +veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated +to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these +two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Cæsarea, in the +preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias +maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in +other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness +of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the +acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore +have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics, +I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted. + +[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6 +(I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition +(p. xxi).] + +[35:1] I. p. 435. + +[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.] + +[35:3] II. p. 320. + +[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p. +318).] + +[35:5] I. p. 483. + +[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of +this expression see below, p. 183 sq.] + +[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.] + +[35:8] II. p. 322. + +[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.] + +[35:10] II. p. 323. + +[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the +sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the +work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.'] + +[35:12] II. p. 164. + +[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.] + +[36:1] II. p. 166. + +[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in +the Complete Edition.] + +[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ tôn +kata chronous ekklêsiastikôn sungrapheôn _hopoiais kechrêntai_ tôn +antilegomenôn, _tina te peri_ tôn endiathêkôn kai homologoumenôn graphôn +kai _hosa peri_ tôn mê toioutôn autois eirêtai.] The words spaced will +show the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references +or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record +of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike. +The double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is +incapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect +the question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of +Irenæus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle +to the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and +Apocalypse alike. + +[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this +Essay see below, p. 178 sq.] + +[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24. + +[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of +economising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which +the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that +they are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been +confused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a +clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It +must be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the +amount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I +refer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved +by Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies. + +[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5. + +[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223. + +[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the +Apostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel? +Of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikôs] +concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made +parties ([Greek: proskliseis]). + +[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37. + +[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16. + +[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33. + +[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12. + +[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8. + +[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29. + +[41:6] _Rom._ 4. + +[41:7] _Ephes._ 12. + +[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius +generally. + +[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36. + +[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16. + +[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4. + +[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc. + +[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6. + +[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages. + +[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14. + +[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36. + +[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66. + +[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I. + +[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18. + +[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24. + +[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq. + +[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22. + +[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474. + +[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24. + +[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq. + +[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6. + +[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8. + +[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26. + +[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26. + +[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18. + +[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20. + +[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14. + +[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1. + +[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1. + +[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23. + +[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7. + +[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483. + +[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later +editions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition +(1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however, +which survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending +note.] + +[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341. + +[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.] + +[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62. + +[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66. + +[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.] + +[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.] + +[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised +some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier +and later editions. + +[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th +[1874]. + +[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.] + +[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.] + +[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.] + +[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.] + +[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views +at the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has +stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven +Vossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness +will be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S. +Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he +refers his readers.] + +[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263. + +[62:1] I. p. 269. + +[62:2] I. p. 270. + +[62:3] I. p. 274. + +[63:1] I. p. 274. + +[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the +preface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.] + +[63:3] I. p. 263 sq. + +[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn +Bunsen_, Tübingen, 1848. + +[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz +einverstanden' with Baur's view. + +[64:3] _Apostol. Väter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq. + +[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861). + +[64:5] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 50. + +[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636. + +[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers, +supposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170. + +[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr. +Recens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's +Zeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq. + +[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862). + +[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works, +where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian +letters. + +[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 28 (ed. Churton). + +[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in +Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's +_Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted +by Jacobson, are taken. + +[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error +in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p. +260 in that edition.] + +[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is +given. + +[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his +references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I +confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for +themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however +'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.] + +[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858). + +[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9. + +[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at +Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi. + +[72:1] I. p. 264. + +[72:2] I. p. 265. + +[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, +and is imbedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this +collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the +Greek, before the MS of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian +Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious +Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian +Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See +Zahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 111. + +[73:2] I. p. 262. + +[73:3] p. 164. + +[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: egô ginôskô nun archomai +mathêtês einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but +are wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences. + +[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269. + +[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267. + +[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von +Antiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered +by anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I +venture to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to +have attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important +contribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since +Cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn +defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. + +[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.) + +[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere +coepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem +refrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut +fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum +eis.' + +[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12. + +[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no +longer a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon +tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathêkas tinas kai +paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi toutô presbeutas tôn hetairôn +echeirotonêse nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This +description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of +Ignatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonêsai_ tina ... +hos dunêsetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders +reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp +when he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly +Lucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and +believed by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from +the pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by +burning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the +credulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to +have had at least a superficial acquaintance. + +[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the +Epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such +circumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles +are more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a +soldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still +greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in +parts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton, +has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian +Letters. + +Our author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian +Letters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227. +Even the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as +many hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty, +Ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his +guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than +weeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at +every stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two +stages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written +either at Smyrna or at Troas. + +[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the +meaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._ +5. + +[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268. + +[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the +fourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published +separately. + +[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq. + +[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.). + +[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a +different time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53. + +[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the +other by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those +of the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have +no independent value, being compacted from these two. + +[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's +_Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq. + +[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhältniss des Textes der drei Syrischen +Briefe etc._ p. 7. + +[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.). + +[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the +latter by Zahn, p. 67. + +[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found +in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the +credibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traïanou], is +treated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S. +Polycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).] + +[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.] + +[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered +down (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire +for another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti] +is substituted for [Greek: philoülon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per +materiam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation, +but has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from +the Greek. + +[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq. + +[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aïdios, ouk] apo +sigês proelthôn.] + +[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245. + +[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in +the _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq. + +[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq. + +[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoêkonta kai hex etê echô douleuôn +autô]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek: +echô douleuôn] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuô]. + +[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere); +Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p. +958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18. + +[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D. +170-180). + +[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq. + +[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. +31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given +reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the +Apostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq. + +[91:5] Papias, _l.c._ + +[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1. + +[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4. + +[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4. + +[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Præscr. Hær._ 32. + +[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4. + +[93:2] _ib._ § 8. + +[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq. + +[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain +writings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_ +(§ 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or +others like him (§ 3). + +[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been +much disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the +fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, +but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I +find the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr. +2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE. +FECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be +hazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son +of a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of +Domitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of +Christianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the +name _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some +dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian +princes. + +[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi. + +[94:3] _Phil._ §10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10, +xii. 9. + +[95:1] _Phil._ § 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et +nolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,' +evidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26. + +[95:2] _ib._ § 1. [Greek: hon êgeiren ho Theos lusas tas ôdinas tou +hadou], from Acts ii. 24. + +[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.] + +[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference +to Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the +coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt. + +[96:1] _Phil._ § 8. + +[97:1] [Greek: tôn autoptôn tês zôês tou Logou.] I would gladly +translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i. +1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek +order. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text. +The Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living +Word.' + +[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. + +[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to +Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe +_Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there +were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2) +considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the +imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a +courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenæus could hardly have +expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The +succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost +entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones +obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._ +7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years +of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of +John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his +return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rhéteur Ælius +Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early +part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is +too late for our purpose. + +As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a +conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia +(Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or +three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne, +and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite, +and Irenæus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in +a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a +visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the +circumstances. + +[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20. + +[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek: +parechôrêse tên eucharistian.] + +[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24. + +[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4. + +[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28. + +[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe_ p. 263. + +[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604. + +[103:3] See his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rhéteur Ælius +Aristide_ in the _Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202 +sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's +_Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_. + +[104:1] _L'Antéchrist_ p. 566. + +[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188 +(1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq. + +[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. + +[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional +guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of +Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiæ conventu legitur.' + +[108:1] _Phil._ § 5. + +[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly +correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a +careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in +the ordinary theological language of the two writers. + +[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.] + +[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence +with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to +another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid +on the occurrence of these few obvious words. + +[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2). + +[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.] + +[111:2] [See above, p. 11.] + +[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the +thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as +worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must +have been [Greek: tôn met' autou]. + +[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14. + +[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq. +[See also below, p. 189.] + +[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 3. + +[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.] + +[115:2] The words of Irenæus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos +Markiôni pote eis opsin autô elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496) +remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of +time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding +sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident +from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate. + +[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq. + +[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 7. + +[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12. + +[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1. + +[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian +letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1. + +[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come +([Greek: elêluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that +confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing +the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be +[Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: mê +homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of +Irenæus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32) +says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of +Irenæus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts +clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to +conceive that the very simple [Greek: mê homologei] would be altered +into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all +events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably +from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it +well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in +Irenæus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per +multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere +eos praecepit dicens' etc. + +[119:1] Die ältesten Zeugnisse p. 41. + +[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc. + +[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24. + +[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12. + +[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18. + +[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19. + +[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Præscr. Hær._ +33. + +[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references +there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum +quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens +Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with +the context. + +[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of +his martyrdom (§ 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai +pro tês polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in +Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tês +marturias]. + +[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Väter_ p. 273) evidently feels this +difficulty, and apologises for it. + +[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's +note. + +[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq. + +[124:1] See above, p. 20. + +[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq. + +[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423. + +[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq. + +[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the +language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his +footnote is too clear to be misunderstood. + +[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning, +but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not +pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a +quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first +last" ([Greek: outôs esontai oi eschatoi prôtoi kai oi prôtoi +eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of +the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite +false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange +to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the +famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears +twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30, +it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last, +and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own. + +[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq. + +[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that +St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course, +to which a passing reference is sufficient. + +[125:5] [See above, p. 9.] + +[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113. + +[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq. + +[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.] + +[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq. + +[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.] + +[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he +'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên +diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the +construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my +mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not +for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was +nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's +'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of +'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more +especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural +Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong +justification I had for taking this view. + +[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330. + +[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been +made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a +correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the +earlier editions. + +[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of +the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf +and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc.... +His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the +critical point in question Irenæus passes from the direct to the +indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the +infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no +means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such +phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply +denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to +throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to +fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is +combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship +upon himself.' + +This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book. + +[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq. + +[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9. + +[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These +two examples ... Commentaries of Cæsar.'] + +[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.] + +[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.] + +[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire +whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same +idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author +assumes in his reply. + +[129:4] [See above, p. 8.] + +[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note. + +[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18. + +[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.] + +[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been +later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been +superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware, +which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight +years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is +only a probability. + +[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.] + +[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in +regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in +Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on +the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic +Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four +editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly +Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read +'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By +'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by +the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect +like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._, +Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different. + +[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395. + +[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.] + +[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20. + +[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference +should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before +this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains +unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the +Complete Edition.] + +[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition +substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.'] + +[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229. + +[136:2] John iv. 35. + +[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.] + +[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13. + +[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.] + +[138:2] [See above, p. 26.] + +[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine. + +[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on +a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may +be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand +himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that +he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as +applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions +may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly. +No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity +in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble +passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In +another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his +anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and +beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from +the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to +conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this +wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged +himself from it. + +In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the +writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a +believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand +Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes +will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of +personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a +belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God +who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of +the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with +these beliefs. + +[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Iôannou men akoustês, Polukarpou de +hetairos gegonôs]. + +[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk oknêsô de soi kai hosa pote +para tôn presbuterôn kalôs emathon kai kalôs emnêmoneusa sunkatataxai] +[v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermêneiais, diabebaioumenos huper +autôn alêtheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the +notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise +stated. + +[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq. + +[145:1] _Hær._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3; +v. 36. 1, 2. + +[145:2] _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenæus.' Clement +of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantænus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14. + +[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13. + +[145:4] Heb. xi. 2. + +[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated +at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office +throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent +writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von +Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das +Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are +distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings +Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent +wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that +it is not likely to find much favour. + +[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the +Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied +to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq. + +[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19. + +[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq. + +[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385. + +[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the +last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_ +gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still +living. + +[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15. + +[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used +any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the +extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes. + +[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the +Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The +source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases. + +[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448. + +[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I +wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but +I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony +points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in +_Colossians_ p. 45 sq. + +[149:4] Acts xxi. 9. + +[150:1] See above, p. 90. + +[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third +book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the +fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin +Martyr and events connected with him. + +[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te +Aristiôn kai ho presbuteros Iôannês ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143], +and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living +when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a +chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a +historic present introduced for the sake of variety. + +[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.' +Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second +half of the second century.' + +[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307); +Irenæus _Hær._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr. +Carn._ 24. + +[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ § 15. + +[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq. + +[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq. + +[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel; +_H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22. + +[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hên to kat' Hebraious euangelion +periechei]. + +[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of +Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite +the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot +have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses +authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it +in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553). +'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel +according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute +line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even +illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by +that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation. +_Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts +would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of +the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. + +[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not +know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well +acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to +render this very doubtful. + +[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii sôtêri]. + +[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301. + +[153:3] Boeckh 3817. + +[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kühn). + +[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7; +_Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. +16. + +[153:6] See above, p. 142. + +[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq. + +[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in +the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr. +Græc._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given); +the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where +again only the Latin 'celebris' is given). + +[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural, +'Exposition' ([Greek: exêgêsis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exêgêseis]), +I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias +uses [Greek: logiôn], not [Greek: logôn], 'oracles,' not 'words' or +'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakôn logiôn], not [Greek: logiôn +tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall +have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are +significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than +if he had used the alternative expressions. + +[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq. + +[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it +is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little +importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of +information regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq. + +[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8. + +[156:3] See below, p. 160. + +[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154. + +[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes, +was not [Greek: exêgêsis] but [Greek: diêgêsis], which Eusebius uses +several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das +Papias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to +the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such +violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of +violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon, +and that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words +[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parêkolouthêkôs], which occur several lines +below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermêneiais] 'the interpretations +belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in +the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced +impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact +will still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_. +Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the +two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared, +Hilgenfeld and Leimbach. + +[158:2] Hær. v. 33. 1 sq. + +[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the +looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenæus, +does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines +features from all the three. + +[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his +interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld +in his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p. +238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq. +But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical +conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical +narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in +little esteem. + +[160:1] _Hær._ Præf. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to +make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings] +by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek: +exêgêseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to +wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek: +dia tês exêgêseôs]. + +[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898. + +[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of +the Naassenes; _Hær._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous +discourses ([Greek: pollôn panu logôn]), which they say that James,' +etc. + +[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied +several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the +writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3. + +[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his +_History of the Canon_ p. 288. + +[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599. + +[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly +instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's +view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found +it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the +disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as +ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete +Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they +had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere +collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the +Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author +practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which +elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and +as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other +words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical +records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he +cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author +himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at +all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did +not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from +these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of +books is intended, as I have explained in the text. + +[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would +appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I +pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated +[Greek: ouden hêmarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,' +thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the +result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in +the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus +writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect. + +[165:1] I. p. 456. + +[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete +Edition.] + +[166:1] I. p. 459. + +[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the +Complete Edition.] + +[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq. + +[167:3] I. p. 447. + +[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from +its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenæus, ii. 22. +5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem +seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes +seniores testantur, qui in Asiâ apud Joannem discipulum Domini +convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis +usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et +alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur +de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have +enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23. + +[169:1] I. p. 474. + +[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.] + +[171:1] I. p. 465. + +[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng. +Transl.), where there is more to the same effect. + +[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse +Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine +blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollständiges Evangelium lässt schon +Papias den Matthäus hebräisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq, +454 sq. + +[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenæus did not derive his information +solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by +Pantænus in certainly independent of Papias.' + +[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq. + +[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228. + +[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.] + +[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555). +Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books +(of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chrêsmoi]) pronounced ([Greek: +chrêsthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different +kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163). + +[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].] +Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis +tas graphas]. + +[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7. + +[174:4] Iren. _Hær._ i. 8. 1. + +[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p. +392. + +[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. § 6 +(III. p. 447). + +[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97). + +[175:3] See p. 163. + +[176:1] I. p. 466. + +[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logôn] +for [Greek: logiôn] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading +of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument; +but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek: +logiôn]. + +[177:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23. + +[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of +Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural +Religion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403. + +[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the +Preface to this Reprint.] + +[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq. + +[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.] + +[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.] + +[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore +proposes--however precise.'] + +[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv. + +[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.] + +[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. + +[182:1] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 11. 1. + +[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is +scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the +facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about +the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,' +etc. + +[182:3] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 1. 1. + +[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi. + +[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix. + +[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22. + +[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.] + +[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.] + +[184:3] II. p. 166. + +[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.] + +[184:5] I. p. 483. + +[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.] + +[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.] + +[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq. + +[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for +the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me) +unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June +[1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of +_Supernatural Religion_. + +[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31. + +[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of +Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514 +sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an +unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_, +that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an +extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts +however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on +all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear. + +[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which +is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit +ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert +'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped +out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem, +prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek: +kai autos, kathôs hêdunato parakolouthein, outôs ethêke, k.t.l.]), 'And +he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of +following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage +is quite independent of any textual conjectures. + +[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek tôn mathêtôn], +where [Greek: mathêtês], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and +Irenæus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who +had been taught directly by Christ. + +[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a +single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when +some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum +si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet +ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot +help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta +propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legôn eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts +forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle +also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly +attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former +part of the sentence. + +[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great +importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary +Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of +its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a +substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this +Gospel was composed. + +[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II. +p. 323. + +[191:2] See above, p. 49. + +[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.] + +[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv. + +[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note +is omitted in the Complete Edition.] + +[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.] + +[194:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 36. 1, 2. + +[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.] + +[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in +his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly, +though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they +teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But +he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other, +in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek: +en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making +[Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from +[Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be +aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see +Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the +elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are +mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in +paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage +runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia +enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum +verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things +are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word +says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to +all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a +paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal. + +A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher +stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether +this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after +(p. 332), I find the work of Irenæus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of +the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenæus and +Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed. +II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked +into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_ +was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the +treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such +errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special +revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page +to be 'carefully revised.' + +[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334). + +[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330). + +[196:1] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1. +Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of +lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on +Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures +of Irenæus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils +taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed. +Kühn). The discourses which Irenæus reports from the lips of this +anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate, +that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to +account for them. + +[197:1] See above, p. 143. + +[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq. + +[198:1] See above, p. 158. + +[198:2] Iren. _Hær._ v. 6. 1. + +[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333. + +[199:2] See above, p. 143. + +[200:1] [See above, p. 154.] + +[200:2] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne). + +[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views +as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a +philosophical allegory, and Irenæus, who regards it as a supramundane +abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are +both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main +point which he has in view. + +[201:1] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq. + +[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq. + +[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from +Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence +seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be +very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse, +emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this +shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p. +186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign +this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who +mentions paradise (xxiii. 43). + +[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963. + +[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55. + +[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24. + +[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254. + +[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271. + +[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq. + +[205:2] [See above, p. 165.] + +[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq. + +[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160. + +[208:1] Euseb. _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome, +who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist. +120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui +evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam +_sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non +_sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.' + +[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23. + +[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii. + +[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis +anapempsantes _anankaiôs_ nun prosthêsomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek: +tauta d' hêmin _anankaiôs_ pros tois ektetheisin epitetêrêsthô]. + +[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by +Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until +attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7 +sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._ + +[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. +Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be +found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16. + +[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. +Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875). + +[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the +result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About +the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and +announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_. + +[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog. +Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of +fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ +(1875), p. 258. + +[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was +suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have +inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which +Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6 +(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepôkasi de potêrion kai to baptisma +ebaptisthêsan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Hêrôdês men apekteinen +Iakôbon ton Iôannou machaira, ho de Rhômaiôn basileus, hôs hê paradosis +didaskei, katedikase ton Iôannên marturounta dia ton tês alêtheias logon +eis Patmon tên nêson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this +passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus +mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error +which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John +Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79). + +[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237 +(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes +Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in +the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a +later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of +the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in +_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62. + +[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly +substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's +suggestion of the spurious Papias. + +[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by +the Palæographical Society, will show fairly what I mean. + +[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Græc. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder), +[Greek: haireseôn anaphueisôn deinôn hupêgoreuse to euangelion tô +heautou mathêtê Papia eubiôtô] (_sic_) [Greek: tô hierapolitê, k.t.l.]. + +[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsâ +(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa]. + +[214:2] [See above, p. 187.] + +[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.] + +[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Cæsarea will be found in Routh _Rel. +Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the +Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name. +Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It +seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though +he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony +of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use +by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that +Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant +his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the +Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had +mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was +said by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en +hupodeigmasi]. + +[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.] + +[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius +(_Hær._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with +special reference to the Gospel, by Irenæus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus +wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which +was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that +Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them. + +[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq. + +[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote +about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons +some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was +really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868); +and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether +this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. +28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The +important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq, +1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from +Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the +identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.] + +[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq. + +[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4. + +[218:1] See above, p. 189. + +[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tês +Hellados, ho Iônikos]. + +[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959. + +[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5. + +[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4. + +[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1. + +[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3. + +[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96. + +[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2. + +[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1. + +[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq. + +[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 1. + +[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 6 [Greek: ho keklêrômenos to auto onoma, +Hêrôdês epilegomenos], where [Greek: keklêrômenos] (not [Greek: kai +klêronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,' +_i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels. + +[221:2] _ib._ § 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the +expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned. + +[221:3] _ib._ § 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi hupêrchon]. + +[221:4] _ib._ § 8. + +[221:5] _ib._ § 7 [Greek: hos epi lêstên]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark +xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52. + +[221:6] _ib._ § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14. + +[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are +not serious. See above, p. 103. + +[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23. + +[222:1] John xii. 28. + +[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. § 5. + +[222:3] _ib._ § 12 [Greek: edei gar to tês ... optasias plêrôthênai hote +... eipen, k.t.l.] + +[222:4] John xii. 33. + +[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iêsou plêrôthê, hon +eipen sêmainôn k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when +the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch +says (§ 12), [Greek: _mê einai exon_ autô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case, +the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hêmin ouk exestin_ +apokteinai oudena.] + +[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16 [Greek: exêlthe [peristera kai] plêthos +haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words +[Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka] +according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted +altogether as in the text of Eusebius. + +[222:7] John xix. 34 sq. + +[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 15. + +[222:9] John xix. 28, 30. + +[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16. + +[223:2] _ib._ § 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3. + +[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. + +[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and +Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p. +507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68. + +[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq. + +[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antôninon biblidion]. +The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally +accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain. + +[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24. + +[224:2] See above, p. 218. + +[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_ +speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error +survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete +Edition]. + +[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts +relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise +stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the +works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences +are not important enough to be considered here. + +[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the +Syriac fragments. + +[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq. + +[227:1] See above, p. 177. + +[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against +the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted. + +[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn +apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared +with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' autôn +apomnêmoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia]. + +[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23. + +[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in +Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq. + +[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180. + +[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq. + +[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24. + +[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28. + +[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Græc._ xxxix. p. 228 sq. + +[231:1] St Luke iii. 23. + +[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in +Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420. + +[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered +this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this +makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I +have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have +disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction +between [Greek: phonê] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the +second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as +Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this +distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek: +phonê boôntos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos]. + +[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is +well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.] +'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or +Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to +state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the +early Church bearing the name of Melito. + +[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 61 (p. 284). + +[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 34 (p. 251). + +[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327). + +[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327). + +[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences +in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3. + +[237:1] See above, p. 202. + +[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1. + +[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. + +[237:4] Phil. ii. 7. + +[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts +relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned. + +[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq. + +[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19. + +[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollôn para pollois sôzomenôn, ta +eis hêmas elthonta esti tade.] + +[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera +sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.] + +[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.). + +[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21. + +[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I. +p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius, +_l.c._ + +[240:1] [See above, p. 17]. + +[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many +been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the +third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives +references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh, +apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to +reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel. +Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont, +where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of +Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p. +91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers +in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria +is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the +question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is +reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._ +p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not +mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be +added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the +Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see +Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of +Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment +from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition +of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are +tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the +text.] + +Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a +witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same +authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage +bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an +Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the +Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without +hesitation. + +[242:1] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto. + +[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete +Edition.] + +[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2. + +[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.' + +[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26. + +[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. + +[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13. + +[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24. + +[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.] + +[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent +discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the +Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it +should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what +Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris +([Greek: to alêthinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne +testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself +taking the opposite view. + +[245:2] Iren. _Hær._ ii. 22. + +[247:1] See above, p. 131. + +[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.] + +[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of +Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not +[Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some +adversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental +confirmation of the statement of Irenæus respecting the Asiatic elders. + +[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this +elder with Papias. + +[248:3] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56. + +[248:4] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27 sq. + +[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24. + +[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25. + +[249:2] Acts v. 29. + +[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in +Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards. + +[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1. + +[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may +be read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq. + +[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Mémoires_ II. p. 343. + +[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3. + +[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4. + +[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24. + +[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated +'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find +substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption +of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition +(II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is +substituted for the above, and defended at some length.] + +[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44. + +[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom, +_which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out +instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New +Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues +throughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers +was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.] + +The _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded +partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are +borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken +(_e.g._ §§ 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is +most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51, +the writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's +father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned +to the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about +the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the +more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of +§ 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx. +25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which +Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we +have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other +portion of the work. + +[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381. + +[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons] +some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and +Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events +which had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by +Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenæus] was +deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of +Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their +sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete +Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenæus is made the +bearer of the Epistle. + +This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the +Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution, +which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenæus was +certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which +Irenæus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist +controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence +recommending Irenæus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained +references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb. +_H.E._ v. 3, 4. + +[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3. + +[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1. + +[260:3] _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus +Pius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M. +Aurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus +likewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next, +and was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus +translated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign +of the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the +before-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his +translation; with more of the same kind. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also +assigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year +A.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that +he repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed. + +I should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that +even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but +it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him +just where it would be most in place. + +[261:1] _S.R._ II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of +the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the _first +three books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written, +and the rest _must_ be assigned to a later period under the episcopate +of Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics +are my own. + +[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case, +then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection +with Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons] +and our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way +indicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary, +in association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to +events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled +elsewhere. It follows clearly, and _few venture to doubt the fact_, that +the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not +to our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I +have disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is +still more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any +interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the +facts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those +extraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former +occasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth +Gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics +the least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by +Hilgenfeld (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die ältesten +Zeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is +considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in +the Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third +Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a +Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.'] + +[263:1] _S.R._ II. p. 474. + +[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en tê +prôtê hêmôn hêlikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar +paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu +gêraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage +suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, +Irenæus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to +mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenæus saw +him, since the words [Greek: panu gêraleos] refer, not to the period of +their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a +parallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine +gar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus +limited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily +imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage +are taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenæus der Bischof von Lyon_ p. +15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenäus geboren_ p. 622 sq +(in _Stud. u. Krit._ 1873), in answer to Ziegler. + +[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq. + +[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1. + +[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq. + +[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full. + +[265:4] See above, p. 253. + +[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq. + +[266:2] See above, p. 196, note. + +[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq. + +[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself +(II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenæus remained in +Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat +protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the +various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc. + +There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The +notice at the end of the Moscow MS of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_, +recently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875, p. +362 sq), states that Irenæus, 'being in Rome at the time of the +martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his +writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice +announcing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some +foundation in fact. + +[267:2] Photius _Bibl._ 121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where +these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only +as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood, +the metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct +evidence. + +[267:3] [See above, p. 219.] + +[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an +intelligent author like Tacitus (_Hist._ v. 1. sq). It is related, he +says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time +when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence +called _Iudæi, i.e. Idæi_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being +over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their +chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He +states it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores +consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their +temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious +springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days +continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where +they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this +he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of +thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively +venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity _Semo Sancus_ for +_Simo Sanctus_, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts. + +[270:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553. + +[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.] + +[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the +following:--Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1; +Rhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12, +p. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29; +Epiphanius _Hær._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20. The statements +in the text are justified by one or other of these references. + +[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in this article +will be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq. + +[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's +comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p. +686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli +epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli +pronuntiandam credidit.' + +[274:1] Hort (_Journal of Philology_, iii. p. 155 sq, _On the date of +Justin Martyr_) places it as early as A.D. 148. + +[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1. + +[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq. + +[274:4] Clem. Alex. _Strom_. i. 1 (p. 322). + +[275:1] See Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 116 sq, where this point is +brought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve +of the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it. + +[277:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 29. + +[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I. +p. 150.] + +[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15, +44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8, +56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59. + +[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's +posthumous volume, _Ancient Syriac Documents_ p. 6 sq (London, 1864), +from MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire +by Dr Phillips, _The Doctrine of Addai_ (London, 1876), from a St +Petersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the +word is corrupted into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton +conjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (see pp. 15; 158), and +his conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly +so reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (_Lettre +d'Abgare_, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of the _Trinity_ is +substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if +so, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of +Capua, mentioned below. + +[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083. + +[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13. + +[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Götting. Gelehrte +Anzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to +accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work +itself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages +containing these anachronisms are interpolations. + +[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the +British Museum (Wright's _Catalogue_ p. 947) as 'Ann. Græc. 684.' + +[280:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should +be warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading. +More correct renderings are given here. + +[281:1] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammônios men ho +Alexandreus ... to dia tessarôn hêmin kataleloipen euangelion, tô kata +Matthaion tas homophônous tôn loipôn euangelistôn perikopas paratheis, +hos ex anankês sumbênai ton tês akolouthias heirmon tôn triôn +diaphtharânai, hoson epi tô huphei anagnôseôs]--_i.e._ 'He placed side by +side with the Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of +the other Evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of +sequence in the three was destroyed, so far as regards the order +(texture) of reading.' + +[281:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 158. See Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_ +p. 77. + +[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without +difficulty:-- + +(i) Bar-Hebræus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem. +_Bibl. Orient._ i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Cæsarea, seeing the +corruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of +the _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, which commenced, _In the +beginning was the Word_, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four +Gospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from +the language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of +Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood +him, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the +coincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear +that the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this +interpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus +obliterated the resemblance. + +(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the +beginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but +the men. He writes (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which +was compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and +he called it _Diatessaron_.' He too supposed the two independent +sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to +his collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's +work which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum +evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum +scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis +admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo +cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta +fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script. +Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191). + +(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes. +Syr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made) +from the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in +Alexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of +Alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with +Ammonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul +flourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice +were really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this +confusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown +by accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can +never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original +compiler. + +Since writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr +Hoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611, +_i.e._, A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as +it is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through +Professor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul. +Thus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than +Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language. + +[282:1] _H.E._ i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who +flourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian +omitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869 +sq. + +[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze). + +[283:2] Zahn (_Gött. Gel. Anz._ p. 184) points out that Aphraates also, +a somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used this +_Diatessaron_. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And +Christ is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in +the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour--_In the beginning was the +Word._' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337. + +[284:1] Epiphan. _Hær._ xlvi. 1. + +[284:2] See the reference in the last note. + +[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome +relating to it, will be found in Westcott's _Introduction to the +Gospels_ p. 462 sq. + +[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is +given. + +[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq. + +[286:1] _Patrol. Lat._ lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish +translation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more +than once; _e.g._ by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841). + +[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained +this by inquiry. + +[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (_Einleitung_ p. 79); +and curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is +consistent with the facts. + +[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has +been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).] + +[291:1] _Les Apôtres_ p. xviii. + +[291:2] _Les Évangiles_ p. 436. + +[292:1] xvii. p. 840. + +[293:1] Sub ann. 46. + +[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. i. p. 294 sq. Even +De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to +Strabo Cyprus was governed by proprætors,' and he therefore supposes +that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands +uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck. + +[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12. + +[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4. + +[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. +Græc._ 2631, 2632. + +[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's +_Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 39. + +[294:4] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription +discovered by Mr Wood. + +[294:5] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 218. + +[294:6] Cesnola's _Cyprus_ p. 425. + +[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous +writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two +others--the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen--whom he +describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is +a mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as +consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year +94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of +Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first +time, as suffectus, _i.e._ about A.D. 150. See Marini _Atti e Monumenti +de' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces +Asiatiques_ p. 731. + +[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1 +(_Op._ ii. p. 218, ed. Kühn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tês +Rhômaiôn poleôs, andros ta panta prôteuontos ergois te kai logois tois +en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Prænot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p. +612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun +chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tês poleôs, kai +Phlabios, hupatikos men ôn êdê kai autos, espeukôs de peri tên +Aristotelous philosophian, hôsper kai ho Paulos, hois diêgêsamenos, +k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho +Paulos] in Kühn and other earlier printed editions which I have +consulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by +Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading +rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense; +for (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct +from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that +plainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage +Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as +of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho] +altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii. +p. 504. + +[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des +Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.] + +[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Græc._ 2954. The first sentence which I +have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document +bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our +own day. + +[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated +'robbers of churches.' + +[300:1] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 14. + +[300:2] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neôkorôn tôn Sebastôn, +monô]n hapa[sôn] de tês Artemidos.] + +[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESIÔN +TRIS NEÔKORÔN KAI TÊS ARTEMIDOS.] + +[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153, _Suppl._ vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253. + +[300:5] Xen. _Anab._ v. 3, 6. + +[301:1] _Inscr._ vi. 6, p. 50. + +[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hêmerai]] [Greek: +agontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there +are deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court +days are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second +clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as _e.g._ in Euripides +(_Iph. Taur._ 1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from +the land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek gês xoana +kai thuêpolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess. + +[301:3] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 38. + +[302:1] Ign. _Ephes._ 9. + +[302:2] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 42. + + + + + +INDICES. + + +I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. +II. INDEX OF PASSAGES. + + + + +INDEX OF SUBJECTS. + +Aberle, 210, 213 n + +Abgarus, 279 + +Achaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 + +_Acts of Peter_, 37 + +Acts of the Apostles; + Eusebius' method with regard to, 46; + used by Polycarp, 95; + by Polycrates, 249; + ascribed by Irenæus to St Luke, 44; + quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 257; + Renan on its authorship, 291; + recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq + +Addai; see _Doctrine of Addai_ + +Ælian, credulity of, 269 + +Æsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n + +African martyrs, 76, 83 + +Agathonice, 148 + +Alcibiades, 254 + +Alexander, 253 + +Alford, 9, 294, 295 n + +Alogi, 215 n + +Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7 + +Ammonius of Alexandria; + his date, 280; + his Harmony of the Gospels, 280; + Eusebius' account of it, 280; + its scope distinct from Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq; + but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq + +Anastasius of Sinai; + his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq; + quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq + +Andreas of Cæsarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214 + +Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193 + +Anger, 165 + +Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102 + +Anthropomorphism, 139 n + +Antinomianism, 119 sq + +Antioch; + Trajan at, 79; + Antoninus Pius at, 98 n; + earthquake at, 79 sq + +Antoninus Pius; + proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n; + his movements as emperor, 98 n + +Aphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 283 n, [288] + +Aphthonius, 280 + +Apion, as a critic, 269 + +Apocalypse; + its date, 14 n, 132; + its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq; + the term Logos in, 15, 123; + supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq; + the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n; + its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47; + Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq; + Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214; + Justin Martyr, 43, 216; + Irenæus, 45, 47, 216; + Eusebius, 144; + the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq; + notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216; + in Melito, 47; + his commentary on it, 216; + in the Muratorian Canon, 216; + in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216; + in Apollonius, 47 + +_Apocalypse of Peter_, 37, 47 + +Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis; + a contemporary of Melito, 237; + his date, 237 sq; + his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238; + his orthodoxy, 238 sq; + his writings, 238, 242 sq; + Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq; + his _Apology_, 237; + his work against the Montanists, 238, 243; + against the Severians, 243; + on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq; + the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq; + not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245; + but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq; + genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq; + references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240; + to the Fourth Gospel, 240; + follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248; + mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237; + his prominence in the School of St John, 218 + +Apollonius; + notice of the Apocalypse in, 47; + extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n + +Apologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275 + +Arethas, 201 + +Arianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69 + +Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270 + +Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266 + +Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n + +Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq + +Asia Minor; + imperial visits to, 98; + the proconsulate of, 293; + the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n; + its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252 + +Asia Minor, the Churches of; + importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq; + Apostles resident in, 91, 217; + episcopacy in, 84, 218; + solidarity of, 102; + the arena of controversy, 84, 219; + literary activity of, 219, 249; + testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249; + the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249; + intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq; + Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n + +Asiarchs, 222 n, 299 + +Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq + +Assemani, 280 n, 281 n + +Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80 + +Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254 + +Aubertin, 66, 67 + +Augustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq + + +Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13 + +Bar-Ali, the lexicographer; + his date, 282 n; + mentions Tatian, 282 n + +Bar-Bahlul; + his date, 282 n; + Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n + +Bar-Hebræus; + his date, 281 n; + confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n + +Bar-Salibi; + his date, 280; + his testimony to Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq + +Barnabas, Epistle of; + its date, 177; + quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227; + employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47; + Chiliasm in, 151 + +Baronio, 293 + +Basil (St), 175 + +Basilides; + his date, 85, 161; + his work _On the Gospel_, 161; + fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161; + his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219; + the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85; + his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123 + +Basnoge, 66, 67 + +Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n + +Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69 + +Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70 + +Beausobre, 68, 69 + +Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126 + +Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171 + +Blondel, 66, 67 + +Bochart, 66, 67, 83 + +Böhringer, 65 + +Borghesi, 296 n + +Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66 + + +Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66 + +Carpus, 148 + +Capitolinus, 98 n + +Casaubon, 66, 67 + +Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n + +Cerinthus; + encountered by St John, 101, 212; + his separationism, 118; + attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118; + according to Irenæus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182; + the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215; + the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219; + confused with Marcion, 210, 212 + +Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297 + +Chemnitz, 65, 66 + +Chiliasm; + of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n; + of the early Church generally, 151 + +Christian literature; + compared with the classics as regards external evidence for + documents, 82; + plagiarisms in, 202 + +Christian martyrs; + coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220; + zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq + +Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq + +Christology; + of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq; + of Cerinthus, 118; + of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231; + of Polycarp, 106, 108; + of Justin Martyr, 235; + of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq + +Christ's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq + +_Chronicon Paschale_; see _Paschal Chronicle_ + +Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80 + +[Ciasca, 288] + +Claudius Apollinaris; see _Apollinaris_ + +Clemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n + +Clement of Alexandria; + coincidence in the name, 94 n; + a pupil of Pantænus, 274; + perhaps of Melito, 218, 224; + perhaps also of Tatian, 274; + quotes from Tatian, 273 n; + his wide learning, 269; + compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269; + his travels, 270; + his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270; + to St Mark, 167; + to the Fourth Gospel, 52; + to the labours of St John, 218; + accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel + and Apocalypse, 216; + employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47; + the Epistle of Barnabas, 47; + the _Apocalypse of Peter_, 47; + the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152; + quotes Basilides, 161; + his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq; + date of his _Stromateis_, 274; + his use of the word 'oracles,' 174 + +Clement of Rome; + his name, 94 n; + probably a Hellenist Jew, 94; + and a freedman, 94; + his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89; + scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110; + Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179; + its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49; + employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47; + its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n; + his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105; + his use of the word 'oracles,' 174; + the story of the phoenix in, 268; + his place in modern German theories, 24 + +Clementines; + as a romance, 15; + Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n; + quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52 + +Cook, 66, 67 + +Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n + +Cramer's _Catena_, 201 + +Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186 + +Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272 + +Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n + +Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq; + see also _Ignatian Epistles_ + +Cyprian; his correspondence, 76; + accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216 + +Cyprus; + its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq; + the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294; + source of Pliny's information regarding, 295; + proconsuls and proprætors of, 294; + recent excavations at, 291 sq + +Cyrrhestice, 282, 283 + + +Dallæus, 65, 114 + +De Wette, 9, 293 n + +Decian persecution, 76 + +Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136 + +Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301 + +Denzinger, 63, 71 + +_Diapente_, 279 n, 285 sq + +_Diatessaron_; see _Tatian_ + +Dion Cassius, 293 + +Dionysius of Alexandria; + his critical insight, 167; + assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216; + but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216 + +Dionysius of Corinth; + his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227; + the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184 + +Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n + +_Doctrine of Addai_; + discovery of the document, 278 n; + its subject, 278; + its date, 279; + its country, 279; + noticed in Eusebius, 279; + mentions Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 278; + the Armenian version, 279 + +Dodwell, 98 n, 264 + +Dogma and morality, 27 sq + +Donaldson, 241 n + +Dressel, 80 n + +Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36 + + +Ebionism; + no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42; + nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq; + nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq + +Edessa, 278 sq + +Elders; + quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq; + by Irenæus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq; + who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq; + identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266 + +Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261; + Irenæus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n + +Elias of Salamia; + his _Diatessaron_, 280; + his name Aphthonius, 280 + +Encratites; + Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243; + Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284 + +Ephesus; + St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq; + other Apostles at, 91; + Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq; + cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq; + the great theatre at, 298 sq; + the designation of magistrates, 299; + the title neocoros, 300; + the lawful assemblies, 301; + image-processions at, 301 sq; + gates of, 302 + +Ephraem of Antioch, 172 + +Ephraem Syrus; + date of his death, 280; + his commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 280 sq; + [an Armenian version discovered, 287] + +Epiphanius; + date of his work on _Heresies_, 284; + his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n; + his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n; + his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285; + confuses Tatian's _Diatessaron_ with the _Gospel according + to the Hebrews_, 284 + +Episcopacy; + in the time of St John, 218; + in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84; + stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107; + especially in the Vossian Letters, 87; + the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61; + not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122; + prominent in the writings of Irenæus, 122 + +Ernesti, 68 + +Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq + +Eusebius; + sources of his history, 32 sq; + his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq, + 190 sq, 215 sq; + tested on extant literature, 40 sq; + what his silence means, 32 sq; + its value as a direct testimony, 51; + his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209; + his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209; + on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82; + on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq; + his estimate of Papias, 209; + on John the Presbyter, 143 sq; + his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228; + nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242; + dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225; + on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245; + attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209; + for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208 + +Evagrius, 80 + +Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204 + +[Greek: epi Traïanou], 81 + +[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189 + +[Greek: exêgêsis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq; + and [Greek: diêgêsis], 157 n + + +Fathers, early; + compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq; + considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268; + the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works + accounted for, 33, 271; + explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237 + +Felicitas, 83 + +Florinus; + a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq; + Irenæus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n; + date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq; + his subsequent history, 98 + +Four Gospels; + that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270; + in Irenæus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq; + in Eusebius, 39 + +Fourth Gospel; + its spirit, 13; + its Hebraic character, 14; + the minuteness of its details, 14 sq; + the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq; + compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq; + in Christology, 15 sq; + the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267; + compared with the Synoptists in chronology and + narrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq; + the relation of the Paschal controversy to this + question, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267; + historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq; + the personality of its author, 18 sq; + association of others with him in the work, 187; + anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217; + probably dictated, 187, 214; + its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq; + testimony given by the growth of various readings + and interpolations, 9 sq, 52; + by the commentary of Heracleon, 52; + the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41; + of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq; + of the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_, 221 sq; + of the elders in Irenæus, 48; + of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq; + of Claudius Apollinaris, 240; + of the School of St John generally, 249 sq; + of the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 258; + of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq; + of Origen, 216; + of Gaius, 216 n; + Irenæus on its purpose, 48, 182; + quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216; + significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq; + ascribed to Cerinthus, 215; + its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220 + + +Gaius; + on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47; + of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n; + his date, 216 n; + his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n + +Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq + +Gallican Churches; + a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq; + intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq; + persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq; + their letter to the brethren in Asia and + Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271; + its date, 259; + scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq; + their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253; + their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq + +Gaul, called Galatia, 251 + +Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq + +Gfrörer, 69 + +Glaucias, 21 + +Gnosticism; + the development of antinomian, 119; + the literature of, 160 sq; + the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202; + the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268; + the scene of the conflict with, 219; + attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119; + in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119; + in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq; + not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; + an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219 + +Gobarus, 12 + +_Gospel of Peter_, 37 + +_Gospel according to the Hebrews_; + see _Hebrews, Gospel according to the_ + +Gospels; + see _Matthew's (St) Gospel_, _Mark's (St) Gospel_, _Luke's (St) Gospel_, + _Fourth Gospel_, _Four Gospels_ + +Grabe, 98 n + +Griesbach, 68, 69 + +[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n] + + +Hadrian, 98 + +Hagenbach, 68 + +Harless, 69 + +Hase, 70 + +_Hebrews, Gospel according to the_; + employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183; + by other fathers, 152; + perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153; + Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq; + translated by Jerome, 203, 285; + statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152; + confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285; + with Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 284; + distinct scope of the last-named work, 285 + +Hebrews, Epistle to the; + in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52; + the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49; + of Irenæus, 46, 47; + of Gaius, 47 + +Hefele, 63 + +Hegesippus; + his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39; + the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185; + his attitude towards St Paul, 12; + towards tradition, 155; + employs the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 47, 183 + +'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n + +[Hemphill, 287, 288] + +Henke, 68 + +Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52 + +Hermas, the _Shepherd_ of; + its devotional character, 271; + hence does not quote Scripture, 271; + the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq; + quoted by Irenæus, 45, 47, 184 + +Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221 + +Heumann, 68 + +Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224 + +Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172, + 176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n + +Hippolytus; + pupil of Irenæus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267; + probably at Rome, 267 n; + opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219; + defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n; + plagiarisms of, 202; + plagiarisms from, 216 n; + Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161; + his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n + +Hitzig, 24 sq + +Hoffmann, 282 n + +Hort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n + + +Ignatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93; + three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60; + documents, 60; + date of the forgery, 60; + (2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq; + MSS and Versions, 61; + history of their discovery, 61; + (3) Curetonian Epistles, 61; + their discovery, 61; + questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistles + are prior, 61; + the view of _S.R._, 63, 74; + the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq; + arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from + (i) the Armenian Version, 60; + a translation from the Syriac Version of the + Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86; + (ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86; + the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters + answered, 60, 71, 72 sq; + the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq; + (B) whether any form is genuine, 61; + denied by _S.R._, 62, 74; + (i) internal evidence considered, + (_a_) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq; + (_b_) the journey to Rome, 79 sq; + (_c_) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82; + (_d_) supposed anachronisms, 83; + (_e_) evidence of style, 84; + (ii) external evidence, 82; + result, 84, 88; + relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq; + argument from silence, 84 sq; + limit of their date, 85; + arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq; + result, 88, [59 n]; + scriptural quotations in the, 41; + Eusebius' method tested on the, 41; + theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq; + Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231; + a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302 + +Ignatius; the name Theophorus, 302; + his letters (see _Ignatian Epistles_); + his journey to Rome, 59; + its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111; + his route, 93, 113; + his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq; + his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113; + the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq; + his zeal for martyrdom, 82; + not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214; + date of his martyrdom, 59; + days of commemoration of, 79; + extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80 + +Irenæus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264; + a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq; + his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n; + represents three Churches, 267; + his connexion with the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 259; + sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267; + at Rome more than once, 267 n; + his lectures there, 267; + his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267; + date of his episcopate, 97; + his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100; + his literary activity, 267; + date of his _Refutation_, 259, 260; + the first great controversial treatise, 271; + its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271; + his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261; + Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184; + importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq; + appeals to the elders (see _Elders_); + his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq; + to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182; + to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq; + to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82; + to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq; + his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262; + his controversial treatises, 267; + his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219; + on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267; + on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246; + on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq; + on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216; + on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101; + on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116; + on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n; + on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172; + his Chiliasm, 151, 197; + his evidence for episcopacy, 122; + his use of the word 'oracles,' 174; + his literary obligations to Papias, 202; + to Melito, 236 sq; + considered as a critic, 268 sq + +Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n + +Jerome; + on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285; + on the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 42, 152, 208, 285; + on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n; + on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n; + on Apollinaris, 242, 243 + +Jerusalem, results to the Christian Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217 + +John (St); + at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq; + his church organisation, 218; + the founder of a school, 217 sq; + the repositary of Apostolic doctrine and practice, 218; + his encounter with Cerinthus, 101, 212; + his connexion with Polycarp, 89, 92; + with Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 210 sq; + with his namesake John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 187; + his longevity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246; + a story of his martyrdom explained, 211 sq; + traditions respecting him, 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217; + see also _Fourth Gospel_ + +John (St), the Epistles of; + their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 46 sq; + two mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, 190; + the First Epistle employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 191 sq, 220; + by Papias, 49, 154, 186, 190 sq, 206, 220; + by Irenæus, 45; + a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 186 sq, 190, 220; + the evidence of Papias, and of the Muratorian Canon, to this + fact, 189, 206 + +John Malalas; + represents Ignatius as martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214; + his historical blunders, 80 sq, 214, 269, 285; + on a visit of Antoninus Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n + +John the Baptist; + his designation in the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq; + his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq; + the [Greek: phônê], 232 n + +John the Presbyter; + in Asia Minor, 91; + his connexion with Papias, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266; + with Pothinus, 266; + with the Apostle St John, 143 sq, 187 + +Judith, date of the book of, 25 n + +Julian, the Emperor, 270 + +Justa, the Syrophoenician, 129 + +Justin Martyr; + his pupil Tatian, 272, 274; + his accuser Crescens, 148, 272; + his martyrdom, 148, 274; + the account in Eusebius, 150; + his evangelical quotations, 43; + looseness of his quotations from the O.T., 12, 43; + his lost writings, 33; + Eusebius' method tested upon his extant works, 43; + his Chiliasm, 151; + his error as to Simon Magus, 268; + his Logos doctrine compared with Melito, 235; + his references to the Virgin Mary, 236; + his evidence to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 43; + to the public use of the Gospels, 227 + + +Kestner, 68, 69 + + +Lampe, 68 + +Lardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 109 n, 241 n + +Lechler, 70 + +Leimbach, 158 n, 264 n + +Linus, 45 + +Lipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n + +Logos; + the expression common to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 15; + as distinct from [Greek: phônê], 232 n; + the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 86 sq; + in Justin Martyr, 235; + in Valentinus, 86; + in Melito, 232, 234 sq; + in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87; + its importance a characteristic of the second century, 235 + +Lucian; + illustrates the Ignatian Epistles, 76 sq; + the Epistle of Polycarp, 77 n + +Luke's (St) Gospel; + the source of Marcion's Gospel, 8, 186; + Papias acquainted with, 178 sq, 186; + the evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 189; + quoted in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255 sq; + Renan on its authorship, 291 + +Luthardt, 14, 132 + +[Greek: Leopardos], 67, 83 + +[Greek: Logia], 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq + + +Magdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66 + +Malalas; see _John Malalas_ + +Manes, 81 + +Mansel, 28 + +Marcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doctrine of, 87 + +Marcion; + his date, 81, 116, 213 n; + confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212; + his Gospel, 6 n, 8, 186; + his Canon, 117, 227, 263, 273; + Papias' acquaintance with it, 186; + his attitude towards St Paul, 273; + his high moral character, 119; + his distinctive views, 117 sq; + not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; + nor in Polycarp's Epistle, 101, 115, 212; + a supposed allusion considered, 106, 115 sq; + opposed by Justin Martyr, 33; + by Melito, 231; + scene of his heresy, 219, 227, 231; + the question of the Canon raised by it, 219, 225; + his views on the resurrection and judgment, 120 + +Maries, the four, in Papias the lexicographer, 210 sq + +Mark's (St) Gospel; + the account and criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, + 181, 205 sq; + the motive of Papias' allusion, 207; + compared by Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 205 sq; + identification of Papias' St Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq; + evidence of the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq + +Marseilles, 252 + +_Martyrdom of Polycarp_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_ + +Massuet, 98 n + +Matthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193 + +Matthew's (St) Gospel; + the account in Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181; + his testimony to the Hebrew original, 168, 172; + its character, 170 sq; + a Greek St Matthew in existence in his day, 168 sq; + identical with the extant Gospel, 169 sq; + relation of the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170; + confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, by Jerome, 285; + perhaps by Papias, 170; + motive of Papias' allusion, 208; + quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 227 + +Meletius, confused with Melito, 231 + +Melito; + his date, 223, 224; + a contemporary of Polycarp and Papias, 224; + perhaps one of the elders quoted in Irenæus, 196 n, 224; + perhaps a teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 218, 224; + his travels, 224, 226; + his learning, 228; + his orthodoxy, 230; + range of his literary works, 32, 102, 224; + their popularity, 102, 224, 230; + his lost works, 223, 225, 229; + his _Apology_, 223, 241 n; + the preface to his _Selections_, 226; + (1) the extant Greek fragments, their genuineness, 228 sq; + supported by the evidence of Tertullian and Hippolytus to his + style, 229 sq, 234; + not the work of Meletius, 231; + their direct evidence to the Gospels, 231; + (2) the Syriac fragments, 232 sq; + their theology, 234 sq; + his doctrine of the Logos, 234; + his references to the Virgin Mary, 235 sq; + passages from his works incorporated into Irenæus, 236 sq; + Armenian version of a fragment and its Syriac abridgment, 236 sq; + a quotation in _Chronicon Paschale_, 241 n; + his work on the Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq; + evidence to the Fourth Gospel therefrom, 248; + notice of the Apocalypse in, 47, 216; + coincidences with St Paul's Epistles, 237; + his treatise against Marcion, 231; + date and manner of his death, 224 + +Merx, 64, 71 + +Mill (J.S.), 28 sq, 204 + +Milman, 65 + +Ministry, the duration of our Lord's, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq + +Miracles, 26 sq + +[Moesinger, 288] + +Montanism; + its centre in Asia Minor, 219; + correspondence between the Churches of Asia and Gaul relating to, 253; + Irenæus' mission to Rome respecting, 253, 259 n; + not referred to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; + nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106; + opposed by Apollinaris, 238; + by Irenæus, 267; + the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219, 238, 267 + +Morality and dogma, 27 sq + +Mosheim, 68 + +Mozley, 28 + +Muratori, 295 n + +Muratorian Canon; + date, 188; + original language, 188 n; + English translation, 189 sq; + emendations in the text, 189 n; + represents the Church of Rome, 53, 270; + its evidence to St Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq; + to St Luke's Gospel, 189, 206; + to the Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 206, 216; + to four Gospels, 164, 188 sq, 205 sq, 270; + its testimony compared with that of Papias, 205 sq; + perhaps borrowed from him, 207; + Matthew Arnold's estimate of, 190 n + + +Naassenes, 161 n + +Nature; + two meanings of the term, 29 sq; + its relation to a Personal God, 28 sq + +Neander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242 + +Neocoros, 300 + +Neubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136 + +Nicolaitans, 48, 182 + +Niebuhr, 25 + +Nolte, 211 n + + +Oecumenius, 201 + +Onesimus, the friend of Melito, 226 + +Ophites, 52, 161, 202, 219 + +Origen; + on Celsus, 7; + on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 216; + of the Apocalypse, 216; + uses the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 152 n; + quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82; + his accuracy in textual criticism, 269; + his use of the word 'oracles', 174 + +Otto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n + +Oudin, 67 + +Overbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n + +Owen, 67 + +[Greek: ouk oid' hopôs], 277 sq + + +Pamphilus, 225 + +Pantænus, 145 n, 172, 274 + +Papias; + his date, 142, 147 sq; + his name and namesakes, 153, 211; + of heathen origin, 153; + a companion of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153, 218; + perhaps not a hearer of St John, 142, 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq; + his _Expositions_, 32, 39, 142; + its title, 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq; + its date, 150; + its nature, 11, 155; + directed against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 175, 202; + as affecting his attitude towards the written Gospels, 156, 159 n, 160; + the extant Gospels the text for his exegesis, 163 sq; + his method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 197; + his informants the 'elders', 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 197 sq; + especially Aristion and John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, + 164 sq, 266; + his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n; + not an Ebionite, 151 sq; + his attitude towards St Paul, 151 sq; + his use of the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_ considered, 152, 203 sq; + his orthodoxy, 154; + story of his martyrdom explained, 147 sq, 211 sq; + his mention of St Matthew's Gospel, 163, 167 sq, 181, 208; + character of the original Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq; + the Greek extant in his time, 168, 208; + his mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq; + his acquaintance with St Luke's Gospel, 178 sq, 186; + with the Fourth Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq; + evidenced by his acquaintance with 1 John, 186 sq, 190 sq; + by other indications, 192 sq, 203 sq; + Eusebius' method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 178 sq; + his testimony to the Apocalypse, 34 n, 214; + his testimony to the Canon supported by that of the + Muratorian fragment, 205 sq; + which perhaps borrowed from him, 207; + obligations of Irenæus to, 202; + of Eusebius, 208; + not the amanuensis of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq; + nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq; + confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211; + quotations in Irenæus, 4 sq, 127, 194, 248 n; + the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the Gospels perhaps + from his work, 203 sq; + his position as an authority, 10, 218; + his credulity considered, 269 + +Papias, the lexicographer, 211 + +Papylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq + +Paraclete; + the Montanist doctrine of the, 219, 267; + in the _Letter of the Gallican Churches_, 255, 258 + +Parker, 66, 67 + +_Paschal Chronicle_; + confuses Papias and Papylus, 148 sq; + preserves quotations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 sq; + from Melito, 241 n; + sources of its information, 148 n, 260 n; + on the date of Theodotion's version of the LXX, 260 n + +Paschal controversy; + silence of the Ignatian Epistles upon, 85; + of the Epistle of Polycarp, 106; + Asia Minor the scene of, 219; + Polycarp's visit to Rome respecting, 99 sq, 121; + the account in Eusebius, 17, 245; + the treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq; + of Apollinaris, 238 sq; + of Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq; + of Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n; + of Irenæus, 242, 244 sq, 267; + action of the Gallican Churches with respect to, 253 sq; + the attitude of Victor upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq; + remonstrance of Irenæus, 100; + of Polycrates, 248; + the error of _S.R._ regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 245; + its relation to the Canon, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267 + +Paul (St); + in Cyprus, 294 sq; + at Ephesus, 299 sq; + his attack on Gnosticism, 119 sq; + his treatment as a prisoner, 75, 78; + his claim to work miracles, 125; + his directions as to idol-sacrifices, 14; + his connexion with Gaul, 251; + not aimed at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq; + attitude of Clement of Rome towards, 40; + of the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42; + of Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq; + of Hegesippus, 12; + of Papias, 151 sq; + of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273; + of the elders in Irenæus, 248; + of Melito, 237; + of Tatian, 273; + of the School of St John generally, 251; + of the Churches in Gaul, 255; + position of his writings in the Canon of Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq; + see also _Tübingen School_ + +_Paul, Acts of_, 37 + +Pearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 83, 86 + +Pella, 90, 91 + +Peregrinus Proteus, 76 sq + +Pergamum, 147, 148 + +Pericope Adulterae, an insertion from Papias, 203 sq + +Perpetua, 76, 83 + +Petau, 66, 67 + +_Peter, Acts of_, 37 + +_Peter, Apocalypse of_, 37, 47 + +_Peter, Gospel of_, 37 + +_Peter, Preaching of_, 37 + +Peter (St), the Epistles of; + their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 sq, 46; + Eusebius' method tested on, 43, 45, 47, 49; + the First Epistle largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq; + employed by Papias, 186, 206 sq; + by Irenæus, 45 + +Peter of Alexandria, 241 n + +Petermann, 63, 71, 86 sq + +Philip (St), the Apostle; + at Hierapolis, 91, 143, 149; + his daughters, 91, 149, 153; + his intercourse with Papias, 143, 146, 149, 193; + his identity, 91 n + +Philip, the Asiarch, 222 n + +Philippi, the Church at; + Ignatius' visit to, 93, 106; + Polycarp's correspondence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 (see + _Polycarp, Epistle of_); + episcopacy at, 106, 108 + +Philippians, German theories as to the Pauline Epistle to the, 24 sq + +Phillips, 279 n + +Philo, 173 sq, 200 n + +Photius, 196 n, 238, 239, 241 n, 242, 243, 267 n + +Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n + +Pliny; + his credulity and that of the early fathers, 269; + his informant Sergius Paulus, 294 sq + +Polycarp of Smyrna; + date of his birth, 90; + born at a crisis, 90 sq; + of Christian parents, 94; + reared in the centre of Christianity, 91 sq; + under the influence of St John, 89, 92; + bishop of Smyrna, 92; + entertains Ignatius, 92, 113; + his age at this time, 121; + his letter to the Philippians (see _Polycarp, Epistle of_); + a companion of Papias, 142, 150, 153, 218; + his old age, 96; + his pupils Florinus and Irenæus, 96 sq, 264, 265; + his journey to Rome, 99 sq, 121; + preaches at Rome, 101; + his encounter with Marcion, 101, 115, 212; + his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 99 sq; + date of his martyrdom, 90, 97, 103 sq, 147, 264; + details of it, 77 n, 103, 220 sq; + document preserving it (see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_); + his position and that of Clement of Rome, 89, 94; + the depositary of Apostolic tradition, 89 sq, 96; + the link with Irenæus, 89, 100 sq; + the reverence inspired by, 121 n; + characteristic expressions of, 97, 115 sq; + his use of the word 'oracles', 174 + +Polycarp, Epistle of; + date and circumstances of writing, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121; + incomplete in the Greek, 11; + its genuineness, 104 sq; + (1) external evidence for, 104; + (2) internal evidence, 105 sq; + from (i) its formula of evangelical quotations, 105, 109; + (ii) its picture of Church order, 106, 107 sq, 122; + (iii) its Christology, 106, 108; + (iv) the argument from silence, 106; + (v) its style and subject-matter compared with the + Ignatian Epistles, 106 sq; + Ritschl's theory of interpretations considered, 110 sq; + further objections dealt with, (_a_) the martyr journey of Ignatius, 111; + (_b_) alleged anachronisms, 11, 111 sq, 122; + (_c_) the Ignatian Epistles appended, 113 sq; + (_d_) the thirteenth chapter, 114; + (_e_) a supposed reference to Marcion, 115 sq; + (_f_) the age of the writer, 121; + scriptural quotations in, 42 sq, 49 sq, 93 sq, 109, 118, 227; + Eusebius' method tested on, 42 sq, 49; + the quotations from 1 Peter, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq; + coincidence with 1 John, 49; + relation to the Pauline Epistles, 95 sq, 101 sq; + its testimony to the Ignatian Epistles, 11, 82, 113 sq + +_Polycarp, Martyrdom of_; + the document, 103, 220; + its date, 220; + emphasizes the coincidences with the Passion, 220 sq; + its evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 221 sq; + employed by the _Paschal Chronicle_, 148 n + +Polycrates of Ephesus; + his place in the School of St John, 218; + his work on the Paschal controversy, 244, 248 sq; + scriptural quotations in his letter to Victor, 248, 249; + quotes the Fourth Gospel, 249; + his reference to Melito, 224 + +Pontius Pilate, date of the termination of the procuratorship of, 131 n + +Pothinus; + probably a native of Asia Minor, 253, 265; + date of his martyrdom, 253, 265; + perhaps one of the elders of Irenæus, 196 n, 266 + +Presbyter John; see _John the Presbyter_ + +Presbyters in Irenæus; see _Elders_ + +Proclus, Cominius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n + +Proconsuls; + the title in imperial times, 292 sq; + the Greek equivalent, 292; + of Cyprus, 294 + +Proprætors; the title in imperial times, 292; + the Greek equivalent, 292 + +_Protevangelium_, 15, 256 sq + + +Quadratus, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n + +Quadratus, Statius, the Asiatic proconsulship of, 103 sq + +Quartodeciman; see _Paschal controversy_ + + +Renan, 104, 232 n, 291 + +Rhodon, 272, 273 n, 274 + +Ritschl, 63, 65, 110 sq + +Rivetus, 66, 67 + +Roman Church, its influence in the time of Ignatius, 59 + +Roman prisoners, treatment of, 75 sq + +Roman provinces; + Augustus' division of, 291 sq; + the titles of their governors, 292; + interchange of imperial and senatorial provinces, 292; + Asia and Africa the most sought after, 293 + +Rosenmüller, 68 + +Routh, 154 n, 201 n, 214 n, 241 n, 252 n + +Rufinus, 203 + +Rufus, 111 + +Ruinart, 76 n, 80 + + +Sachau, 232 n + +Salutaris, C. Vibius, 302 + +Sanday; + on the Fourth Gospel, 15; + on Marcion's Gospel, 186 n + +Saturus, 76 + +Saumaise, 66 + +Schleiermacher, 171 + +Schliemann, 70 + +Schmidt, 68 + +Scholten, 64, 119, 242, 262 n + +Schroeckh, 68, 69 + +Schwegler, 24 + +Second century; + its voluminous ecclesiastical literature, 32, 102; + meagre literary remains of the first three quarters, 33, 53, 89, 102; + small bearing on the Canon of the extant works, 33, 271; + importance of Irenæus at the close of the century, 53, 89 + +Semler, 68 + +Serapion, 238 + +Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus; + perhaps an informant of Pliny, 294 sq; + Cyprian inscription mentioning him, 294, 297 + +Sergius Paulus, L.; + the friend of Galen, 296; + proconsul of Asia, 223, 296; + his date, 223; + his cursus honorum, 296; + his resemblance in character to his namesake in the Acts, 296; + his scientific studies, 297; + identification of an unknown, 295 n + +Severians, Apollinaris' treatise against the, 238, 243 + +Severus of Antioch, 87 + +Shechem and Sychar, 17, 133 sq + +Silence, its place in the Gnostic Systems, 86 sq + +Siloam, 18, 203 + +Simon Magus, 268 + +Simonians, 86, 161 + +_Smyrnæans, Letter of the_; see _Polycarp, Martyrdom of_ + +Socinus, 66, 67 + +Socrates, the historian, 239 + +Stephanus Gobarus, 12 + +Strabo, 292, 293 n + +_Supernatural Religion_; + criticisms on his grammar and scholarship, 3 sq, 53 sq, 126 sq; + on his impartiality, 9 sq, 20 sq, 130 sq, 140 sq, 191 sq; + on the plan of his book, 26, 138 sq; + his charges against opponents, 20 sq, 137 sq; + his lists of references, 23, 65 sq; + his theological position, 139 n; + on the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq; + on the Paschal controversy, 17, 240 sq, 245; + clerical and other errors, and ambiguities in, 124 sq, 182 sq, 257 + +Supernatural, meaning of the term, 29 sq + +Sychar, identification of, 17 sq, 133 sq + +Synoptists; + their points of contrast with the Fourth Gospel, 15 sq; + recognized by the early fathers, 207 sq, 239; + their chronology compared, 16, 48, 131, 239 sq, 245 sq; + see also _Fourth Gospel_ + + +Tacitus, 25, 268 n + +Tatian; + an Assyrian, 272; + a heathen sophist, 272; + his travels, 272; + his conversion, 272; + a pupil of Justin Martyr, 272, 274; + his disciples at Rome, 272, 274; + removes to the East, 272; + his subsequent heretical opinions, 272; + his attitude towards St Paul and the Pauline Epistles, 273, 284; + his views anti-Judaic, 273; + date of his literary activity, 274; + his extant _Apology_, 274; + its date, 275; + quotes from the Fourth Gospel, 50, 275; + his formula of quotation, 276; + his _Diatessaron_, 277 sq; + its description in Eusebius, 277; + who knew but disparaged it, 278; + the evidence of the _Doctrine of Addai_, 278 sq; + the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, 280, 283; + [discovery of an Armenian Version, 288;] + Bar-Salibi's statements, 280 sq; + Theodoret's testimony to its circulation, 282 sq; + summary of evidence, 283 sq; + counter-statement of Epiphanius, 284 sq; + of Victor of Capua, 285 sq; + read in the Churches of Edessa, 278 sq; + of Cyrrhestice, 282 sq; + its opening words, 280, 281 n, 283; + its plan, 280 sq; + other than that of Ammonius' _Diatessaron_, 280 sq, 283; + confusion of the two works, 281 n; + Aphraates' knowledge of it, 283 n, [288]; + the range of its circulation, 284; + confused with the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, 284 sq; + [recent discovery of an Arabic Version, 288] + +Tertullian; + gives evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 52; + his _Apologeticum_, 275; + on the episcopate of Polycarp, 92 n; + on the style of Melito, 229; + Chiliasm of, 151 + +Theodoret; + date of his episcopate, 282; + his treatise on Heresies, 282; + his evidence for the Ignatian Epistles, 72; + for Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 282 sq; + for Apollinaris, 238, 239, 242 sq + +Theodotion's Version of the LXX, 260 + +Theophilus of Antioch; + his works, extant and lost, 44; + quotes the Fourth Gospel, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216; + Eusebius' method tested on his _Autolycus_, 44, 52, 215; + his testimony to the Apocalypse, 44, 47, 216; + his investigations in comparative chronology, 269 + +Thiersch, 68 + +Thomas (St), 143, 193 + +Thomasius, 210 n + +Tillemont, 241 n, 253 n + +Tischendorf; + defended against _S.R.'s_ charges, 5 sq, 54 sq, 125 n, 127 n, 128 n, 138; + other references to, 4, 129, 165, 167, 210 + +Tübingen School, criticised, 12, 24, 42, 64, 82, 89 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq, + 110 sq, 151 sq, 251 + + +Uhlhorn, 63, 71 + +Ussher, 60, 61 + + +Valens, the Presbyter, 108 + +Valentinianism; + its expressions anticipated in the Ignatian Epistles, 85, 86 sq; + opposed by Irenæus, 98, 101, 219, 245 sq, 262; + by Hippolytus, 161; + its appeal to the Canon, 219, 262, 268; + to the Fourth Gospel, 52; + to uncanonical books, 263; + its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's Life, 245 sq; + its exegesis, 161 + +Vettius Epagathus, 255, 256 + +Victor of Capua; + his date, 286; + discovers an anonymous Harmony of the Gospel, 286; + Frankish translation of this Harmony, 286 n; + assigns it to Tatian, 286; + [perhaps rightly, 288;] + the word _Diapente_ in his notice of Tatian, 279 n, 285 sq + +Victor of Rome; + his date, 261; + his attitude in the Paschal controversy, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq + +Vienne and Lyons, Churches of; see _Gallican Churches_ + +Virgin Mary, character of the allusions in Justin Martyr and Melito + to the, 235 sq + +Volkmar, 24 sq, 64, 71, 79 sq + +Voss, 61 + +Vossian Epistles; see _Ignatian Epistles_ + + +Waddington, 98 n, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n, 296 n + +Weiffenbach, 146 n, 158 n + +Weismann, 68, 69 + +Weiss, 63, 65, 71 + +Westcott; + defended against the attacks of _S.R._, 4 sq, 12 sq, 21 sq, 53 sq, + 123 sq, 128 n, 137 sq; + other references to, 93, 130, 155, 161 n, 211 n, 226 sq, 275 n; + his reply to _S.R._, 79 n + +Whiston, 69 + +_Wisdom of Solomon_, 46 + +Wood's discoveries at Ephesus, 294 n, 297 sq + +Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, 222 n + +Wright, 282 n + + +Zacharias, 146 n, 255 sq, 262 n + +Zahn, 63, 71, 75 n, 77 n, 79 n, 81 n, 115 n, 213 n, 279 n, 283 n, [287] + +Zeller, 64 + +Ziegler, 68, 264 n + +Zosimus, 111 + +Zunz, 153 n + + + + + +INDEX OF PASSAGES. + + + PAGE + +Genesis iv. 15 174 + +Exodus xxxii. 7 sq 174 + +Deuteronomy ix. 12 sq 174 + x. 9 173 + xxxi. 7, 23 221 + +1 Kings iv. 33 25 + +Psalms iv. 4 94 + +Isaiah xi. 6 sq 198 + lxv. 25 sq 198 + lxvi. 22 55, 198 + +Ezekiel xxviii. 13 200 + xxviii. 15, 16 201 + +Hosea ii. 6-17 241 + +Tobit iv. 10 94 + xii. 9 94 + +St Matthew v. 44 123 + x. 16 41 + xi. 27 sq 16 + xii. 33 41 + xiii. 8 4 + xix. 12 41 + xix. 29 158 + xix. 30 125 + xx. 16 125 + xxiii. 35 256 + xxiii. 37 16, 131 + xxvi. 29 158, 205 + xxvi. 42 221 + xxvi. 55 221 + xxviii. 1 208 + +St Mark x. 29, 30 158 + x.31 125 + xiv. 48 221 + +St Luke i. 1 286 + i. 3 189 + i. 5 sq 146 + i. 6 255 + i. 67 255 + ii. 24 276 + iii. 23 231 + x. 18 186, 200, 201 + xi. 51 257 + xiii. 30 125 + xiii. 32, 33 16 + xiii. 34 16, 131 + xiv. 13, 14 158 + xviii. 30 158 + xxi. 38 204 + xxii. 52 221 + xxiii. 43 201 + +St John i. 1 44, 232, 280, + 281, 283, 286 + i. 3 276 + i. 5 275 + i. 18 52 + i. 44 91 + iii. 8 41 + iv. 5 17, 133 + iv. 18 52 + iv. 24 275 + iv. 35 136 + v. 3, 4 9, 52, 126 + v. 29 223 + vii. 36 204 + vii. 37 sq 203 + vii. 52 204 + vii. 58-viii. 11 203 + viii. 12 sq 204 + viii. 15 204, 205 + viii. 29 41 + viii. 44 13 + viii. 56 248 + viii. 57 246, 247 + ix. 7 18 + xii. 21 sq 91 + xii. 28 222 + xii. 33 222 + xiii. 25 249 + xiv. 2 4, 54, 194, 247 + xvi. 2 258 + xvii. 3 223 + xviii. 31, 32 222 + xix. 28, 30 222 + xix. 34 sq 222 + xix. 35 187 + xx. 1 208 + xx. 25 257 + xx. 31 187 + xxi. 20 249 + +Acts ii. 16 276 + ii. 24 95 + v. 29 249 + vii. 60 257 + xiii. 7 292, 294, 295 + xiii. 40 276 + xix. 24 sq 297 + xix. 31 299 + xix. 35 299, 300 + xix. 37, 38 299, 301 + xxi. 9 149 + xxi. 14 221 + +Romans i. 5 237 + iii. 2 173 + iv. 1 sq 173 + iv. 18 276 + viii. 18 254 + xv. 19 125 + xvi. 26 237 + +1 Corinthians vi. 12-18 119 + vii. 5 273 + viii. 1 sq 119 + x. 1 sq 173 + x. 7, 8, 14, 21 14 + xi. 8 sq 173 + xv. 12 120 + +2 Corinthians xii. 12 125 + +Galatians ii. 9 14 + iv. 21 sq 173 + +Ephesians iv. 26 95 + v. 21 109 + vi. 14 50 + vi. 18 123 + +Philippians ii. 6 254 + ii. 7 237 + iii. 18 123 + iv. 2 24 + +1 Timothy ii. 2 123 + iii. 15 254 + iv. 3 273 + iv. 3, 4 255 + v. 1, 2, 17, 19 146 + vi. 7 123 + vi. 10 122 + +2 Timothy ii. 18 120 + iv. 10 251 + +Hebrews v. 12 173 + xi. 2 145 + +1 Peter i. 1 92 + i. 8 50 + i. 13 50 + i. 21 50 + ii. 11, 12 50 + ii. 17 50, 122 + ii. 22, 24 50 + iii. 9 50 + iv. 7 49, 191 + iv. 14 50 + v. 5 50, 109 + v. 13 207 + +1 John i. 1 97, 190 + iv. 2, 3 118 + +Revelation i. 4 133 + ii. 2 14 + ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24 119 + ii. 14 13 + xii. 9 201 + xix. 13 15 + +Anastasius of Sinai 154, 200, 201, + 202, 225, 230 + +Andreas of Cæsarea 214 + +Aphraates + _Hom._ i. p. 13 (ed. Wright) 283 + +_Apost. Constit._ ii. 24 203 + +Aristides Op. I. p. 453 (ed. Dind.) 98 + +_Barnabæ Ep._ 4, 5 177 + 15 151 + +Basil (St) _Hom._ xi. 5 175 + _Hom._ xii. 1 175 + +Capitol. _Vit. Anton._ 7 98 + +_Chronicon Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.) 238 + p. 481 148 + +Claudius Apollinaris 207 + +Clemens Alexandrinus + _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter) 174 + _Exc. Theod._ 38 273 + _Strom._ i. 1 218, 274 + _Strom._ i. p. 392 174 + _Strom._ ii. 9 152 + _Strom._ iii. 12 270 + _Strom._ iii. 13 152, 270 + _Strom._ iv. 12 161 + _Strom._ vii. p. 889 257 + _Strom._ vii. 17 21, 161, 213 + _Quis Div. Salv._ 42 91, 218 + +Clem. Rom. 5 40 + 25 268 + 45 174 + 47 40 + 53 174 + +Dion Cassius liii. 12 293 + liv. 4 294 + +Euripides _Iph. Taur._ l. 1359 301 + +Epiphanius + _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17 260 + _Hær._ xlvi. 1 273, 284 + _Hær._ li. 1 sq 215 + +Eusebius + _Chron._ (Syr. epit.) p. 216 + (ed. Schöne) 149 + _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9 87 + _Hist. Eccl._ i. 13 279 + iii. 3 37, 145 + iii. 23 48, 168, 209 + iii. 24 39 + iii. 25, 27 152 + iii. 30, 31 91 + iii. 36 41, 43, 152 + iii. 37 40 + iii. 39 91, 143, 150, + 152, 157, 193, + 209 + iv. 14 43, 49, + 150, 191 + iv. 15 77, 90, 121, + 148, 150, 220 sq + iv. 16 273 + iv. 18 43 + iv. 21 239 + iv. 22 152, 183 + iv. 23 156, 177, 228 + iv. 24 44 + iv. 26 32, 47, 223, + 225, 243, 296 + iv. 27 82, 238 + iv. 28 273 + iv. 29 273, 277 + v. 1 146, 252 + v. 3,4 253, 259 + v. 6 45 + v. 8 45, 145, 156 + v. 13 273 + v. 15 98 + v. 18 47, 91 + v. 19 238 + v. 20 97, 98, 116, + 218, 265 + v. 24 91, 100, 224, + 244, 248, 254 + v. 26 46 + v. 28 102, 230 + vi. 13 47, 145, 244 + vi. 14 47, 145 + vi. 20 47 + vii. 25 216 + _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. 208 + _Quæst. ad Steph._ 1 73 + Op. IV. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) 281 + +Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1 296 + _de Prænot._ 2 296 + Op. XIX. p. 11 (ed. Kühn) 196 + +Hippolytus + _Ref. Hær._ v. 7 161 + _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55 145, 202 + +Ignatius _Ephes_. 1 42 + _Ephes_. 7 42 + _Ephes_. 9 302 + _Ephes._ 12 41, 42 + _Ephes._ 14 41 + _Ephes._ 19 73 + _Magn._ 8 41, 42, 86 + _Magn._ 11 118 + _Magn._ 13 109 + _Trall._ 6 161 + _Trall._ 9 118 + _Rom._ inscr. 161 + _Rom._ 2 232 + _Rom._ 4 41, 42, 114 + _Rom._ 5 73, 74, 78 + _Rom._ 6 42, 85 + _Rom._ 7 85 + _Philad._ 3 161 + _Philad._ 6 42 + _Philad._ 7 41 + _Smyrn._ 1 118 + _Smyrn._ 6 41 + _Polyc._ 1-4 93 + _Polyc._ 2 41 + _Polyc._ 3 42, 93 + _Polyc._ 7 77, 93 + +Irenæus + _Hær. pref._ i. 160 + i. 3. 6 160 + i. 8. 1 174 + i. 26. 1 118 + i. 27. 2 117 + i. 27. 3 117, 120 + i. 28. 1 273, 274 + ii. 22. 5 48, 91, 92, 131, + 168, 209, 217, + 218, 245, 264 + ii. 31. 2 120 + iii. 1. 1 48, 182 + iii. 3. 3 260 + iii. 3. 4 92, 101, 115, 217, + 218, 264 + iii. 11. 1 48,182 + iii. 11. 9 215 + iii. 12. 12 117 + iii. 16. 8 118 + iii. 21. 1 260 + iii. 25. 2 120 + iii. 25. 3 120 + iv. 26. 2 218 + iv. 27. 1 sq 145, 196, + 248, 266 + iv. 30. 1 145, 196 + iv. 31. 1 145, 196, 248 + iv. 32. 1 196 + v. 5. 1 145, 198, 218 + v. 20. 2 177 + v. 30. 1 218 + v. 31. 1 sq 151 + v. 33. 1 158 + v. 33. 3 145, 218 + v. 33. 4 142 + v. 86. 1, 2 3, 54, 126, + 145, 194, 199 + +Jerome + _de Vir. Illust._ 16 42 + _de Vir. Illust._ 17 105 + _de Vir. Illust._ 24 229 + _de Vir. Illust._ 26 243 + _Ep. ad Magnum_ (p. 83) 243 + _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428) 239 + _Ep._ 120 _ad Hedib._ (I. p. 826) 208 + _præf. ad Tit._ vii. 273 + +John Malalas p. 276 (ed. Bonn.) 79 + p. 280 98 + +Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 26 268 + _Apol._ i. 66, 67 43, 227 + _Dial._ 34 235 + _Dial._ 51 sq 151 + _Dial._ 61 235 + _Dial._ 80 sq 151 + _Dial._ 100 235, 236 + +Lucian _de Morte Peregr._ 12 76 + _de Morte Peregr._ 41 77 + +_Martyr. Polyc._ 1 220 + 5 222 + 6, 7, 8 221 + 9 90, 221 + 12 222 + 13 121 + 14 223 + 15 222 + 16 77, 222, 223 + +Origen _c. Cels._ pref. etc. 278 + _c. Cels._ i. 8 7 + _c. Cels._ viii. 76 7 + _de Princ._ iv. 11 175 + _in Matth._ x. 6 175 + _in Matth._ xvi. 6 212 + _in Luc. Hom._ i. 152 + +Philo _de Conj. Erud. Grat._ 24 174 + _de Profug._ 11 174 + _Vit. Moys._ iii. 23 174 + +Photius _Bibl._ 14 238, 239 + _Bibl._ 119 241 + _Bibl._ 121 196, 267 + +Pliny _Nat. Hist._ ii. 90, 97, 112 295 + _Nat. Hist._ xviii. 12, 57 295 + +Polycarp _Phil._ 1 50, 95 + _Phil._ 2 50 + _Phil._ 3 93, 96, 112, 114 + _Phil._ 4 122 + _Phil._ 5 50, 108 + _Phil._ 7 49, 93, 115, 116, + 174, 191 + _Phil._ 8 50 + _Phil._ 9 111, 112 + _Phil._ 10 50, 94 + _Phil._ 12 95, 112, 122 + _Phil._ 13 11, 93, 111, 114 + +_Protevangelium_ 11, 12 257 + 23 256 + +Socrates _Hist. Eccl._ III. 7 239 + VII. 32 118 + +Tacitus _Hist._ v. 1 sq 268 + +Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 4, 13 275 + _Orat. ad Græc._ 19 273, 276 + _Orat. ad Græc._ 29, 35, 42 273 + +Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24 151 + _adv. Marc._ iv. 2 8 + _adv. Marc._ v. 10 120 + _de Præscr. Hær._ 32 92 + _de Præscr. Hær._ 33 120 + _de Resurr. Carn._ 19 120 + _de Resurr. Carn._ 24 151 + +Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20 273, 282 + _Hær. Fab._ i. 21 238, 243 + _Hær. Fab._ iii. 2 239, 243 + _Ep._ 113 283 + +Theophilus _ad Autol._ ii. 22 44 + +Victor Cap. _Præf. ad Anon. Harm. + Evang._ 286 + +Xenophon _Anab._ v. 3, 6 300 + + + + + +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 18191-8.txt or 18191-8.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 *** + |