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

A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS

BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"

LONDON1889

INTRODUCTION. 

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

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

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

I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without anyalteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for thefirst time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position towind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally showthe inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more beenmoved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easierreach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do notcontain them. 

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

 CONTENTS

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

 II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES

 III. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA

 IV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS

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

 VI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL

 VII. TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON"

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

 [ENDNOTES]

 INDEX. 

I. 

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

The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious workshould receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe hisremarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possiblethat a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judgefairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; andin every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flawsand mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whoseperception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strainedapplication. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feelotherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakeswhich can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothingmore than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments whichmay be fallacious. 

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

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

Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the wholepassage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this hewas followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestionto the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whomI remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot, now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebratedtreatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued againstDorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, thereis not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolatethe words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there isno evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussingthe evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refersto this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (initalics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, asRouth conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he pointsout the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters"should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendocautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque abIrenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet. " Meyer, [5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whetherthese presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived thesaying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to itmerely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, andonly claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from thefirst half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] thetranslator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer, brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to thecircle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctlyseparates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts thatthey may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt, [6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, doesnot attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, butmerely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for itformed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] doesnot go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it isimpossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A. D. 150, " refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer withTischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbytersfrom Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us backto the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it notevident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, withoutan exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr. Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on apassage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account ofthe eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of theApostles, ' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "Inmy Father's house are many mansions. "' Here it is equally uncertainwhether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, andwhether that Father did not insert something of his own, or somethingborrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel. "[6:4]

With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth hiswhile to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering theexternal evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor indiscussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, doapologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article ofZeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out soindirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement ofEusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, onneither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; andwhilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted withthe fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority ofapologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle astestimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladlyhave produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as takenfrom the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that anyof the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of thepassage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subjectgenerally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller inwhich the quotation is discussed. 

This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune todispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed inmaintaining. " I have no objection to his disputing anything. Allthat I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that thereis anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcelydiscover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks ofDr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid whatI objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. Butalthough I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to whosays "that there is this distinction of dwelling, " &c. , I did whatwas possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairlytrained schoolboy. " I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einaide tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose ofshowing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the pointis evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not makeany objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, andthat I proceed to argue that "the presbyters, " to whom the passageis referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with thework of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intendedto maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observationmade to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I hadbeen misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediatelywithdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very differentfrom what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that myargument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of whichDr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast itas well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and thiswas already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared, and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2]

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

My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that thepassage in question, with its reference to "many mansions, " was derivedfrom the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not aquotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting thesewords, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from theGospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothingmore than the exegesis of his own day. 

The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection witha discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passagefrom Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows:"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposesthat Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhilebeen 'considerably modified, ' and remarks that he now 'treats himas a contemporary. ' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on whicheverything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origendoes not say 'Celsus _has promised_, ' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek:epangellomenon])--_i. E. _, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledgewas 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 notwrite_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]);nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_, ' but 'If he _commenced andfinished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's languageitself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance withthe earlier passages in his work. " [10:2] These remarks, and thetriumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar, " conveya totally wrong impression of the case. 

The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversybetween Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report;[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give thepassage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentaryobservations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actuallyfall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whoserendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. Themanner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with thispassage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myselfby Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trickof his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's wordsin a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf commentsas follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than acompletely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic'spoverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origenrests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The wordsof Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the compositionof the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]:"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls inseinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegtenBuche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u. S. W. ''Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nichtgeschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesenacht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auchjene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_], 'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten, '"&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual wordsof Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists uponthese tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2]Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen theremay be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be consideredas good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist. 

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

I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regardingtranslations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering ofpassages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses andexpressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the mainissue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their naturalcontext to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter asDr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannotinterest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to acceptcorrection even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quitecontent to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fairspirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism, ' inwhich Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcelyrises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. [13:1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilidesregarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he didnot know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work, supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if theheretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity, the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately beforeus. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the singlesentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidêskan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrouhermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statementexactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in orderto show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so muchstress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcottsays: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter. ' [19:2]Now we have here, again, an illustration, " &c. ; and then follows thepassage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the wordsof Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark, "seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilideswhich I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to seeany special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does, let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon thestrength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, andthen founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately afterthe direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those invertedcommas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement, and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally wellindicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is, that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. Hehas been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failedto perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderfulillustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness whichpervades the critical portion of this (my) book. " [19:3] It ratherexemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article. 

Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour maysafely be left to take care of itself. " It would have been much betterto have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by suchadvocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it wouldbe the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, inthe most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in anyother have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corruptmotives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise, and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmostthat I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterlypossessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon inparticular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, andunconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements whichshould be more impartially made. 

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

The first of these with which he favours me is in connection withan anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius beingspoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requestedregarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlierpassage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:--"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have foundin any common source of information, that when the Latin version(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translatedinto the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism'altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparentlyattach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons fornot troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope, may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on"Christian Literature and Doctrine, " says: "In the ninth chapterIgnatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippiansof patience . . . In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests informationwith regard to 'Ignatius and those with him. ' These words occuronly in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of thedifficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek:peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean, 'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wishparticulars) and those who _were_ with him. ' But even the Greek couldnot be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there isno reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficultypresented by a comparison with the ninth chapter. " [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot, however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugntranslations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handlingthe tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen. Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rockof grammar. "

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

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

I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advancedwithout a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papiashimself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the muchmore practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affordsany evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant ourbelieving in the occurrence of miraculous events for which theyare the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which itcannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him, the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuchas it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels;and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, soclearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any writtendocuments with which he was acquainted. However important such adiscussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence, it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality ofDivine Revelation. 

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

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

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

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

Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination ofJustin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work;and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing whatseemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention. [24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations arederived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of thevery numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to givethe exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs. '" [24:3] The reason why I donot feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcotthere mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a notequoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it rightto omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer isput in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the readermay 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 quotationsare different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for hisvariations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident thatso long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least noproof of identity is possible_. " [24:5] It will be observed thatalthough I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer thosewho desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to hiswork. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining thewritings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as towhat documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whetherthey afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, whichcan warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculouscontents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, forinstance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerousquotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything whichhas an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of ourGospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the OldTestament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality ofDivine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, Iprobably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs"than was at all necessary. 

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

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

Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiryinto the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escapecharges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuationsof ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments likethis, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task;and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the worlditself could not contain all the books that should be written. " It isvery right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or anyother reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; butis it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for notexhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are notonly unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of hiswork? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorshipof the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of theexplanations offered. 

Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why, when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic characterof the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations ofLuthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show thatthe whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2]Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse andfourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language inwhich the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the NewTestament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek andabrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman ofGalilee. " [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greekand harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered andignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, thepurest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts ofthe third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement andbeauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world, " &c. [28:4]In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, aswe have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the otherGospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel accordingto Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almostinvariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition isdistinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in thisrespect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels. " [28:5] Ibelieve that I do not say another word as to the texture of the languageof the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almostwholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourthGospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other, and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might besupported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived, I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, of course, in a high degree remarkable . . . As regards _grammar_, theGospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek. " Heargues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypsewrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and writtenotherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentionalemancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancientprophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, theApocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its authorwas able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether theGospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew andPalestinian. " Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betraysthe born Jew, and certainly not the Greek, " but the force which heintends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by theconclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulfbetween the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable. " [29:1] Thisresult from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraiccharacter of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly differentfrom my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent anapologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its wholecharacter is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presentsgrosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilstthe language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyondcomparison more grammatically correct. " [29:2] I am merely replying, to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regardingthe language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very differentarguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemmawhich I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merelydependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of theaggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on theone hand and the Gospel on the other. 

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

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

In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:--

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

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

My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such placeas Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admitanything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity isseverely taxed to explain the difficulty, " I had sufficiently exceptedapologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures areadvanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture whichidentifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner'ssupposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by asecretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle, and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis ofHengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception ofsome vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but notidentical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no placebearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. Theordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any commonsource of information, "--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible, " forinstance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either aname applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place. "This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion, for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almostuniversally accepted. " Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a merealteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place. He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_, " and with greathesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture"to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts andexplanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgmentas to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relationwith our 'well of Sychar. ' It may be disputed on either side. " Wieseler, who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot, argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek:Suchar] Sichem is meant, " and he adds, a few lines after: "Regardingthis there is no controversy amongst interpreters. " He totally rejectsthe idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation, which he says is "unprecedented. " He therefore concludes that in[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submitsthis, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader, "[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfootand Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette, [32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8]and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch andEwald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old townof Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12]Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinctfrom, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises theextraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourablyreceive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name ofSichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentionedin the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful, " and heseems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem intoSychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of suchan explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzschas generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, andhis views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him thatSychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that thesite of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful. [33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in anotherplace:--

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grove is very right. 

I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either"apologetic, " or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it notperfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonablyidentified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospelmentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must havebeen such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site forit. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome therewas no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers havenot since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations. 

With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notesconstitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating, "Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to thosewho maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who supportme. It is very possible, considering the number of these references, that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shallvery thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he maybe good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating, my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious furtherto examine questions in debate, works in which they may find themdiscussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinionswith perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed byanyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be madeacquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly andhonestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their beliefrather to the outward influence of custom and education than to anystrong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, wouldnot find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing asthey appear to find it. " [36:1]

I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarksregarding my 'conclusions, ' nor shall I proceed, in this article, todiscuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through hismisunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding theSupreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have thepleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, beforecoming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that Ihave "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universalFather, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God, " it seems clearto me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot hasbeen writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his ownimagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance, the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity, " [36:2] in which, on thecontrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in sucha "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapterare my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic JewishDivinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariablelaws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence andsecurity. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me ofinconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt whichview must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation tosecure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of thelast page of my work. 

Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion, "but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confessthat I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and Ihope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what theyare; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe howsingularly that great Thinker supports the general results of_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreementalmost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little moreclosely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing:"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the firstpart, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhatstrange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole workshould be devoted to this needless task. " [37:1] Now my argument in thefirst part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it isquite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one thatmiracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so, and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and theamount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine theevidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that, although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless tookplace. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the mainprinciple of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot beproved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition ofsupernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible toprove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required toprove them. " [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove theoccurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and aftershowing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says:"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positiveevidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted thatthis evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exceptionequally certain with the rule. " [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of theevidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared withmy results:

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

It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, toconfirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that Ienter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnessesfor miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolousnature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour toexamine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that anecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records shouldrepresent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on theforks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that healtogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehendthe position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historicalenquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous, " my examination ofwitnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly beenrepresented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of theremaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to somedegree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work beingalready bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion ofthe enquiry. 

I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so muchwhich is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussionof a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too ableand too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors orfaults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, andinstead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me, it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour torefute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoidfair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who, differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous abilityattacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy dueeven to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive tocourteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whateverhe may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfullyto follow every serious line of argument than the author of_Supernatural Religion_. 

II. 

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

This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, butboth in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjectedto such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades ofopinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and toreview some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to expressmy gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowedgenerous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged itscompletion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from myconclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for thecourtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views mustnecessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such acourse has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly notdiminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments. 

There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line ofargument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics haveobjected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the propositionadvanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not havebeen written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles isonly necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. NowI contend that the historical is the necessary complement of thephilosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite tocompleteness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmationis not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedentlyincredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may beantecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedentincredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation thatcertain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiryinto the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and thirdparts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete untilother witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. . . . 

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

It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our specialgospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been inexistence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing beliefas the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, withoutshaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however, totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitiousbelief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and thesufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectorsurge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actualoccurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, outof a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really tookplace, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitiousage, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of carefulinvestigation, have written an account of them, and other persons, equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I ventureto say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referringcan have realised the nature of the question at issue, and therelation of miracles to the order of nature. 

The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is thestatement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commencesprecisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the fourGospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of thesecond century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers asIrenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to accountfor this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literaturein the second century, and with the rapid circulation and readyacceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a momentregard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that centuryeither as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That whichconcerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second butthe beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements ofIrenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian andOrigen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except aspersonal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds areshown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distincttrace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnessesfor miracles. 

After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advancedagainst this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of thetruth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which abledivines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its mainargument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, byinference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who haveprofessedly advanced against the citadel itself have practicallyattacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worthdefence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, haveshown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicablebreach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in referenceto the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in nosense of my own individual share in its maintenance. 

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

The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument byDr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS. " [45:1] I had calledattention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curiouslimitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this assingularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province moreespecially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silenceoccupies a prominent place. " Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this"mysterious oracle, " and he considers that "the response elicited willnot be at all ambiguous. " I might again agree with him, but thatunambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory forthe Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is onlythe eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywherethat, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, orsay anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence thatthey were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic andauthoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the presentat least, limited to Eusebius. 

The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the wholeof the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a completeblank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphalworks and other indications, they are not evidence against them, Isupplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius ofCorinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that theirlost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did notcontain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessarythat a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the mainargument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot hasexpended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to supposethat it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfootsays, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence ofEusebius:--

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

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

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

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he mustallow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of theimportance of the point, and that, as regards this work, therepresentations made in the above passages are a very strangeexaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection withcriticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time andstrength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after anamount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression thatvital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, proved that I have omitted to dot an "i, " cross a "t, " or insert aninverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where itwas. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argumentwhich is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regardingsome lost works of three writers only, which might altogether bewithdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation isto discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writersregarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works ofthree writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do notfind any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels, --the worksmentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existingGospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not inthis does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned factthat Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writerscontained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor havewe any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection ofDr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebiuswarrants the inference that, because he does not state that thesewriters made quotations from or references to undisputed canonicalbooks, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extendto interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it wasthe purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements, which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, supposethat I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of anykind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand?Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, andDionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. Thereader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatementDr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _SupernaturalReligion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he hasasserted. 

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

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

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

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

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

In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which wecan differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend topoint out mere quotations of the books which he consideredundisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out inthe case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to beundisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That heomitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians inthe Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus tothe Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set downas much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he didmention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledgedhimself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although muchmight be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so littleimportance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussingit. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewiseinclude the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotationsof the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this verysubsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving italtogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind hadoccurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, theycould have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the bookquoted, at the time that work was written, but would have donenothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In theevidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfullyhave received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcelyany other evidence, but something much more definite is required toestablish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If thispoint be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position?We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from theGospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius ofCorinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the otherhand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. 

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

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

It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself torecord when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" theundisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extantwritings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see theconclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only threewriters with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silenceof Eusebius. "

I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very highestimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows thathe not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of themartyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority forthe statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus, Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother ofJoseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement byreference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a storyregarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, whowere brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of themartyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the earlyChurch; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account ofHegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to thestatement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate ofEleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentionshis observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks aboutthe Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the generalstate of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] Imention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed themin turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably haveescaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed workswere used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of thesewas the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record asingle remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimateinference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippusdid not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, asEusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man ofwhom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him inconfirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding thecomposition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, aswell as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose thatEusebius would have omitted to record any information given byHegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom hespeaks with so much respect. 

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

In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebiusquotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark, [55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrativeregarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias inconfirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to supposethat, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would nothave enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded theirinformation? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that ifPapias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition ofthe third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had notonly pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every casewhich we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias hadto say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his veryreference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claimsof the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it stillmore certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the FourthGospel, --and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must havehad something, to tell about it, --Eusebius would have recorded it. Thefirst quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishopof Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about thewords of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of thedisciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, say. " [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularlypoints out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, theformer, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearlydistinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that thisproves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name ofJohn in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing thename of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the secondof the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation. What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on thesubject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquaintedwith both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the verymoment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that Iam fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and thepeculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence ofEusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third orfourth Gospels. 

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

Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connectionwith "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES, " [57:1] which is equally abortive andlimited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in whichthe article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think thatreaders may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversyis carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation ofmisstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minutecriticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impressionthat it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in mostright minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. Itis this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work likethis, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it notpossible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of courseentitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or evenalive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in aspirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to beaccurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shownthat his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force uponhimself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply toall such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, withsome minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the IgnatianEpistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to whichthey commit themselves. 

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

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

This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, playa very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached tothem--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would notbe in the least degree affected. 

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

Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:--

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

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

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

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

Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" byanalysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subjectgiven in an earlier passage. " [61:3] The "light" which he throws seemsto pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rathertempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with hisattention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon theaccuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of errorand misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted isas follows:--

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

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

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

It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in thissentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the CuretonianEpistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of thatsentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whetherof those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relativepriority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the mainstatement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throwslight" upon the point by the following remarks:--

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

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

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

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

Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, forChemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistlesas evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of partsof them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the MagdeburgCenturiators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribingthem to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension werebefore Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them:". . . Multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graeceleguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto nonreferunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illasepistolas, vel inde colligitur. " He then shows that quotations inancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatiusare not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolisigitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus:transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statumregni Pontificii. " [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he"damns them with faint praise. " The whole of the discussion turns uponthe word "fully, " and is an instance of the minute criticism of mycritic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shademore or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression receivedfrom the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. 

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, andwould probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cookpronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted. " Sofar, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest insuccession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they havebeen interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in themain. " Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in thetext, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation ofthe Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey andall of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles Ishould not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed"_doubts_ more or less definite, " which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfootsays that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so faras I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter. " His verydenunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, moreor less definite. " "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether, "Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of theEpistles with new arguments. " But I have never affirmed that he"rejected them altogether. " Casaubon died before he fulfilled thepromise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments hemight have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does notnecessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard toRivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in asubsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving ArchbishopUsher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to"that form of the Epistles. " [67:1] This fact is also mentioned byPearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of thewriters referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illiusvarie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse:tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab IgnatioEpistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio. " Hethen goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistlesand the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no moredecided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspiciosit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensusillustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit. " [67:3]

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

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

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

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

I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which mightsuffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it ishere advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention tothe unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I askevery just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has toinsinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the referencesin a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, andthus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsortedreferences, " and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposedthe order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind ofcriticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded andreverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton'sappendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references fromit, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctlyindicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. Thefact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, butin every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading, " it certainlydoes not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myselfacquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature. " Now in analysingthe references in this note it must be borne in mind that theyillustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_, "continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am muchobliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His nameis the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a liston another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, andwas by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whosedoubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot'sfurther statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian asgenuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept theVossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either theseven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "Thesethree Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not anolder text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notesfound in the same MS. Seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, thedoubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form inwhich they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. For no MS. Has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistlesattested by Eusebius, a MS. Such as lay before Eusebius. " [70:1]Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite. "Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty oruncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus. "[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of mywords descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that aleaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some ofthese writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more orless definite_, " which is all I quote them for. I will take each namein order. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, twoapproximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves theEpistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcomingto establish their authenticity; and the second, which positivelypronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referredto, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirmingwhat he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider thata reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannotbe defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it doesnot. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of theextant letters cannot be established without denying that there mayhave been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents mayhave been based. I will analyse the six references. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I mustbriefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, withunhesitating boldness:

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

Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of theCuretonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personalopinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that generaldeclaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of mydiffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value asevidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginningof the third century, even if they have any value at all. " I merelyrepresent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfootvery greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenianversion, and I call special attention to the passages in the abovequotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I ventureto say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "keyof the position, " this version has, with some exceptions, playeda most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, andas Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I willstate how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, whichappeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatianquestion, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to theArmenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann'swork, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. Somuch for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot. 

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

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

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

Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on theground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of theCuretonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vitalproblem of which it was bound to give an account. " Now all this is sheermisrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the CuretonianEpistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven GreekEpistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels. 

Passing on to another point, I say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DR. LIGHTFOOT. | DR. TREGELLES. |(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_the seven Epistles are mixed up | Ignatian Epistles in Greek havingwith the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for noEpistles. In the Greek and Latin | such seven exist, except throughMSS. , as also in the Armenian | their having been selected byversion, the spurious Epistles | _editors_ from the Medicean MS. Come after the others; and the | which contains so much thatcircumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a factfacts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine ashows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission ofaddition, borrowed from the Long | _seven_ have overlooked. " [83:2]Recension to complete the body |of Ignatian letters. " [83:1] |

I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfootadvances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with thetestimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my ownstatement. Cureton says:

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

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

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

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

I have given the order in MSS. Containing the "Long Recension" as wellas the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which havean undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS. , it isobvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine andthe spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does notcontain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistleto the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, "embedded in the Martyrology, " which is as spurious as any of theepistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion whichDr. Lightfoot contradicts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks:

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

Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the factthat, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notesdiffer in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 beingabsent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which donot appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in theplace referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placedbeing significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference toVolkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similartransposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations aremade in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for thedate occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which ismade. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, butwhich I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware thatthere has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not onlyas to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I havein every other case carefully stated the question of date, and myomission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book. The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now addto the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A. D. 107, or115-116. But whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch amajority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the laterdate. " Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden thetext with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement atthe head of note 3, with reference to "A. D. 115" in the text, butunfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion ofthis intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to thewriters quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infiniteregret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3, therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom inAntioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referredto them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the twonotes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements. 

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

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

It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm thelater date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note inwhich Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the historyexcept a passing supposition, " really advances a weighty argument for itand against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly, that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has notperceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well asstatements of evidence. 

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

 NOTE 4. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own inregard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot, and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extremebrevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, andmust now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible tosuppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in theEpistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professingChristianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of hisjourney, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, aswell as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the variousChurches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regardingthe Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known. " These cases, however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which isassumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief shouldreceive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anythingbut extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in manycases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case ofIgnatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kaieuergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes, the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of theleniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is describedby the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothingapproaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can bepointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua, even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being verydifferent; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that theextant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on thecontrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. 

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

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

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

There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's accountof Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles asevidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in thisnarrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some strikingcoincidences of expression, " they argue, show "that Lucian wasacquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters. "These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, inreferring to this argument, by the words "if it be true, " and does notexpress his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it isconclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisonerswere treated in the very way described in these epistles. " [103:2] Onthe contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were truethat Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistlesand Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used asindependent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding thetreatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot beshown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historicalvalue. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a manconfined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, andnot pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatiuscondemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty ofpseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said ofPeregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such freeintercourse as they represent. 

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

When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported byhistorical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is knownof the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well asof the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition thatIgnatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by aprovincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts. It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution ofChristians, although there may have been instances in which prominentmembers of the body were either punished or fell victims to popularfury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdomof Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was notcondemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for thepurpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? Infact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, althoughChristians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there isno instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent toRome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character ofTrajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted byBaur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity merefanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combinedwith clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the opendemonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up bypersecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, andthe matter by degrees come to an end. " [106:1] This was certainly thepolicy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would thissevere sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitationexcited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr along journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through someof the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the variousChristian communities, and address long epistles to them. With thefervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would havebeen a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement andenthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the resultsof impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability toaccept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the wholetradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise theEmperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "thereforecannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as wellas that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wildbeasts. " [106:2]

If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajanhimself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible thatsuch an official would have ventured to act so much in oppositionto the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governordid pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it inAntioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all themore conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to theclement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there isbesides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Romeis in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, thatIgnatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to deathduring this reign, more especially if the event be associated withsome sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians, to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are notwithout indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of theFathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe thatnone of them had information from any other source than the IgnatianEpistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus, Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome andChrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas isthe first who, by his variation, proves that he had another anddifferent authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey toRome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalaslived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It isobjected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yethe repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument againstMalalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story ofEpistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that, some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietlyhave accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to havebeen written by the martyr himself, and that their story should haveshaped the prevailing tradition. 

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

The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius inthe Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation isundeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebratedon that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the LatinChurch it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt thatthis was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this wasevidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positivelycontradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graecivigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Actatestantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejusreliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat. " [112:3] Zahn[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars wascelebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorancewhich prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5]

On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possessregarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story thatIgnatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; andall the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistlesthemselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom inAntioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for thestatement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly basedupon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is indiscussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. Andwhat is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistlesand martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says, are "the one more fabulous than the other. " There are fifteen Epistlesall equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed downtogether in MSS. , without any distinction. Three of these, in Latinonly, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, ofwhich there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seventhere are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter, known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejectedas shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of criticsassert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure. Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only, the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuineletters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internaland external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form. The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but Iventure to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuousthan in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of thesimple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is amplejustification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsificationand fraud. " Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use asgenuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of thismass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documentswhich lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot proveanything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever thevalue of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced infavour of our Gospels, rather discredit them. 

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

III. 

_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA. _

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

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

Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle ofPolycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have beenexpected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearingthe epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels andtheir sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospelsrecord. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to findsmall faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, havingarrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, anddoes not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use ofGospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies whichother apologists have pointed out I must refer to _SupernaturalReligion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongestform for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle usesexpressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those inour Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels arereferred to by name, or that any information is given regarding theirauthorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels couldbe established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what couldthis do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or thereality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospelswould be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal inthe actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficultyquite untouched. 

IV. 

_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS. _

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

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

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

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

The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description heregiven correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we nowpossess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "withoutrecording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negativeanswer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similarenquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it hasconsequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this thatthere has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring toa work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it. However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake ofargument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be thevalue of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to oursecond Gospel. 

In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, whois said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of thecircumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but thathe merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter. It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracyof Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any falsestatement, but this does not add much value to his record. No onesupposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately inventedwhat he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character canbe received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker. The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition, confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate toattest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived hisinformation from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internalevidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability. Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, saysso, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire ofthe early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of theGospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, soLuke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely withPaul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reasonwhatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of thecontents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not rendermore probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic asit lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall nothere go. 

Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicabilityof the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to havebeen written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightlyappreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is requiredas to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himselfseen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closerexamination of the supposed evidence. 

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

Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposingthat this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of thePresbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree withhim in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, thestatement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists, Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in sofar as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, butfor the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not followthat his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not havebeen. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what hesaid. " [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not alwaysexercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree withthe conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state whatinference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the generalcorrectness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If thisdoubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be asevidence?

I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the groundof possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubtas to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles inthe Hebrew language, " and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted themas he could. " The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: ourfirst synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be theoriginal composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but atthe best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say, because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Oursynoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but ifit be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, atranslation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, andno one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew maybe, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost. 

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

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

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

Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation, accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew andcalled the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synopticas we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely ofDiscourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_, [124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to somepoints of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestionwith so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is notwithout its attractions, " he says; "it promises a solution of somedifficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which wouldjustify its acceptance. " [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "isencumbered with the most serious difficulties. " Dr. Lightfoot does notthink that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could becalled [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrantthe restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much thesignification (of the expression 'the oracles, ' [Greek: ta logia])became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings aswell as sayings, " and that "there is no linguistic precedent forstraining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyonda collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine. "[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has anyforce it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, thatbooks which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date becalled 'oracles, ' unless they were occupied entirely with Divinesayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular, could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alikeare contradicted by facts. " [125:1] The second point he considersproved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For thediscussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes. [125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew'sGospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture, " but, on the contrary, that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not. 

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:

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

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

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They wereentrusted with the oracles of God, ' can he mean anything else butthe Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" arguesDr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does notrefer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications orrevelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediatelyto the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated theDivine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances tomankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers onMount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to giveunto us. " Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrustedto the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oraclesof God" (Heb. V. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, asDr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his ownteaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearlyexplains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, whenhe says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son. " Dr. Lightfoot alsourges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the_narrative_ in Gen. Iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philoconsidered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, andheld that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. Whenhe applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative, but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically containedin it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagantmanner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to theexpression of 1 Pet. Iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in theNew Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clementof Rome, " than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tellagainst him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied theoracles of God. " The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished fromthe sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles arecontained in the "sacred Scriptures, " but are not synonymous with thewhole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of theLord, " but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesusregarding "a resurrection and a judgment, " and not to historical books. 

In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, Ihave said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels inconnection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we haveconcerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, buthe has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has notscrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right insuggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Itcomes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre accountof the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and wehave no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels, we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct orincorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towardsestablishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of DivineRevelation. 

V. 

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

Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the mostcomplete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of theevidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in_Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstandsand misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomesincreasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifullydenominates: "the later school of St. John. " He evidently considers thathe is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from thewritings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, ClaudiusApollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspecteddocuments like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarterof the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines ofChristianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. Hereally seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there isclear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of theseparticular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I donot suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts thatour four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation duringthis period of the second century. It is a very different matter toexamine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin, authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records ofmiracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed[135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it isunnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especiallyas Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothingwhich materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragmentsattributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfootchiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits fullknowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in thefour canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity ofthe fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the assertedacquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simplyenquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis, in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughlyversed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed ourfour Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of thefact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does notadd one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or theircomposers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament. If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "acorresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the booksof the New Testament, " [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Evenin that case "we cannot, " as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer thenames or the exact number of those books. " As for adding anythingto the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broachedby Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose forwhich his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display ofvehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writingsmerely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if, when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidenceof Melito to greater account. [136:2]

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

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

VI. 

_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL. _

A severe persecution broke out in the year A. D. 177, under MarcusAurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and anaccount of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letterfrom the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are inAsia and Phrygia. " This epistle is in great part preserved to us byEusebius (_H. E. _ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contentsthat Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But forthe sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of theGospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in_Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century anda half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show howexceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding thosedocuments. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament isdirectly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently anysupposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarityto passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousnesswhich I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding theobject and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course, indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfectcoincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewherefully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portionsof his essay here. 

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

Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression"the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: tê Zachariou marturia]), which hepoints out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias, '_i. E. _ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias, '_i. E. _ his martyrdom. " By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" wasaccidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage ina very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error wasalmost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition. Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sentto him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of theinterpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing uponthe rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error couldnot extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding thepassage in my complete edition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial readerwhether there is any evidence here that these few words, introducedwithout the slightest indication of the source from which they werederived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot havebeen taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works incirculation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyoneaccustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even provethe existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written. 

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

My reply to this is:

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

Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually underexamination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, thatthe "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The onlyinterest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, thepaucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it hasbeen necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But theapologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many tookin hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that thebooks of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christianliterature in circulation in the early days of the Church. 

I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from thefourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth youwill think that he doeth God service. " The Gospel has: "There cometh anhour when, " &c. , and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintainthat the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of anyother, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not addone iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of theGospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at theoutside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a publicdocument with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of ourcanonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospelsinstead. He maintains this though the quotations in question areactually found in our canonical Gospels. " [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfootbetrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turnsupon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particulardocuments, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, didcontain similar passages to those in debate. 

VII. 

_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON. '_

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

An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary ofEphraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, aLatin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, andthis has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argumentregarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still moreimportant addition to critical materials was made by the publicationin Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not beforeDr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he onlyrefers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubtas to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims thatthey establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the_Diatessaron_ of Tatian. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regardingthe _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We shouldnot be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless ittold us something reliable about itself. " [150:2]

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

The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version ofTatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, onebelonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome fromEgypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS. States, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabictranslation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by thepresbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to haveflourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one ofthese notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given, which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the endof the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. Also ascribes theoriginal work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or onlyground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony. "

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

It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author ofthe _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of thecomposition and its object. We have met with three works of thisdescription and it is impossible to say how many more may not haveexisted. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certainthat, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, thefirst idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that itwas the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be ofcorrecting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as ifsuch a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of styleand invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels alreadycurrent, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely indetails of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible itsauthorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence ofan arranger's name?

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

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

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

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

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

But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothingcould more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail aboutsuch works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally rightabout the reading _Diapente_?

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

 * * * * *

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

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

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

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

I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, writtenlong after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presentsDr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunityof congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towardsfreedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence ofsupernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against theauthenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude withwhich he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away intonaturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, withoutdoubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence ofmiracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous andinsufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound toexplain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of whichhe has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing butvery sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated theimagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes, I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations. 

VIII. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary orconceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which wecould not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications whichare essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attestedin any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine. It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing thespecific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance ofwhich is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that itsdoctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably bepronounced "the wildest delusions. " "By no rational being could a justand benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishingannouncements. "

On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as DivineRevelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of thesupposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence wouldbe destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited toone source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but areperformed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, andare not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusiveand for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed arebeyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by thehuman intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive anature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify theChristian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable ofperforming. 

The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, isnot only without any special Divine character, being avowedly commonalso to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception ordetails. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the firstpromulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed forcenturies after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, hasflowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passedthrough the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it hasentered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed andcommonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christianmiracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed toconvince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. Theselection of such evidence for such a purpose is much morecharacteristic of human weakness than of Divine power. 

The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact thattheir supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignoranceand superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time orplace where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate andascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. Thereis not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigatethe supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences sofreely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that thewitnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness ofknowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. Nomiracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparentreality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region ofimagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of allmiraculous pretension. 

There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernaturalinterference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles havesprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not asingle valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that, wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscureoccurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freelyacknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion asknowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernaturalinterference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracleshave ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to thepresent and future, but its action is equally retrospective, andphenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence ofnatural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbrokenorder. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has forever annihilated them. 

To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an InfinitePersonal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the executionof which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it isargued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequatecauses, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of thisInfinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out theDivine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonablymaintained. 

The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited andunlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought canpossibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God workingmiracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the orderof nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles isfurther inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles isavowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to otherspiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible toprove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and notwith the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design ofRevelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derivedfrom the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewisethe assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious asarguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divinedesign, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible andopposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance anytheory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of thehuman race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan ofcreation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is asinconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposedpunishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of themare opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentiallyinadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. 

Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomenamust at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absoluteknowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, andit is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order ofnature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormouslygreater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. Onthe other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes ofthe senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not onlypossible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses ofphenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and moreespecially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement andsuperstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses onlyreaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, theprobability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation ofmiracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of theorder of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observationand testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and thecircumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we areexamining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts whichwholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. 

When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christianmiracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralisingthe preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the caseturns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the merenarratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred yearsago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real forceand validity, it is essential that their character and authorship shouldbe placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capableof estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which nowdistinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the worksthemselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of thewriters to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two areeven said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second andthird Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus noreye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, weare wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regardingthe authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels. 

In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definiteprinciples. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to thedate or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of theFathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, forinformation regarding the composition and character of these works andeven for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, thesecould prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at thedate of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we wereguided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are basedupon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of theFathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are acomplete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition andcharacter of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the traditionpreserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the detailsof which fully justify the conclusion that our first and secondSynoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have beencomposed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whateverdirectly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers towhom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or novalue in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silencefrom the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. Withone exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and ahalf, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymoususe of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course, does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actuallyin existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywheresuggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidenceshows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception towhich we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon ourthird Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of theexistence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightestinformation as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges againstit of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as toits infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the endanonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do notthemselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape fromthe ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify theinferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minorcontradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible toreconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourthGospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must bepronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, byunknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculousoccurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. Theycannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality ofDivine Revelation. 

Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similarresults. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced thethird Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent withmiraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of thenarrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure forit any serious consideration. When the statements of the author arecompared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and withauthentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, itbecomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have beensupposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot beregarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tendsto establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages sosuspiciously abound. 

The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separateexamination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additionaltestimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied beliefin such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It isunquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostlesbelieved in these miracles, and the assumption that they did sosupersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the CatholicEpistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine offour Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, rendersit superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other lettersattributed to him. 

The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Churchis brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. Afterelaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitatingconclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, theunconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility withwhich erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena intosupernatural occurrences. 

As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for thecardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension ofJesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts ofthese events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradictand exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of suchstupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on thestatements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from anApostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionariesof Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which thebelief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague andundetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from thestatements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the barefact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although hehad not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of therisen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personaltestimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of whichwe have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, ofwhich he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitationin deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, inall probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. Thetestimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated toecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was anearnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the activepersecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in thecase of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after thefact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, isnot an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce theevidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelesslyinadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which mustconsequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, oreven conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affectingthe religion and even the salvation of the human race, should beaccepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient inthe case of any common question of property or title before a legaltribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to beestablished, the more complete must be the proof required. 

If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothingoriginal in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongstmen which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the writtenbooks of which have not been represented as directly inspired. Thereis not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has notsubstantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a singlephase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculousconception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, andascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have heldan important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. Thesame may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevatedprecepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, hadalready suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgatedby ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the realityof Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianityhas arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it couldpractically interest us now. 

There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity whichcan be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for thesalvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to asingle nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, forwhom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almostunanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued tobe repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to thepresent day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme ofsalvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than athird of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinctioncould now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it asSupernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numericalposition. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character toJesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has evennow almost twice the number of followers, although his missionariesnever sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a schemeDivinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the humanrace and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himselfincarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon thecross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only beregarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionatefor a system of elevated morality. 

We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teachermay through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utteranceshave suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed tohim, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed;but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck bythe absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. Itis to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that weowe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age andpeople. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for thedoctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus. The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who hadnever seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching afterit had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of theEast constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow thedevelopment of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly mostinstructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmaswere expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone representsseveral stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers hadpassed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples, who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life, piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness andhumility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaboratestructure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines ofhuman superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, whichcommenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity ofthe Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations ofchurchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which havenaturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of ImmaculateConception and Papal Infallibility. 

It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim suchconclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, butremove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, beforeexisting belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide asubstitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech orsilence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truthcannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled byconsiderations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious andsuitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never bepremature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only ahumiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as moralityis concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages andeven in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education andcivilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How farChristianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not hereventure adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, thatwhatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, notto its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. DogmaticTheology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science hasbeen judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter ofGenesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towardsenlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathemaof the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has beentacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall notenter into the kingdom of heaven, " has been the favourite text ofDoctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult ofassimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theologicalresistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The earlyenunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible tothe simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to theworld; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higherprinciples do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see moralssufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuatingrules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divineinstitution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real thanit must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome ofsocial experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theologicalquestion, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness havefinally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion andmodified its injunctions according to social requirements, willnecessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependenton religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposedto say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by rightprinciples, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitationwhich can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have everbeen really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in anydegree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to thetrue and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards andpunishments in a future state which has for so long been represented asessential to Christianity. 

As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed bysuch an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by anymeans be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? TheRevelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only anillusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it andits contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which thetraveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters andgreen shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no coolfountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for hiswearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than thedesert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek notvainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to otherhorizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging toecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but searchelsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think ofthe man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two makefour from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whosefault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly isit that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make fivethan to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs whorepresent the value of life as dependent on the reality of specialillusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that aformer belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities ofexistence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether webelieve it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, torepine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and atleast we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. 

The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation isnecessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelationare required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derivedfrom the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thingabsolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, mustour moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid theexpectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than throughnatural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourishedas supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that wedesire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount tocomplaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. Toattain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, shouldbe our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may becertain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason isas unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requiresto know. 

We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is humaninvention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from theincubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divinegovernment which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in theplace of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphicvisions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either ofunseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least deliveredfrom quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and oureternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be torturedin hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end oflife there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the lightof apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterablehorror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helplessvictims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellousrepresentations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation, "it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the waysof the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with theperfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to callwrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But nowthe reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returnsto the Jewish superstition from which it sprang. 

As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to bebaseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless passaway, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, althoughit cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled forso long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank canrightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguishbetween what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain fromcharacterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simplyan impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but whichexcludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. 

[ENDNOTES]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after theexample of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which heintroduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them withinbrackets. 

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

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

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

[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u. S. W. , p. 73 f. 

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

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

[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translationattacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: hologos edêlou], "Scripture declares, " introducing an isolated phrasefrom Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense issurely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out thatPrudentius Maranus renders the words ". . . Scripturam declarare, " andOtto ". . . Effatum declarare. " They occur in reference to passages fromthe Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says isrendered "to inflict a blow on one side, " but this is not the case. Thephrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. V. 39, [Greek: all'hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tênallên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan katakorrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalêsmeros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea ofthe linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but tothose who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the otherside, _of the head_, " &c. , inserting the three Greek words after"side, " to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for thesake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side. " The passagefrom Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing theuncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur, " for whichreason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced intothe text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense andmeaning of "quem caederet, " but I ventured to paraphrase the words andtheir context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullianproceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospelof Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with theassurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one couldhave doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19:1] _Strom. _ vii. 17, § 106. 

[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255. 

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

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

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

[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. And Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do notrefer to the numerous authors who enforce this view. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[28:3] See Acts iv. 13. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219. 

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

[32:8] _Comm. Sur l'Ev. De St. Jean_, i. P. 475 f. 

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

[32:10] _Zeitschr. Gesammt. Luth. Theol. U. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff. 

[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. P. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. Bibl. Wiss. _viii. P. 255 f. ; cf. _Gesch. V. Isr. _ v. P. 348, Anm. 1. 

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

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

[33:1] _Comm. Ev. Des Joh. _ i. P. 577 f. 

[33:2] _Jahrb. Bibl. Wiss. _ viii. P. 255 f. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S. R. _ i. P. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I usedthe word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, andnot in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in thisedition I have made my meaning clear. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[52:3] _Ibid. _ 16. 

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

[52:5] _Ibid. _ 32. 

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

[52:7] _Ibid. _ 11. 

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

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

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

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

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

[54:3] _Ibid. _ 20. 

[54:4] _Ibid. _ 20. 

[54:5] _Ibid. _ 23. 

[54:6] _Ibid. _ 24. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[59:2] _S. R. _ i. P. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility ofreference. 

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

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

[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. U. S. W. Des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[79:3] _Gesch. D. V. Isr. _ vii. P. 321, Anm. 1. 

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

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

[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. P. 60, note. Cf. Iv. P. Vi ff. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[84:7] _Ibid. _ p. Xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap. _ p. Xxxi; cf. P. Lxii;Jacobson, _Patr. Ap. _ i. P. Lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. Gen. S. Ign. Mart. _, Amstel. 1646. 

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

[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion, '" pref. To _Hist. Of theCanon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. Xix. 

[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S. R. , '" preface to _Hist. Of Canon_, 4th ed. P. Xix f. 

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

[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. P. Xx. 

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

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

[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in anextended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte derersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and ispart of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenthcentury. 

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

[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. P. Xxi f. 

[97:1] P. 213. 

[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. P. Xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in anote, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse displayof learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the secondedition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn. " I mightreply to this that my MS. Had left my hands before Zahn's work hadreached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to whichreference was necessary. 

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

[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart. _ p. 137 ff. ; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom. _1631, p. 152. 

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

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

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

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

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

[102:3] _Ibid. _ 14. 

[102:4] _Gesch. Chr. Kirche_, i. P. 410 f. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[108:1] _Hist. Of Christianity_, ii. P. 101 f. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, inChrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mereallusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently"the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had beencelebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there isnothing else to establish it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170. 

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

[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170. 

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

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

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

[124:1] Vol. I. P. 463 f. 

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

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

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

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

[125:2] i. 236 ff. 

[125:3] Note. 

[125:4] Note. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[140:2] _Ibid. _ 255. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. And Doctr. _ iii. P. 26. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDEX. 

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

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

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

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

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

Farrar, Dr. , 34Francke, 97

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

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

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

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

Keim, 135Kestner, 70, 71Kirchhofer, 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhlhorn, 78, 79Ussher, 67

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

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

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