The Lost Gospel and Its Contents - Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by Himself

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Lost Gospel and Its Contents - Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by Himself
Author: Sadler, Michael Ferrebee, 1819-1895
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Lost Gospel and Its Contents - Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by Himself" ***

[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the
text. Footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and
footnote numbers.]

THE LOST GOSPEL AND ITS CONTENTS;

OR,

THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" REFUTED BY HIMSELF.

BY THE REV. M.F. SADLER, M.A.,
RECTOR OF HONITON.

LONDON:
GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET,
COVENT GARDEN.
1876.

PREFACE.

This book is entitled "The Lost Gospel" because the book to which it is
an answer is an attempt to discredit the Supernatural element of
Christianity by undermining the authority of our present Gospels in
favour of an earlier form of the narrative which has perished.

It seemed to me that, if the author of "Supernatural Religion" proved
his point, and demonstrated that the Fathers of the Second Century
quoted Gospels earlier than those which we now possess, then the
evidence for the Supernatural itself, considered as apart from the
particular books in which the records of it are contained, would be
strengthened; if, that is, it could be shown that this earlier form of
the narrative contained the same Supernatural Story.

The author of "Supernatural Religion," whilst he has utterly failed to
show that the Fathers in question have used earlier Gospels, has, to my
mind, proved to demonstration that, if they have quoted earlier
narratives, those accounts contain, not only substantially, but in
detail, the same Gospel which we now possess, and in a form rather more
suggestive of the Supernatural. So that, if he has been successful, the
author has only succeeded in proving that the Gospel narrative itself,
in a written form, is at least fifty or sixty years older than the books
which he attempts to discredit.

With respect to Justin Martyr, to the bearing of whose writings on this
subject I have devoted the greater part of my book, I can only say that,
in my examination of his works, my bias was with the author of
"Supernatural Religion." I had hitherto believed that this Father, being
a native of Palestine, and living so near to the time of the Apostles,
was acquainted with views of certain great truths which he had derived
from traditions of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and the possession
of which made him in some measure an independent witness for the views
in question; but I confess that, on a closer examination of his
writings, I was somewhat disappointed, for I found that he had no
knowledge of our Lord and of His teaching worth speaking of, except
what he might be fairly assumed to have derived from our present
New Testament.

I have to acknowledge my obligations to Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, for
allowing me to make somewhat copious extracts from the writings of
Justin in their ante-Nicene Library. This has saved a Parish Priest like
myself much time and trouble. I believe that in all cases of importance
in which I have altered the translation, or felt that there was a doubt,
I have given the original from Otto's edition (Jena, 1842).

CONTENTS.

PAGE
SECTION I.--Introductory 1
SECTION II.--The Way Cleared 5
SECTION III.--The Principal Witness--His Religious
Views 9
SECTION IV.--The Principal Witness--The Sources of
his Knowledge respecting the Birth of Christ 19
SECTION V.--The Principal Witness--His Testimony
respecting the Baptism of Christ 29
SECTION VI.--The Principal Witness--His Testimony
respecting the Death of Christ 33
SECTION VII.--The Principal Witness--His Testimony
respecting the Moral Teaching of our Lord 40
SECTION VIII.--The Principal Witness--His Testimony
to St. John 45
SECTION IX.--The Principal Witness--His Further
Testimony to St. John 53
SECTION X.--The Principal Witness--His Testimony
summed up 60
SECTION XI.--The Principal Witness on our Lord's
Godhead 65
SECTION XII.--The Principal Witness on the Doctrine
of the Logos 73
SECTION XIII.--The Principal Witness on our Lord as
King, Priest, and Angel 80
SECTION XIV.--The Principal Witness on the Doctrine
of the Trinity 85
SECTION XV.--Justin and St. John on the Incarnation 88
SECTION XVI.--Justin and St. John on the Subordination
of the Son 93
SECTION XVII.--Justin and Philo 98
SECTION XVIII.--Discrepancies between St. John and the
Synoptics 104
SECTION XIX.--External Proofs of the Authenticity
of our Four Gospels 118
Note on Section XIX.--Testimonies of Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria, and Tertullian to the use of
the Four Gospels in their day 136
SECTION XX.--The Evidence for Miracles 149
SECTION XXI.--Objections to Miracles 162
SECTION XXII.--Jewish Credulity 167
SECTION XXIII.--Demoniacal Possession 173
SECTION XXIV.--Competent Witnesses 179
SECTION XXV.--Date of Testimony 185

THE LOST GOSPEL.

SECTION I.

INTRODUCTORY.

In the following pages I have examined the conclusions at which the
author of a book entitled "Supernatural Religion" has assumed to have
arrived.

The method and contents of the work in question may be thus described.

The work is entitled "Supernatural Religion, an Inquiry into the Reality
of Divine Revelation." Its contents occupy two volumes of about 500
pages each, so that we have in it an elaborate attack upon Christianity
of very considerable length. The first 200 pages of the first volume are
filled with arguments to prove that a Revelation, such as the one we
profess to believe in, supernatural in its origin and nature and
attested by miracles, is simply incredible, and so, on no account, no
matter how evidenced, to be received.

But, inasmuch as the author has to face the fact, that the Christian
Religion professes to be attested by miracles performed at a very late
period in the history of the world, and said to have been witnessed by
very large numbers of persons, and related very fully in certain books
called the Canonical Gospels, which the whole body of Christians have,
from a very early period indeed, received as written by eye-witnesses,
or by the companions of eye-witnesses, the remaining 800 pages are
occupied with attempts at disparaging the testimony of these writings.
In order to this, the Christian Fathers and heretical writers of a
certain period are examined, to ascertain whether they quoted the four
Evangelists. The period from which the writer chooses his witnesses to
the use of the four Evangelists, is most unwarrantably and arbitrarily
restricted to the first ninety years of the second century (100-185 or
so). We shall have ample means for showing that this limitation was for
a purpose.

The array of witnesses examined runs thus: Clement of Rome, Barnabas,
Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Papias of
Hierapolis, the Clementines, the Epistle to Diognetus, Basilides,
Valentinus, Marcion, Tatian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito of Sardis,
Claudius Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons,
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, Celsus and the Canon of Muratori.

The examination of references, or supposed references, in these books to
the first three Gospels fills above 500 pages, and the remainder (about
220) is occupied with an examination of the claims of the fourth Gospel
to be considered as canonical.

The writer conducts this examination with an avowed dogmatical bias; and
this, as the reader will soon see, influences the manner of his
examination throughout the whole book. For instance, he never fails to
give to the anti-Christian side the benefit of every doubt, or even
suspicion. This leads him to make the most of the smallest discrepancy
between the words of any supposed quotation in any early writer from one
of our Canonical Gospels, and the words as contained in our present
Gospels. If the writer quotes the Evangelist freely, with some
differences, however slight, in the words, he is assumed to quote from a
lost Apocryphal Gospel. If the writer gives the words as we find them in
our Gospels, he attempts to show that the father or heretic need not
have even seen our present Gospels; for, inasmuch as our present Gospels
have many things in common which are derived from an earlier source, the
quoter may have derived the words he quotes from the earlier source. If
the quoter actually mentions the name of the Evangelist whose Gospel he
refers to (say St. Mark), it is roundly asserted that his St. Mark is
not the same as ours. [Endnote 3:1]

The reader may ask, "How is it possible, against such a mode of
argument, to prove the genuineness or authenticity of any book, sacred
or profane?" And, of course, it is not. Such a way of conducting a
controversy seems absurd, but on the author's premises it is a
necessity. He asserts the dogma that the Governor of the world cannot
interfere by way of miracle. He has to meet the fact that the foremost
religion of the world appeals to miracles, especially the miracle of the
Resurrection of the Founder. For the truth of this miraculous
Resurrection there is at least a thousand times more evidence than there
is for any historical fact which is recorded to have occurred 1,800
years ago. Of course, if the supernatural in Christianity is impossible,
and so incredible, all the witnesses to it must be discredited; and
their number, their age, and their unanimity upon the principal points
are such that the mere attempt must tax the powers of human labour and
ingenuity to the uttermost.

How, then, is such a book to be met? It would take a work of twice the
size to rebut all the assertions of the author, for, naturally, an
answer to any assertion must take up more space than the assertion.
Fortunately, in this case, we are not driven to any such course; for, as
I shall show over and over again, the author has furnished us with the
most ample means for his own refutation. No book that I have over read
or heard of contains so much which can be met by implication from the
pages of the author himself, nor can I imagine any book of such
pretensions pervaded with so entire a misconception of the conditions of
the problem on which he is writing.

These assertions I shall now, God helping, proceed to make good.

SECTION II.

THE WAY CLEARED.

The writers, whose testimonies to the existence or use of our present
Gospels are examined by the author, are twenty-three in number. Five of
these, namely, Hegesippus, Papias, Melito, Claudius Apollinaris, and
Dionysius of Corinth are only known to us through fragments preserved as
quotations in Eusebius and others. Six others--Basilides, Valentinus,
Marcion, Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, and Celsus--are heretical or infidel
writers whom we only know through notices or scraps of their works in
the writings of the Christian Fathers who refuted them. The Epistle of
the Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons is only in part preserved in the pages
of Eusebius. The Canon of Muratori is a mutilated fragment of uncertain
date. Athenagoras and Tatian are only known through Apologies written
for the Heathen, the last of all Christian books in which to look for
definite references to canonical writings. The Epistle to Diognetus is a
small tract of uncertain date and authorship. The Clementine Homilies is
an apocryphal work of very little value in the present discussion.

These are all the writings placed by the author as subsequent to Justin
Martyr. The writers previous to Justin, of whom the author of
"Supernatural Religion" makes use, are Clement of Rome (to whom we shall
afterwards refer), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the
Epistles of Ignatius, and that of Polycarp.

As I desire to take the author on his own ground whenever it is possible
to do so, I shall, for argument's sake, take the author's account of the
age and authority of these documents. I shall consequently assume with
him that

"None of the epistles [of Ignatius] have any value as evidence for
an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the
third century [from about 190 to 210 or so], if indeed they possess
any value at all." [6:1] (Vol. i. p. 274.)

With respect to the short Epistle of Polycarp, I shall be patient of his
assumption that

"Instead of proving the existence of the epistles of Ignatius, with
which it is intimately associated, it is itself discredited in
proportion as they are shown to be inauthentic." (Vol. i. p. 274)

and so he

"assigns it to the latter half of the second century, in so far as
any genuine part of it is concerned." (P. 275)

Similarly, I shall assume that the Pastor of Hermas "may have been
written about the middle of the second century" (p. 256), and, with
respect to the Epistle of Barnabas, I shall take the latest date
mentioned by the author of "Supernatural Religion," where he writes
respecting the epistle--

"There is little or no certainty how far into the second century its
composition may not reasonably be advanced. Critics are divided upon
the point, a few are disposed to date the epistle about the end of
the first century; others at the beginning of the second century;
while a still greater number assign it to the reign of Adrian (A.D.
117-130); and others, not without reason, consider that it exhibits
marks of a still later period." (Vol. i. p. 235.)

The way, then, is so far cleared that I can confine my remarks to the
investigation of the supposed citations from the Canonical Gospels, to
be found in the works of Justin Martyr. Before beginning this, it may be
well to direct the reader's attention to the real point at issue; and
this I shall have to do continually throughout my examination. The work
is entitled "Supernatural Religion," and is an attack upon what the
author calls "Ecclesiastical Christianity," because such Christianity
sets forth the Founder of our Religion as conceived and born in a
supernatural way; as doing throughout His life supernatural acts; as
dying for a supernatural purpose; and as raised from the dead by a
miracle, which was the sign and seal of the truth of all His
supernatural claims. The attack in the book in question takes the form
of a continuous effort to show that all our four Gospels are
unauthentic, by showing, or attempting to show, that they were never
quoted before the latter part of the second century: but the real point
of attack is the supernatural in the records of Christ's Birth, Life,
Death, and Resurrection.

SECTION III.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS.

The examination of the quotations in Justin Martyr of the Synoptic
Gospels occupies nearly one hundred and fifty pages; and deservedly so,
for the acknowledged writings of this Father are, if we except the
Clementine forgeries and the wild vision of Hermas, more in length than
those of all the other twenty-three witnesses put together. They are
also valuable because no doubts can be thrown upon their date, and
because they take up, or advert to, so many subjects of interest to
Christians in all ages.

The universally acknowledged writings of Justin Martyr are three:--Two
Apologies addressed to the Heathen, and a Dialogue with Trypho a Jew.

The first Apology is addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and was
written before the year 150 A.D. The second Apology is by some supposed
to be the first in point of publication, and is addressed to the Roman
people.

The contents of the two Apologies are remarkable in this respect, that
Justin scruples not to bring before the heathen the very arcana of
Christianity. No apologist shows so little "reserve" in stating to the
heathen the mysteries of the faith. At the very outset he enunciates the
doctrine of the Incarnate Logos:--

"For not only among the Greeks did Logos (or Reason) prevail to
condemn these things by Socrates, but also among the barbarians were
they condemned by the Logos himself, who took shape and became man,
and was called Jesus Christ." [10:1] (Apol. I. 5.)

In the next chapter he sets forth the doctrine and worship of the
Trinity:--

"But both Him [the Father] and the Son, Who came forth from Him and
taught these things to us and the host of heaven, the other good
angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the Prophetic
Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth."
[10:2]

Again:--

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, Who was also born for
this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of
Judaea, in the time of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably
worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the True God
Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the Prophetic
Spirit in the third." (Apol. I. ch. x. 3.)

Again, a little further on, he claims for Christians a higher belief in
the supernatural than the heathen had, for, whereas the heathen went no
further than believing that souls after death are in a state of
sensation, Christians believed in the resurrection of the body:--

"Such favour as you grant to these, grant also unto us, who not less
but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive
again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth,
for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible." (Apol. I. ch.
xviii.)

In the next chapter (xix.) he proceeds to prove the Resurrection
possible. This he does from the analogy of human generation, and he
concludes thus:--

"So also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men
after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth,
should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption."

In another place in the same Apology he asserts the personality of
Satan:--

"For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the
serpent, and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into
our writings, and that he would be sent into the fire with his host,
and the men who followed him, and would be punished for an endless
duration, Christ foretold." (Apol. I. ch. xxviii.)

In the same short chapter he asserts in very weighty words his belief in
the ever-watchful providence of God:--

"And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things (the
welfare of the human race), he will thereby either insinuate that
God does not exist, or he will assert that though He exists He
delights in vice, or exists like a stone, and that neither virtue
nor vice are anything, but only in the opinion of men these things
are reckoned good or evil, and this is the greatest profanity and
wickedness." (Apol. I. ch. xxviii.)

Shortly after this he tells the heathen Emperor that the mission and
work of Jesus Christ had been predicted:--

"There were amongst the Jews certain men who were prophets of God,
through whom the Prophetic Spirit published beforehand things that
were to come to pass, ere ever they happened. And their prophecies,
as they were spoken and when they were uttered, the kings who
happened to be reigning among the Jews at the several times
carefully preserved in their possession, when they had been arranged
in books by the prophets themselves in their own Hebrew language....
In these books, then, of the prophets, we found Jesus Christ
foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate,
and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead,
and being hated, and unrecognized, and crucified, and dying and
rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being
called, the Son of God. We find it also predicted that certain
persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these
things, and that rather among the Gentiles (than among the Jews) men
should believe on Him. And He was predicted before He appeared,
first 5,000 years before, and again 3,000, then 2,000, then 1,000,
and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets
after prophets arose." (Apol. I. ch. xxxi.)

Then he proceeds to show how certain particular prophecies which he
cites were fulfilled in the Jews having a lawgiver till the time of
Christ, and not after; in Christ's entry into Jerusalem; in His Birth of
a Virgin; in the place of His Birth; in His having His hands and feet
pierced with the nails. (Ch. xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxv.)

Again, immediately afterwards, he endeavours to classify certain
prophecies as peculiarly those of God the Father, certain others as
peculiarly those of God the Son, and others as the special utterance of
the Spirit. (Ch. xxxvi.-xl.)

Then he proceeds to specify certain particular prophecies as fulfilled
in our Lord's Advent (ch. xl.); certain others in His Crucifixion
(xli.); in His Session in heaven (xlv.); in the desolation of Judaea
(xlvii.); in the miracles and Death of Christ (xlviii.); in His
rejection by the Jews (xlix.); in His Humiliation (l.) He concludes with
asserting the extreme importance of prophecy, as without it we should
not be warranted in believing such things of any one of the human
race:--

"For with what reason should we believe of a crucified Man that He
is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass
judgment on the whole human race, unless we have found testimonies
concerning Him published before He came, and was born as man, and
unless we saw that things had happened accordingly,--the devastation
of the land of the Jews, and men of every race persuaded by His
teaching through the Apostles, and rejecting their old habits, in
which, being deceived, they had had their conversation." (Ch. liii.)

After this he speaks (ch. lxi.) of Christian Baptism, as being in some
sense a conveyance of Regeneration, and of the Eucharist (ch. lxvi.), as
being a mysterious communication of the Flesh and Blood of Christ, and
at the conclusion he describes the worship of Christians, and tells the
Emperor that in their assemblies the memoirs of the Apostles (by which
name he designates the accounts of the Birth, Life, and Death of
Christ), or the writings of the Prophets were read, as long as time
permits, putting the former on a par with the latter, as equally
necessary for the instruction of Christians.

Besides this, we find that Justin holds all these views of Scripture
truths which are now called Evangelical. He speaks of men now being

"Purified no longer by the blood of goats and sheep, or by the ashes
of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith
through the Blood of Christ, and through His Death, Who died for
this very reason." (Dial.)

And again:

"So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope (_i.e._ of salvation
by Jewish ordinances) from your souls, and hasten to know in what
way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good
things, shall be yours. But there is no other way than this to
become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain
spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the rest to
lead sinless lives." (Dial. xliv.)

So that from this Apology alone, though addressed to the heathen, we
learn that Justin cordially accepted every supernatural element in
Christianity. He thoroughly believed in the Trinity, the Incarnation of
the Logos, the miraculous Conception, Birth, Life, Miracles, Death,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. He firmly believed in the
predictive element in prophecy, in the atoning virtue of the Death of
Christ, in the mysterious inward grace or inward part in each Sacrament,
in the heart-cleansing power of the Spirit of God, in the particular
providence of God, in the resurrection of the body, in eternal reward
and eternal punishment.

Whatever, then, was the source of his knowledge, that knowledge made him
intensely dogmatic in his creed, and a firm believer in the supernatural
nature of everything in his religion.

The Second Apology is of the same nature as the first. A single short
extract or two from it will show how firmly the author held the
supernatural:--

"Our doctrines, then, appear to be greater than all human teaching;
because Christ, who appeared for our sakes, became the whole
rational being, both body, and reason, and soul.... These things our
Christ did through His own power. For no one trusted in Socrates so
as to die for this doctrine; but in Christ, who was partially known
even by Socrates (for He was and is the Word Who is in every man,
and Who foretold the things that were to come to pass both through
the prophets and in His own Person when He was made of like
passions, and taught these things); not only philosophers and
scholars believed, but also artizans and people entirely uneducated,
despising both glory, and fear, and death; since He is a Power of
the ineffable Father, and not the mere instrument of human reason."
(Apol. II. ch. x.)

The dialogue with Trypho is the record of a lengthy discussion with a
Jew for the purpose of converting him to the Christian faith. The
assertion of the supernatural is here, if possible, more unreserved than
in the First Apology. In order to convert Trypho, Justin cites every
prophecy of the Old Testament that can, with the smallest show of
reason, be referred to Christ.

Having, first of all, vindicated the Christians from the charge of
setting aside the Jewish law or covenant, by an argument evidently
derived from the Epistle to the Hebrews, [15:1] and vindicated for
Christians the title of the true spiritual Israel, [15:2] he proceeds to
the prophetical Scriptures, and transcribes the whole of the prophecy of
Isaiah from the fifty-second chapter to the fifty-fourth, and applies it
to Christ and His Kingdom. (Dial. ch. xiii.) Shortly after, he applies
to the second Advent of Christ the prophecy of Daniel respecting the Son
of Man, brought before the Ancient of Days. (Ch. xxxi.) Then he notices
and refutes certain destructive interpretations of prophecies which have
been derived from the unbelieving Jews by our modern rationalists, as
that Psalm cx. is spoken of Hezekiah, and Psalm lxxii. of Solomon.

Then he proceeds to prove that Christ is both God and Lord of Hosts; and
he first cites Psalm xxiv., and then Psalms xlvi., xcviii., and xlv.
(Ch. xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxviii.)

Then, after returning to the Mosaic law, and proving that certain points
in its ritual wore fulfilled in the Christian system (as the oblation of
fine flour in the Eucharist--ch. xli.), he concludes this part of his
argument with the assertion that the Mosaic law had an end in Christ:--

"In short, sirs," said I, "by enumerating all the other appointments
of Moses, I can demonstrate that they were types, and symbols, and
declarations of those things which would happen to Christ, of those
who, it was foreknown, were to believe in Him, and of those things
which would also be done by Christ Himself." (Ch. xlii.)

Then he again proves that this Christ was to be, and was, born of a
virgin; and takes occasion to show that the virgin mentioned in Isaiah
vii. was not a young married woman, as rationalists in Germany and among
ourselves have learnt from the unbelieving Jews. (Ch. xliii.)

To go over more of Justin's argument would be beside my purpose, which
is at present simply to show how very firmly his faith embraced the
supernatural.

I shall mention one more application of prophecy. When Trypho asks that
Justin should resume the discourse, and show that the Spirit of prophecy
admits another God besides the Maker of all things, [17:1] Justin
accepts his challenge, and commences with the appearance of the three
angels to Abraham, and devotes much space and labour to a sifting
discussion of the meaning of this place. The conclusion is thus
expressed:--

"And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the
three, Who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him Who is
[remains] in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the
angels] proceeded to Sodom He remained behind, and communed with
Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after
the conversation Abraham went back to his place. And when He came
[to Sodom] the two angels no longer converse with Lot, but Himself,
as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord Who received
commission from the Lord Who [remains] in the heavens, i.e. the
Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the
[judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord
rained upon Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'"
(Ch. lvi.)

It is clear from all this that Justin Martyr looked upon prophecy as a
supernatural gift, bestowed upon men in order to prepare them to receive
that Christ whom God would send. Instead of regarding it as the natural
surmising of far-seeing men who, from their experience of the past, and
from their knowledge of human nature, could in some sort guess what
course events are likely to take, he regarded it as a Divine influence
emanating from Him Who knows the future as perfectly as He knows the
past, and for His own purposes revealing events, and in many cases what
we should call _trifling_ events, which would be wholly out of the power
of man to guess or even to imagine.

I am not, of course, concerned to show that Justin was right in his
views of prophecy; all I am concerned to show is, that Justin regarded
prophecy as the highest of supernatural gifts.

Such, then, was the view of Justin respecting Christ and the Religion He
established. Christ, the highest of supernatural beings, His Advent
foretold by men with supernatural gifts to make known the future, coming
to us in the highest of supernatural ways, and establishing a
supernatural kingdom for bringing about such supernatural ends as the
reconciliation of all men to God by His Sacrifice, the Resurrection of
the body, and the subjugation of the wills of all men to the Will of
God.

SECTION IV.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--THE SOURCES OF HIS KNOWLEDGE RESPECTING THE BIRTH
OF CHRIST.

The question now arises, and I beg the reader to remember that it is the
question on which the author of "Supernatural Religion" stakes
all,--From what source did Justin derive this supernatural view of
Christianity?

With respect to the Incarnation, Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of
Christ, he evidently derives it from certain documents which he
repeatedly cites, as "The Memoirs of the Apostles" ([Greek:
Apomnêmoneumata tôn Apostolôn]). These are the documents which he
mentions as being read, along with the Prophets, at the meetings of
Christians.

On one occasion, when he is seemingly referring to the [bloody] sweat of
our Lord, which is mentioned only in St. Luke, who is not an Apostle, he
designates these writings as the "Memoirs which were drawn up by the
Apostles _and those who followed them_." [19:1] Again, on another
occasion, he seems to indicate specially the Gospel of St. Mark as being
the "Memoirs of Peter." It is a well-known fact that all ecclesiastical
tradition, almost with one voice, has handed down that St. Mark wrote
his Gospel under the superintendence, if not at the dictation, of St.
Peter; and when Justin has occasion to mention that our Lord gave the
name of Boanerges to the sons of Zebedee, an incident mentioned only by
St. Mark, he seems at least to indicate the Gospel of St. Mark as being
specially connected with St. Peter as his Memoirs when he writes:
[20:1]--

"And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles
to Peter; and when it is written in his Memoirs that this so
happened, as well as that He changed the names of two other
brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means 'sons of
thunder;' this was an announcement," &c. (Ch. cvi.)

With the exception of these two apparent cases, Justin never
distinguishes one Memoir from another. He never mentions the author or
authors of the Memoirs by name, and for this reason--that the three
undoubted treatises of his which have come down to us are all written
for those outside the pale of the Christian Church. It would have been
worse than useless, in writing for such persons, to distinguish between
Evangelist and Evangelist. So far as "those without" were concerned, the
Evangelists gave the same view of Christ and His work; and to have
quoted first one and then another by name would have been mischievous,
as indicating differences when the testimony of all that could be called
memoirs was, in point of fact, one and the same.

According to the author of "Supernatural Religion" Justin ten times
designates the source of his quotations as the "Memoirs of the
Apostles," and five times as simply the "Memoirs."

Now the issue which the writer of "Supernatural Religion" raises is
this: "Were these Memoirs our present four Gospels, or were they some
older Gospel or Gospels?" to which we may add another: "Did Justin quote
any other lost Gospel besides our four?"

* * * * *

I shall now give some instances of the use which Justin makes of the
writings which he calls "Memoirs," and this will enable the reader in
great measure to judge for himself.

First of all, then, I give one or two extracts from Justin's account of
our Lord's Nativity. Let the reader remember that, with respect to the
first of these, the account is not introduced in order to give Trypho an
account of our Lord's Birth, but to assure him that a certain prophecy,
as it is worded in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah--viz., "He shall
take the powers of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria," was fulfilled in
Christ. And indeed almost every incident which Justin takes notice of he
relates as a fulfilment of some prophecy or other. Trifling or
comparatively trifling incidents in our Lord's Life are noticed at great
length, because they are supposed to be the fulfilment of some prophecy;
and what we should consider more important events are passed over in
silence, because they do not seem to fulfil any prediction.

The first extract from Justin, then, shall be the following:--

"Now this King Herod, at the time when the Magi came to him from
Arabia, and said they knew from a star which appeared in the heavens
that a King had been born in your country, and that they had come to
worship Him, learned from the Elders of your people, that it was
thus written regarding Bethlehem in the Prophet: 'And thou,
Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means least among the
princes of Judah; for out of thee shall go forth the leader, who
shall feed my people.' Accordingly, the Magi from Arabia came to
Bethlehem, and worshipped the child, and presented him with gifts,
gold, and frankincense, and myrrh; but returned not to Herod, being
warned in a revelation after worshipping the child in Bethlehem. And
Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his
betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a
man, _i.e._ from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put
away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what
is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost. Then he was afraid and did not
put her away, but on the occasion of the first census which was
taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he
lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his
family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.
Then, along with Mary, he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and
remain there with the Child, until another revelation warn them to
return to Judea. But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since
Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his
quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were
there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and
here the Magi who came from Arabia, found Him. 'I have repeated to
you,' I continued, 'what Isaiah foretold about the sign which
foreshadowed the cave; but, for the sake of those which have come
with us to-day, I shall again remind you of the passage.' Then I
repeated the passage from Isaiah which I have already written,
adding that, by means of those words, those who presided over the
mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a
place, called among them a cave, they were initiated by him. 'So
Herod, when the Magi from Arabia did not return to him, as he had
asked them to do, but had departed by another way to their own
country, according to the commands laid upon them; and when Joseph,
with Mary and the Child, had now gone into Egypt, as it was revealed
to them to do; as he did not know the Child whom the Magi had gone
to worship, ordered simply the whole of the children then in
Bethlehem to be massacred. And Jeremiah prophesied that this would
happen, speaking by the Holy Ghost thus: 'A voice was heard in
Ramah, lamentation and much wailing, Rachel weeping for her
children, and she would not be comforted, because they are not.'"
(Dial. ch. lxxviii.)

Now any unprejudiced reader, on examining this account, would instantly
say that Justin had derived every word of it from the Gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Luke, but that, instead of quoting the exact words of
either Evangelist, he would say that he (Justin) "reproduced" them. He
reproduced the narrative of the Nativity as it is found in each of these
two Gospels. He first reproduces the narrative in St. Matthew in
somewhat more colloquial phrase than the Evangelist used, interspersing
with it remarks of his own; and in order to account for the Birth of
Christ in Bethlehem he brings in from St. Luke the matter of the census,
(not with historical accuracy but) sufficiently to show that he was
acquainted with the beginning of Luke ii.; and in order to account for
the fact that Christ was not born in the inn, but in a more sordid place
(whether stable or cave matters not, for if it was a cave it was a cave
used as a stable, for there was a "manger" in it), he reproduces Luke
ii. 6-7.

Justin then, in a single consecutive narrative, expressed much in his
own words, gives the whole account, so far as it was a fulfilment of
prophecy, made up from two narratives which have come down to us in the
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and in these only. It would have
been absurd for him to have done otherwise, as he might have done if he
had anticipated the carpings of nineteenth century critics, and assumed
that Trypho, an unconverted Jew, had a New Testament in his hand with
which he was so familiar that he could be referred to first one
narrative and then the other, in order to test the correctness of
Justin's quotations.

Against all this the author of "Supernatural Religion" brings forward a
number of trifling disagreements as proofs that Justin need not have
quoted one of the Evangelists--probably did not--indeed, may not have
ever seen our synoptics, or heard of their existence. But the reader
will observe that he has given the same history as we find in the two
synoptics which have given an account of the Nativity, and he apparently
knew of no other account of the matter.

We are reminded that there were numerous apocryphal Gospels then in use
in the Church, and that Justin might have derived his matter from these;
but, if so, how is it that he discards all the lying legends with which
those Gospels team, and, with the solitary exception of the mention of
the cave, confines himself to the circumstances of the synoptic
narrative.

The next place respecting the Nativity shall be one from ch. c.:--

"But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel
announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would
come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her;
wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God: and
she replied, 'Be it unto me according to Thy word.'"

Here both the words of the angel and the answer of the virgin are almost
identical with the words in St. Luke's Gospel; Justin, however, putting
his account into the oblique narrative.

We will put the two side by side that the reader may compare them.

[GREEK TABLE]

Pistin de kai charan labousa |
Maria hê parthenos euangelizomenou |
autê Gabriêl angelou, hoti pneuma | Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi
kyriou ep' autên epeleusetai, | se, kai dynamis hypsistou
kai dunamis hypsistou episkiasei | episkiasei soi, dio kai to gennômenon
autên, dio kai to gennômenon | hagion klêthêsetai Hyios Theou.
ex autês hagion estin Hyios Theou, | * * * * *
apekrinato, Genoito moi kata to | Genoito moi kaia to rhêma sou.
rhêma sou. |

Now of these words, _as existing in St. Luke_, the author of
"Supernatural Religion" takes no notice. Was he, then, acquainted with
the fact that Justin's words _in this place_ so closely correspond with
St. Luke's? We cannot say. We only know that he calls his readers'
particular attention to a supposed citation of the previous words of the
angel Gabriel, cited in another place:--

"Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son,
and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call
His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins."
(Apol. I. ch. xxxiii.)

The ordinary unprejudiced reader would say that Justin here reproduces
St. Matthew and St. Luke, weaving into St. Luke's narrative the words of
the angel to St. Joseph; but our author will not allow this for a
moment. He insists that Justin knew nothing, or need have known nothing,
of St. Luke. He shows that the words of the angel, "He shall save his
people," &c., which seem to be introduced from St. Matthew, "are not
accidentally inserted in this place, for we find that they are joined in
the same manner to the address of the angel to Mary in the
Protevangelium of St. James."

But how about those words which succeed them in answer to the question
of the Virgin, "How shall these things be?" I mean those quoted in the
"Dialogue" beginning "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," &c. If ever
one author quotes another, Justin in this place quotes St. Luke. They
cannot be taken from the Protevangelium, because the corresponding words
in the Protevangelium are very different from those in St. Luke; and the
only real difference between Justin's quotation and St. Luke is that St.
Luke reads, "shall be called the Son of God;" whereas Justin has "is the
Son of God." Now in this Justin differs from the Protevangelium, which
reads, "Shall be called the Son of the Highest;" so the probability is
still more increased that in the quotation from the "Dialogue" he did
not quote the Protevangelium, and did quote St. Luke. However, we will
make the author a present of these words, because we want to assume for
a moment the truth of his conclusion, which he thus expresses:--

"Justin's divergencies from the Protevangelium prevent our supposing
that, in its present form, it could have been the actual source of
his quotations; but the wide differences which exist between the
extant MSS. of the Protevangelium show that even the most ancient
does not present it in its original form. It is much more probable
that Justin had before him a still older work, to which both the
Protevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted." ("Supernatural
Religion," vol. i. p. 306.)

Assuming, then, the correctness of this, Justin had a still older Gospel
than that of St. Luke; and we shall hereafter show that St. Luke's
Gospel was used in all parts of the world in Justin's day, and long
before it. Now Justin himself lived only 100 years after the
Resurrection; and this is no very great age for the copy of a book,
still less for the book itself, of which any one may convince himself by
a glance around his library. We may depend upon it that Justin would
have used the oldest sources of information. A book so old in Justin's
days may have been published at the outset of Christianity. The author
himself surmises that it may have been the work of one of St. Luke's
[Greek: polloi]. Anyhow it is an older and therefore, according to the
writer's own line of argument all through his book, a more reliable
witness to the things of Christ, and its witness is to the supernatural
in His Birth. Are we, then, able to form any conjecture as to the name
of this most ancient Gospel? Yes. The author of "Supernatural Religion"
identifies it with the lost Gospel to the Hebrews, in the words:--

"Much more probably, however, Justin quotes from the more ancient
source from which the Protevangelium and perhaps St. Luke drew their
narrative. There can be little doubt that the Gospel according to
the Hebrews contained an account of the birth in Bethelehem, and as
it is, at least, certain that Justin quotes other particulars from
it, there is fair reason to believe that he likewise found this fact
[28:1] in that work." (Vol. ii. p. 313.)

If, then, this be the Gospel from which Justin derived his account of
the Nativity, it seems to have contained all the facts for which we have
now to look into St. Matthew and St. Luke. It combined the testimonies
of both Evangelists to the supernatural Birth of Jesus.

SECTION V.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST.

The next extract from Justin which I shall give is one describing our
Lord's Baptism. This account, like almost every other given in the
dialogue with Trypho, is mentioned by him, not so much for its own sake,
but because it gave him opportunity to show the fulfilment, or supposed
fulfilment, of a prophecy--in this case the prophecy of Isaiah that the
"Spirit of the Lord should rest upon Him."

"Even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew
up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its
own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all
kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less,
until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and
preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown. And
then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was
baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was
kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy
Ghost lighted on Him like a dove [as] the Apostles of this very
Christ of ours wrote.... For when John remained (literally sat)
[29:1] by the Jordan, and preached the baptism of repentance,
wearing only a leathern girdle and a vesture made of camel's hair,
eating nothing but locusts and wild honey, men supposed him to be
Christ; but he cried to them--'I am not the Christ, but the voice of
one crying; for He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I
am not worthy to bear....' The Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I
formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there
came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered
also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father
would say to Him, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee;'
[the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at
the time when they would become acquainted with Him. 'Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten Thee.'" (Ch. lxxxviii.)

The author of "Supernatural Religion" lays very great stress upon this
passage, as indicating throughout sources of information different from
our Gospels. He makes the most of the fact that John is said to have
"sat" by the Jordan, not apparently remembering that sitting was the
normal posture for preaching and teaching (Matthew v. 1; Luke iv. 20).
He, of course, dwells much upon the circumstance that a fire was kindled
in the Jordan at the time of our Lord's baptism, which additional
instance of the supernatural Justin may have derived either from
tradition or from the Gospel to the Hebrews. Above all, he dwells upon
the fact--and a remarkable fact it is--that Justin supposes that the
words of the Father wore not "Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well
pleased," but "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee."

Now I do not for a moment desire to lessen the importance of the
difficulty involved in a man, living in the age of Justin, giving the
words, of the Father so differently to what they appear in our Gospels.
But what is the import of the discrepancy? It is simply a theological
difficulty, the same in all respects with that which is involved in the
application of these very words to the Resurrection of Christ by St.
Paul, in Acts xiii. 33. It is in no sense a difficulty having the
smallest bearing on the supernatural; for it is equally as supernatural
for the Father to have said, with a voice audible to mortal ears, "This
day have I begotten Thee," as it is for Him to have said, "In Thee I am
well pleased."

What, then, is the inference which the author of "Supernatural Religion"
draws from these discrepancies? This,--that Justin derived his
information from the lost Gospel to the Hebrews.

"In the scanty fragments of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,'
which have been preserved, we find both the incident of the fire
kindled in Jordan, and the words of the heavenly voice, as quoted by
Justin:--'And as He went out of the water, the heavens opened, and
He saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a dove descend and
enter into Him. And a voice was heard from heaven, saying, 'Thou art
my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased;' and again, 'This day
have I begotten Thee.' And immediately a great light shone in that
place.' Epiphanius extracts this passage from the version in use
among the Ebionites, but it is well known that there were many other
varying forms of the same Gospel; and Hilgenfeld, with all
probability, conjectures that the version known to Epiphanius was no
longer in the same purity as that used by Justin, but represents the
transition stage to the Canonical Gospels, adopting the words of the
voice which they give without yet discarding the older form."
("Supernatural Religion," vol. i. p. 320.)

Here, then, are the remains of an older Gospel used by Justin, taken
from copies which rationalists assert to have been, when used by him, in
a state of greater purity than a subsequent recension, which subsequent
recension was anterior to our present Gospels, and being older was
purer, because nearer to the fountain-head of knowledge: but this older
and purer form is characterized by a more pronounced supernatural
element--to wit, the 'fire' in Jordan and the 'light'--so that, the
older and purer the tradition, the more supernatural is its teaching.

SECTION VI.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

We have now to consider the various notices in Justin respecting our
Lord's Crucifixion, and the events immediately preceding and following
it. Justin notices our Lord's entry into Jerusalem:--

"And the prophecy, 'binding His foal to the vine and washing His
robe in the blood of the grape,' was a significant symbol of the
things which were to happen to Christ, and of what He was to do. For
the foal of an ass stood bound to a vine at the entrance of a
village, and He ordered His acquaintances to bring it to Him then;
and when it was brought He mounted and sat upon it, and entered
Jerusalem." (Apol. I. ch. xxxii.)

Justin in a subsequent place (Dial. ch. liii.) notices the fact only
mentioned in St. Matthew, that Jesus commanded the disciples to bring
both an ass and its foal:--

"And truly our Lord Jesus Christ, when He intended to go into
Jerusalem, requested His disciples to bring Him a certain ass, along
with its foal, which was bound in an entrance of a village called
Bethphage; and, having seated Himself on it, He entered into
Jerusalem."

Justin thus describes the institution of the Eucharist:--

"For the Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called
Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them;
that Jesus took bread, and, when He had given thanks, said, 'This do
ye in remembrance of me, this is My body;' and that after the same
manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My
blood;' and gave it to them alone." (Apol. i. ch. lxvi.)

He thus adverts to the dispersion of the Apostles:--

"Moreover, the prophet Zechariah foretold that this same Christ
would be smitten and His disciples scattered: which also took place.
For after His Crucifixion the disciples that accompanied Him were
dispersed." (Dial. ch. liii.)

He mentions our Lord's agony as the completion of a prophecy in Psalm
xxii.:--

"For on the day on which He was to be crucified, having taken three
of His disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the
temple at Jerusalem, He prayed in these words: 'Father, if it be
possible, lot this cup pass from Me.' And again He prayed, 'Not as I
will, but as Thou wilt.'" (Dial. xcix.)

His sweating great drops of blood (mentioned only in St. Luke), also in
fulfilment of Psalm xxii.--

"For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His Apostles, and
those who followed them [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down
like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be
possible, let this cup pass.'" [34:1] (Ch. ciii.)

His being sent to Herod (mentioned only in St. Luke):--

"And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority
which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of
compliment Jesus bound; and God, foreknowing that this would happen,
had thus spoken, 'And they brought Him to the Assyrian a present to
the king.'" (Ch. ciii.)

His silence before Pilate, also quoted by Justin, in fulfilment of Psalm
xxii.:--

"And the statement, 'My strength is become dry like a potsherd, and
my tongue has cleaved to my throat,' was also a prophecy of what
would be done by Him according to the Father's will. For the power
of His strong word, by which He always confuted the Pharisees and
Scribes, and, in short, all your nation's teachers that questioned
Him, had a cessation like a plentiful and strong spring, the waters
of which have been turned off, when He kept silence, and chose to
return no answer to any one in the presence of Pilate; as has been
declared in the Memoirs of His Apostles." (Dial. ch. cii.)

His crucifixion:

"And again, in other words, David in the twenty-first Psalm thus
refers to the suffering and to the cross in a parable of mystery:
'They pierced my hands and my feet; they counted all my bones; they
considered and gazed upon me; they parted my garments among them,
and cast lots upon my vesture.' For when they crucified Him, driving
in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who
crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting
lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the
decision of the lot." (Ch. xcvii.)

The mocking of Him by His enemies:--

"And the following: 'All they that see Me laughed Me to scorn; they
spake with the lips; they shook the head: He trusted in the Lord,
let Him deliver Him since He desires Him;' this likewise He foretold
should happen to Him. For they that saw Him crucified shook their
heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and, twisting
their noses to each other, they spake in mockery the words which are
recorded in the Memoirs of His Apostles, 'He said He was the Son of
God: let Him come down; let God save Him.'" (Ch. ci.)

His saying, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (reported only
in SS. Matthew and Mark):--

"For, when crucified, He spake, 'O God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me?'" (Ch. xcix.)

His saying, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit," reported only
in St. Luke:--

"For, when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said,
'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have learned also
from the Memoirs." (Ch. cv.)

His Resurrection and appearance to His Apostles gathered together (found
only in SS. Luke and John), and His reminding the same Apostles that
before His Death He had foretold it (found only in St. Luke):--

"And that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who
repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He
rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Him that before
His Passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these
things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets)."
[37:1] (Ch. cvi.)

The Jews spreading the report that His disciples had stolen away His
Body by night (recorded only by St. Matthew):--

"Yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose
from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and
ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and
lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom
we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb,
where He was laid when unfastened from the cross." (Ch. cviii.)

The Apostles seeing the Ascension, and afterwards receiving power from
Him in person, and going to every race of men:--

"And when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed,
and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to
every race of men, they taught these things, and were called
Apostles." (Apol. I. ch. l.)

From all this the reader will see at a glance that Justin's view of the
Crucifixion and the events attending it was exactly the same as ours. He
will notice that all the events related in Justin are the same as those
recorded in the Evangelists Matthew and Luke; and that the circumstances
related by Justin, and not to be found in the Synoptics, are of the most
trifling character, as, for instance, that the blaspheming bystanders at
the cross "screwed up their noses." I think this is the only additional
circumstance to which the writer of "Supernatural Religion" draws
attention. He will notice that Justin records some events only to be
found in St. Matthew and some only in St. Luke. He will notice also how
frequently Justin reproduces the narrative rather than quotes it.

The ordinary reader would account for all this by supposing that Justin
had our Synoptics (at least the first and third) before him, and
reproduced incidents first from one and then from the other as they
suited his purpose, and his purpose was not to give an account of the
Crucifixion, but to elucidate the prophecies respecting the Crucifixion.

The author of "Supernatural Religion," however, goes through those
citations, or supposed citations, seriatim, and attempts to show that
each one must have been taken from some lost Gospel, most probably the
Gospel of the Hebrews.

Be it so. Here, then, was a Gospel which contained all the separate
incidents recorded in SS. Matthew and Luke, and, of course, combined
them in one narrative. How is it that so inestimably valuable a
Christian document was irretrievably lost, and its place supplied by
three others, each far its inferior, each picking and choosing separate
parts from the original; and that, about 120 years after the original
promulgation of the Gospel, these three forged narratives superseded a
Gospel which would have been, in the matter of our Lord's Birth, Death,
and Resurrection, a complete and perfect harmony? I leave the author of
"Supernatural Religion" to explain so unlikely a fact. One explanation
is, however, on our author's own showing, inadmissible, which is, that
our present Synoptics were adopted because they pandered more than the
superseded one to the growing taste for the supernatural, for the
earlier Gospel or Gospels contained supernatural incidents which are
wanting in our present Synoptics.

SECTION VII.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE MORAL TEACHING OF
OUR LORD.

One more class of apparent quotations from our Synoptic Gospels must now
be considered, viz., the citations in Justin of the moral teaching or
precepts of Christ. Those are mostly to be found in one place, in one
part of the First Apology (chapters xv.-xviii.), and they are introduced
for the express purpose of convincing the Emperor of the high standard
of Christ's moral teaching.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" gives very considerable extracts
from these chapters, which I shall give in his own translation:--

"He (Jesus) spoke thus of chastity: 'Whosoever may have gazed on a
woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in the
heart before God.' And, 'If thy right eye offend thee cut it out,
for it is profitable for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven
with one eye (rather) than having two to be thrust into the
everlasting fire.' And, 'Whosoever marrieth a woman, divorced from
another man, committeth adultery.'"

* * * * *

"And regarding our affection for all He thus taught: 'If ye love
them which love you what new thing do ye? for even the fornicators
do this; but I say unto you, pray for your enemies, and love them
which hate you, and bless them which curse you, and offer prayer for
them which despitefully use you.' And that we should communicate to
the needy, and do nothing for praise, He said thus: 'Give ye to
every one that asketh, and from him that desireth to borrow turn not
ye away, for, if ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive, what
new thing do ye? for even the publicans do this. But ye, lay not up
for yourselves upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and
robbers break through, but lay up for yourselves in the heavens,
where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. For what is a man profited
if he shall gain the whole world but destroy his soul? or what shall
he give in exchange for it? Lay up, therefore, in the heavens, where
neither moth nor rust doth corrupt.' And, 'Be ye kind and merciful
as your Father also is kind and merciful, and maketh His sun to rise
on sinners, and just and evil. But be not careful what ye shall eat
and what ye shall put on. Are ye not better than the birds and the
beasts? and God feedeth them. Therefore be not careful what ye shall
eat or what ye shall put on, for your heavenly Father knoweth that
ye have need of these things; but seek ye the kingdom of the
heavens, and all these things shall be added unto you, for where the
treasure is there is also the mind of the man. And 'Do not these
things to be seen of men, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father
which is in heaven.' And regarding our being patient under injuries,
and ready to help all, and free from anger, this is what He said:
'Unto him striking thy cheek offer the other also; and him who
carrieth off thy cloak, or thy coat, do not thou prevent. But
whosoever shall be angry is in danger of the fire. But every one who
compelleth thee to go a mile, follow twain. And let your good works
shine before men, so that, perceiving, they may adore your Father,
which is in heaven.' ... And regarding our not swearing at all, but
ever speaking the truth, He thus taught: 'Ye may not swear at all,
but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, for what is more than
these is of the evil one.'"

* * * * *

"'For not those who merely make profession, but those who do the
work,' as He said, 'shall be saved.' For He spake thus: 'Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall (enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in
heaven). For whosoever heareth me, and doeth what I say, heareth Him
that sent me. But many will say to me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten
and drunk in Thy name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto
them, 'Depart from me, workers of iniquity.' There shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth, when indeed the righteous shall shine as the
sun, but the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall
arrive in My name, outwardly, indeed, clothed in sheep-skins, but
inwardly being ravening wolves. Ye shall know them from their works,
and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and
cast into the fire."

* * * * *

"As Christ declared, saying, 'To whom God has given more, of him
shall more also be demanded again.'"

The ordinary reader, remembering that Justin was writing for the
heathen, would suppose, after reading the above, that Justin reproduced
from SS. Matthew and Luke the moral precepts of Christ, or rather those
which suited his purpose, and his purpose was to show to the heathen
Emperor that Christianity would make the best members of a community.

To this end he reproduces the precepts respecting chastity, respecting
love to all, and communicating to the needy--being kind and
merciful--not caring much for material things--being patient and
truthful--and above all, being sincere.

He did not reproduce the precepts respecting prayer, simply because
immoral men among the heathen worshipped their gods as devoutly as moral
men did. He did not reproduce the Lord's prayer, because he would not
consider that it belonged to the heathen, or the promises that God would
hear prayer, simply because these would belong to Christians only.

Again, he evidently altered and curtailed what the heathen would not
understand, as for instance, in quoting our Lord's saying respecting
"anger," he quoted it very shortly, because to have quoted at length the
gradations of punishment for being "angry without a cause," for "calling
a brother Raca" and "fool," would have been almost unintelligible to
those unacquainted with Jewish customs.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" repudiates the idea that Justin,
in any of these quotations, makes use of our present Gospels. He
examines these [so-called] quotations seriatim at considerable length,
for the purpose of showing that Justin's variations from our present
Gospels imply another source of information. He considers (and in this I
cannot agree with him, though I shall, for argument's sake, yield the
point) that--

"The hypothesis that these quotations are from the canonical gospels
requires the acceptance of the fact that Justin, with singular care,
collected from distant and scattered portions of these gospels a
series of passages in close sequence to each other, forming a whole
unknown to them, but complete in itself." ("Supernatural Religion,"
vol. i. p. 359)

I say I cannot agree with this, because I think that the extracts I have
given have all the signs of a piece of patchwork by no means well put
together, but I will assume that he is right in his view.

Here, then, we have, according to his hypothesis, another sermon of
Christ's, which, owing to the "close sequence" of its various passages,
and its completeness as a whole, must take its place alongside of the
Sermon on the Mount. Where does it come from?--

"The simple and natural conclusion, supported by many strong
reasons, is that Justin derived his quotations from a Gospel which
was different from ours, though naturally by subject and design it
must have been related to them." (Vol. i. p. 384.)

And in page 378 our author traces one of the passages of this
"consecutive" discourse through an epistle ascribed to Clement of Rome
to the "Gospel according to the Egyptians," which was in all probability
a version of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews."

Here, then, is a Gospel, the Gospel to the Hebrews, which not only
contained, as the author has shown, a harmony of the histories in SS.
Matthew and Luke, so far, at least, as the Birth and Death of Christ are
concerned, but also such a full and consecutive report of the moral
teaching of Christ, that it may not unfitly be described as "a series of
passages in close sequence to each other," collected "with singular
care" "from distant and scattered portions of these Gospels." How, we
ask, could such a Gospel have perished utterly? A Gospel, which, besides
containing records of the historical and supernatural much fuller than
any one of the surviving Gospels, contained also a sort of Sermon on the
Mount, amalgamating in one whole the moral teaching of our Lord, ought
surely (if it ever was in existence) to have won its place in the canon.

SECTION VIII.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS TESTIMONY TO ST. JOHN.

We have now to consider the citations (or supposed citations) of Justin
from the fourth Gospel. These, as I have mentioned, are treated by the
author of "Supernatural Religion" separately at the conclusion of his
work.

Whatever internal coincidences there are between the contents of
St. John and those of the Synoptics, the external differences are
exceedingly striking, and it is not at all to my present purpose to keep
this fact out of sight. The plan of St. John's Gospel is different, the
style is different, the subjects of the discourses, the scene of action,
the incidents, and (with one exception) the miracles, all are different.

Now this will greatly facilitate the investigation of the question as to
whether any author had St. John before him when he wrote. There may be
some uncertainty with respect to the quotations from the Synoptics, as
to whether an early writer quotes one or other, or derives what he cites
from some earlier source, as for instance from one of St. Luke's [Greek:
polloi].

But it cannot be so with St. John. A quotation of, or reference to, any
words of any discourse of our Lord, or an account of any transaction as
reported by St. John, can be discerned in an instant. At least it can be
at once seen that it cannot have been derived from the Synoptics, or
from any supposed apocryphal or traditional sources from which the
Synoptics derived their information.

The special object of this Gospel is the identification of the
pre-existent nature of our Lord with the eternal Word, and following
upon this, His relation to His Father on the one side, and to mankind on
the other.

He is the only begotten of the Father, God being His own proper Father
[Greek: idios], and so He is equal to the Father in nature (John v. 18),
and yet, as being a Son, He is subordinate, so that He represents
Himself throughout as sent by the Father to do His will and speak His
words.

With reference to mankind He is, before His Incarnation, the "Light that
lighteth every man." After and through His Incarnation He is to man all
in all. He is even in death the object of their Faith. He is the
Mediator through whose very person God sends the Spirit. He is the Life,
the Light, the Living Water, the Spiritual Food.

Justin Martyr repeatedly reproduces in various forms of expression the
truth that Christ is the eternal "Word made flesh" and revealed as the
"Only-begotten Son of God," thus:--

"The first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word,
Who is also the Son, and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how
He took flesh and became man." (Apol. I. Ch. XXXII.)

Again:--

"I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father
of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner [Greek: idiôs],
Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the
Virgin." (Dial. ch. cv.)

Now, we have in these two passages four or five characteristic
expressions of St. John relating to our Lord, not to be found in any
other Scripture writer. I say "in any other," for I believe that not
only the Epistles of St. John, but also the Apocalypse, notwithstanding
certain differences in style, are to be ascribed to St. John.

We have the term "Word" united with "the Son," and with "Only begotten,"
and said to be "properly (propriè; [Greek: idiôs]) begotten;" a
reminiscence of John v. 18, the only place in the New Testament where
the adjective [Greek: idios] or its adverb [Greek: idiôs] is applied to
the relations of the Father and the Son, and we have this Word becoming
flesh and man.

Now Justin, in one of the places, writes to convince an heathen emperor;
and, in the other, an unbelieving Jew; and so in each case he reproduces
the sense of John i. 1 and 14, and not the exact words. It would have
been an absurdity for him to have quoted St. John exactly, for, in such
a case, he must have retained the words "we beheld his glory, the glory
as," which would have simply detracted from the force of the passage,
being unintelligible without some explanation.

Again, we have in the Dialogue (ch. lxi.) the words "The Word of Wisdom,
Who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things." Now here
there seems to be a reproduction of the old and very probably original
reading of John i. 18, [48:1] "The only begotten God who is in the bosom
of the Father." Certainly this reading of John i. 18 is the only place
where the idea of being begotten is associated with the term "God."

We next have to notice that Justin repeatedly uses the words "God" and
"Lord" in collocation as applied to Jesus Christ; not "the Lord God,"
the usual Old Testament collocation, but God and Lord, thus:

"For Christ is King and Priest and God and Lord," &c. (Dial. ch.
xxxiv.)

Again:--

"There is, and there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to
the Maker of all things." (Dial. lvi.)

Now the only Gospel in which these words are to be found together and
applied to Christ is that according to St. John, where he records the
confession of St. Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John xx. 28).

Again: St. John alone of the Evangelists speaks of our Lord as He that
cometh from above [Greek: ho anôthen erchomenos], as coming from heaven,
as "leaving the world and going to the Father" (John iii. 31; xvi. 28),
and Justin reproduces this in the words:--

"It is declared [by David in Prophecy,] that He would come forth
from the highest heavens, and again return to the same places, in
order that you may recognize Him as God coming forth from above and
man living among men." (Dial. ch. lxiv.)

Again: though St. John asserts by implication the equality in point of
nature of the Father and the Son (John v. 18), yet he also very
repeatedly records words of Christ which assert His subordination to the
Father. Nowhere in the Synoptics do we read such words as "I can of mine
own self do nothing." "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the
Father which hath sent me" (John v. 30): "My meat is to do the will of
Him that sent me, and to finish His work" (iv. 34; also John vi. 38): "I
have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a
commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (xii. 49)

Now Justin Martyr reproduces these intimations of the subordination of
the Son:--

"Who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever
the Maker of all things, above Whom there is no other God, wishes to
announce to them." (Dial. ch. lvi.)

Again:--

"I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He Who
made the world, above Whom there is no other God, has not wished Him
both to do and to engage Himself with." (Dial. lvi.)

Again:--

"Boasts not in accomplishing anything through His own will or
might." (Ch. ci.)

Let the reader clearly understand that I do not lay any stress
whatsoever on these passages taken by themselves or together; but taken
in connection with the intimation of the Word and Sonship asserted in
St. John, and reproduced by Justin, they are very significant indeed.

St. John asserts that Jesus is the Word and the Only Begotten--that He
is "Lord" and "God," and equal with the Father as being His Son (v. 18);
but, lest men conceive of the Word as an independent God, he asserts the
subordination of the Son as consisting, not in inferiority of nature,
but in submission of will.

Justin reproduces in the same terms the teaching of St. John respecting
the Logos--that the Logos was the Only Begotten, God-begotten, Lord and
God. And then, lest his adversaries should assume from this that Christ
was an independent God, he guards it by the assertion of the same
doctrine of subordination of will; neither the doctrine nor the
safeguard being expressly stated in the Synoptics, but contained in them
by that wondrous implication by which one part of Divine truth really
presupposes and involves all truth.

We have now to consider St. John's teaching respecting the relation of
the Logos to man. One aspect of this doctrine is peculiar to St. John,
and is as mysterious and striking a truth as we have in the whole range
of Christian dogma.

It is contained in certain words in the exordium of the Fourth Gospel:
"That [Word] was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world."

This passage embodies a truth which is unique in Scripture: that in the
Word was Life, that the Life was the Light of men, and that that Light
was (even before the Incarnation) the true Light which lighteth every
man.

This, I say, is a truth which is not, that I am aware of, to be found,
except by very remote implication, in the rest of Scripture. And yet it
is continually reproduced by Justin in a way which shows that he had
drunk it in, as it were, and he used it continually as the principle on
which to explain the vestiges of truth which existed among the heathen.

Thus:--

"We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we
have declared above that He is the Word of Whom every race of men
were partakers; and those who lived reasonably (or with the Logos,
[Greek: hoi meta logou biôsantes]) are Christians, even though they
have been thought Atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and
Heraclitus, and men like them." (Apol. I. ch. xlvi.)

Again:--

"No one trusted in Socrates so as to die for this doctrine, but in
Christ, Who was partially known even by Socrates (for He was and is
the Word Who is in every man)," &c. (Apol. II. ch. x.)

Again, in a noble passage:--

"For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the
spermatic Divine Word, [51:1] seeing what was related to it. But
they who contradict themselves in the more important points appear
not to have possessed the heavenly wisdom, and the knowledge which
cannot be spoken against. Whatever things were rightly said among
all men are the property of us Christians." (Apol. II. xiii.)

There cannot, then, be the smallest doubt but that Justin's mind was
permeated by a doctrine of the Logos exactly such as he would have
derived from the diligent study of the fourth Gospel. But may he not
have derived all this from Philo? No; because, if so, he would have
referred Trypho, a Jew, to Philo, his brother Jew, which he never does.
The speciality of St. John's teaching is not that he, like Plato or
Philo, elaborates a Logos doctrine, but that once for all, with the
authority of God, he identifies the Logos with the Divine Nature of our
Lord. No other Evangelist or sacred writer does this, and he does.

SECTION IX.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS FURTHER TESTIMONY TO ST. JOHN.

We now come to Justin's account of Christian Baptism, which runs thus:--

"I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to
God when we had been made new through Christ, lest, if we omit this,
we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as
are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and
undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and
to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that
are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by
us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in
which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the
Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.
For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those
who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is
manifest to all." (Apol. I. ch. lxi.)

Now, taking into consideration the fact that St. John is the only writer
who sets forth our Lord as connecting a birth with water [except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit]; that when our Lord does this it is
(according to St. John, and St. John only) following upon the assertion
that he must be born again, and that St. John alone puts into the mouth
of the objector the impossibility of a natural birth taking place twice,
which Justin notices; taking these things into account, it does seem to
me the most monstrous hardihood to deny that Justin was reproducing St.
John's account.

To urge trifling differences is absurd, for Justin, if he desired to
make himself understood, could not have quoted the passage verbatim, or
anything like it. For, if he had, he must have prefaced it with some
account of the interview with Nicodemus, and he would have to have
referred to another Gospel to show that our Lord alluded to baptism;
for, though our Lord mentions water, He does not here categorically
mention baptism. So, consequently, Justin would have to have said, "If
you refer to one of our Memoirs you will find certain words which lay
down the necessity of being born again, and seem to connect this birth
in some way with water, and if you look into another Memoir you will see
how this can be, for you will find a direction to baptize with water in
the name of the Godhead, and if you put these two passages together you
will be able to understand something of the nature of our dedication,
and of the way in which it is to be performed, and of the blessing which
we have reason to expect in it if we repent of our sins."

Well, instead of such an absurd and indirect way of proceeding, which
presupposes that Antoninus Pius was well acquainted with the Diatessaron,
he simply reproduces the substance of the doctrine of St. John, and
interweaves with it the words of institution as found in St. Matthew.
I shall afterwards advert to the hypothesis that this account was
taken from an apocryphal Gospel.

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who, in apparent allusion to the
devout and spiritual reception of the Inward Part of the Lord's Supper,
speaks of it as eating the Flesh of Christ, and drinking His Blood; the
Synoptics and St. Paul in I Cor. x. 11, always speaking of it as His
_Body_ and Blood. Now Justin, in describing the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, uses the language peculiar to St. John as well as that of the
Synoptics:--

"So likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by
the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by
transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus
Who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by
them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was
enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given
thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance of me. This is my body,'"
&c. (Apol. I. ch. lxvi.)

This, of course, would be a small matter itself, but, taken in
connection with the adoption of St. John's language in regard of the
other sacrament a very short time before, it is exceedingly significant.

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who records our Lord's reference
to the brazen serpent as typical of Himself lifted up upon the Cross.
Justin cites the same incident as typical of Christ's Death, and,
moreover, cites our Lord's language as it is recorded in St. John,
respecting His being lifted up that men might believe in Him and be
saved:--

"For by this, as I previously remarked, He proclaimed the mystery,
by which He declared that He would break the power of the serpent
which occasioned the transgression of Adam, and [would bring] to
them that believe on Him by this sign, i.e., Him Who was to be
crucified, salvation from the fangs of the serpent, which are wicked
deeds, idolatries, and other unrighteous acts. Unless the matter be
so understood, give me a reason why Moses set up the brazen serpent
for a sign, and bade those that were bitten gaze at it, and the
wounded were healed." (Dial. ch. xciv.)

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who records that the Baptist
"confessed, and denied not, but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.'"
Justin cites these very-words as said by the Baptist:--

"For when John remained (or sat) by the Jordan ... men supposed him
to be Christ, but he cried to them, 'I am not the Christ, but the
voice of one crying,'" &c. (Dial. ch. lxxxviii.)

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who puts into the mouth of our
Blessed Lord, when He was accused of breaking the Sabbath, the retort
that the Jews on the Sabbath Day circumcise a man ... that the law of
Moses should not be broken. (John vii. 22) And Justin also reproduces
this in his Dialogue:--

"For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the
sacrifices on the Sabbaths? or those to sin who are circumcised, or
do circumcise, on the Sabbaths; since He commands that on the eighth
day--even though it happen to be a Sabbath--those who are born shall
be always circumcised?" (Dial. ch. xxvii.)

Again, St. John represents our Lord, when similarly harassed by the
Jews, as appealing to the upholding of all things by God on the Sabbath
as well as on any other day, in the words, "My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work." (John v. 17.) And Justin very shortly after uses the same
argument:--

"Think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbath, since
God directs the government of the universe on this day, equally as
on all others; and the priests on other days, so on this, are
ordered to offer sacrifices." (Dial. ch. xxix.)

It is very singular that Justin, whilst knowing nothing of St. John,
should, on a subject like this, use two arguments peculiar to St. John,
and not to be found in disputes on the very same subject in the
Synoptics.

Again, St. John alone records that Jesus healed a man "blind from his
birth," and notices that the Jews themselves were impressed with the
greatness of the miracle. (John ix. 16, 32) Justin remarks, "In that we
say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind."
(Apol. I. ch. xxii.)

Again, St. John is the only Evangelist who makes our Lord to say, "Now I
tell you before it come, that when it is come to pass ye may believe."
(John xiii. 19; xiv. 29; xvi. 4) And Justin adopts and amplifies this
very sentiment with reference to the use of prophecy:--

"For things which were incredible, and seemed impossible with men,
these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to
pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no
unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction." (Apol. I. ch.
xxxiii.)

Again, St. John alone of the Evangelists records that our Lord used with
the unbelieving Jews the argument that they believed not Moses, for, had
they believed Moses, they would have believed Him, for Moses wrote of
Him. (John, v. 46, 47) And Justin reproduces in substance the same
argument:--

"For though ye have the means of understanding that this man is
Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not." (Dial.
xciii.)

Again, St. John is the only sacred writer who speaks of our Lord "giving
the living water," and causing that water to flow from men's hearts, and
Justin (somewhat inaccurately) reproduces the figure:--

"And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy
to die for the name of the Good Rock, which causes living water to
burst forth for the hearts of those who by him have loved the Father
of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water
of life." (Dial. ch. cxiv.)

Again, St. John alone records that Christ spake of Himself as the Light,
and Justin speaks of Him as "the only blameless and righteous Light sent
by God." (Dial. ch. xvii.)

Again, St. John alone speaks of our Lord as representing Himself to be
the true vine, and His people as the branches. Justin uses the same
figure with respect to the people or Church of God:--

"Just as if one should eat away the fruit-bearing parts of it vine,
it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and
fruitful; even so the same thing happens to us. For the vine planted
by God and Christ the Saviour is His People." (Dial. ch. cx.)

Again, St. John alone represents our Saviour as saying, "I have power to
lay [my life] down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received of my Father." (John x. 18) And Justin says of Christ
that, in fulfilment of a certain prophecy,--

"He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about
to rise again from the dead on the third day after the Crucifixion,
and this He has obtained from the Father." (Dial. ch. c.)

Some of these last instances which I have given are reminiscences rather
than reproductions; but like all other reminiscences they imply things
remembered, sometimes not perfectly correctly, and so not applied as
applied in the original; but they are all real reminiscences of words
and things to be found only in our fourth Gospel.

SECTION X.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS.--HIS TESTIMONY SUMMED UP.

From all this it is clear that Justin had not only seen and reverenced
St. John's Gospel, but that his mind was permeated with its peculiar
teaching.

I hesitate not to say that, if a man rejects the evidence above adduced,
he rejects it because on other grounds he is determined, cost what it
may, to discredit the Fourth Gospel.

Let us briefly recapitulate.

Justin reproduced the doctrine of the Logos, using the words of St.
John. He asserted the Divine and human natures of the Son of God in the
words of St. John, or in exactly similar words. He reproduced that
peculiar teaching of our Lord, to be found only in St. John, whereby we
are enabled to hold the true and essential Godhead of Christ without for
a moment holding that He is an independent God. He reproduced the
doctrine of the Logos being, even before His Incarnation, in _every_ man
as the "true light" to enlighten him.

He reproduces the doctrine of the Sacraments in terms to be found only
in the Fourth Gospel. He reproduces, or alludes to, arguments and types
and prophecies and historical events, only to be found in St. John's
Gospel.

It seems certain, then, that if Justin was acquainted with any one of
our four Gospels, that Gospel was the one according to St. John.

What answer, the reader will ask, does the author of "Supernatural
Religion" give to all this? Why, he simply ignores the greater part of
these references (we trust through ignorance of their existence), and
takes notice of some three or four, in which, to use the vulgar
expression, he picks holes, by drawing attention to discrepancies of
language or application, and dogmatically pronounces that Justin could
not have known the fourth Gospel.

Well, then, the reader will ask, from whom did Justin derive the
knowledge of doctrines and facts so closely resembling those contained
in St. John?

Again, we have reference to supposed older sources of information which
have perished. With respect to the Logos doctrine, the author of
"Supernatural Religion" asserts:--

"His [Justin's] doctrine of the Logos is precisely that of Philo,
and of writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, and there can
be no doubt, we think, that it was derived from them."
("Supernatural Religion," vol. ii. p. 297.)

It may be well here to remark that, strictly speaking, there is no Logos
_doctrine_ in St. John's Gospel,--by doctrine meaning "scientifically
expressed doctrine," drawn out, and expounded at length, as in Philo.
The Gospel commences with the assertion that the Logos, Whoever He be,
is God, and is the pre-existent Divine nature of Jesus; he does this
once and once only, and never recurs to it afterwards.

The next passage referred to is the assertion of the Baptist, "I am not
the Christ," and the conclusion of the author is that "There is every
reason to believe that he derived it from a particular Gospel, in all
probability the Gospel according to the Hebrews, different from ours."
(Vol. ii. p. 302.)

The last place noticed is Justin's reproduction of John iii. 3-5, in
connection with the institution of baptism. After discussing this at
some length, for the purpose of magnifying the differences and
minimizing the resemblances, his conclusion is:--

"As both the Clementines and Justin made use of the Gospel according
to Hebrews, the most competent critics have, with reason, adopted
the conclusion that the passage we are discussing was derived from
that Gospel; at any rate it cannot for a moment he maintained as a
quotation from our fourth Gospel, and it is of no value as evidence
for its existence." ("Supernatural Religion," vol. ii. p. 313.)

We have now tolerably full means of judging what a wonderful Gospel this
Gospel to the Hebrews must have been, and what a loss the Church has
sustained by its extinction.

Here was a Gospel which contained a harmony of the history, moral
teaching, and doctrine of all the four. As we have seen, it contained an
account of the miraculous Birth and Infancy, embodying in one narrative
the facts contained in the first and third Gospels. It contained a
narrative of the events preceding and attending our Lord's Death, far
fuller and more complete than that of any single Gospel in the Canon. It
contained a record of the teaching of Christ, similar to our present
Sermon on the Mount, embodying the teaching scattered up and down in all
parts of SS. Matthew and Luke, and in addition to all this it embodied
the very peculiar tradition, both in respect of doctrine and of history,
of the fourth Gospel.

How could it possibly have happened that a record of the highest value,
on account both of its fulness and extreme antiquity, should have
perished, and have been superseded by four later and utterly unauthentic
productions, one its junior by at least 120 years, and each one of these
deriving from it only a part of its teaching; the first three, for no
conceivable reason, rejecting all that peculiar doctrine now called
Johannean, and the fourth confining itself to reproducing this so-called
Johannean element and this alone? It is only necessary to state this to
show the utter absurdity of the author's hypothesis.

But the marvel is that a person assuming such airs of penetration and
research [63:1] should not have perceived that, if he has proved his
point, he has simply strengthened the evidence for the supernatural, for
he has proved the existence of a fifth Gospel, far older and fuller than
any we now possess, witnessing to the supernatural Birth, Life, Death,
and Resurrection of Jesus.

The author strives to undermine the evidence for the authenticity of our
present Gospels for an avowedly dogmatic purpose. He believes in the
dogma of the impossibility of the supernatural; he must, for this
purpose, discredit the witness of the four, and he would fain do this by
conjuring up the ghost of a defunct Gospel, a Gospel which turns out to
be far more emphatic in its testimony to the supernatural and the
dogmatic than any of the four existing ones, and so the author of this
pretentious book seems to have answered himself. His own witnesses prove
that from the first there has been but one account of Jesus of Nazareth.

SECTION XI.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON OUR LORD'S GODHEAD.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" has directed his attacks more
particularly against the authenticity of the Gospel according to
St. John. His desire to discredit this Gospel seems at times to arise
out of a deep personal dislike to the character of the disciple whom
Jesus loved. (Vol. ii. pp. 403-407, 427, 428, &c.)

On the author's principles, it is difficult to understand the reason for
such an attack on this particular Gospel. He is not an Arian or Socinian
(as the terms are commonly understood), who might desire to disparage
the testimony of this Gospel to the Pre-existence and Godhead of our
Lord. His attack is on the Supernatural generally, as witnessed to by
any one of the four Gospels; and it is allowed on all hands that the
three Synoptics were written long before the Johannean; and, besides
this, he has proved to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of
the Reviewers who so loudly applauded his work, that there existed a
Gospel long anterior to the Synoptics, which is more explicit in its
declarations of the Supernatural than all of them put together.

However, as he has made a lengthened and vigorous attempt to discredit
this Gospel especially, it may be well to show his extraordinary
misconceptions respecting the mere contents of the Fourth Gospel, and
the opinions of the Fathers (notably Justin Martyr) who seem to quote
from it, or to derive their doctrine from it.

The first question--and by far the most important one which we shall
have to meet--is this: Is the doctrine respecting the Person of Jesus
more fully developed in the pages of Justin Martyr, or in the Fourth
Gospel? We mean by the doctrine respecting the Person of Jesus, that He
is, with reference to His pre-existent state, the Logos and
Only-begotten Son of God; and that, as being such, He is to be
worshipped and honoured as Lord and God; and that, in order to be our
Mediator, and the Sacrifice for our sin, He took upon Him our nature.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" endeavours to trace the doctrine
of the Logos, as contained in Justin, to older sources than our present
Fourth Gospel, particularly to Philo and the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. The latter is much too impalpable to enable us to verify his
statements by it; but we shall have to show his misconceptions
respecting the connection of Justin's doctrine with the former. What we
have now to consider is the following statement:--

"It is certain, however, that, both Justin and Philo, unlike the
prelude to the Fourth Gospel (i. 1), place the Logos in a secondary
position to God the Father, another point indicating a less advanced
stage of the doctrine."

From this we must, of course, infer that the author of "Supernatural
Religion" considers that Justin does not state the essential Godhead of
the Second Person as distinctly and categorically as it is stated in the
Fourth Gospel. And as it is assumed by Rationalists that there was in
the early Church a constantly increasing development of the doctrine of
the true Godhead of our Lord, gradually superseding some earlier
doctrine of an Arian, or Humanitarian, or Sadducean type; therefore, the
more fully developed doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord in any book
proves that book to be of later origin than another book in which it is
not so fully developed.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" cannot deny that Justin ascribes
the names "Lord" and "God" and Pre-existence before all worlds to Jesus
as the Logos, but he fastens upon certain statements or inferences
respecting the subordination of the Son to the Father, and His acting
for His Father, or under Him, in the works of Creation and Redemption,
which Justin, as an orthodox believer who would abhor Tritheism, was
bound to make, and most ignorantly asserts that such statements are
contrary to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel.

I shall now set before the reader the statements of both St. John and
Justin respecting the Divine Nature of our Lord, so that he may judge
for himself which is the germ and which the development.

The Fourth Gospel once, and once only, sets forth the Godhead and
Pre-existence of the Logos, and this is in the exordium or prelude:--

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God."

The Fourth Gospel once, and once only, identifies this Word with the
pre-existent nature of Jesus, in the concluding words of the same
exordium:--

"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we behold His
Glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of
grace and truth."

Except in these two places (and, of course, I need not say that they are
all-important as containing by implication the whole truth of God
respecting Christ), there is no mention whatsoever of the "Word" in this
Gospel.

The Fourth Gospel gives to Jesus the name of God only in two places,
_i.e._ in the narrative of the second appearance of our Lord to His
apostles assembled together after His Resurrection, where Thomas is
related to have said to Him the words, "My Lord and my God;" and in the
words "The Word was God" taken in connection with "the Word was made
flesh." The indirect, but certain, proofs by implication that Jesus
fully shared with His Father the Divine Nature are numerous, as, for
instance, that He wields all the power of Godhead, in that "whatsoever
things [the Father] doeth these doeth the Son likewise"--that He is
equal in point of nature with the Father, because God is His own proper
Father ([Greek: idios])--that He raises from the dead whom He
wills--that He and the Father are One--that when Esaias saw the glory of
God in the temple he saw Christ's glory; and, because of all this, He is
the object of faith, even of the faith which saves.

But, as my purpose is not to show that either Justin or St. John hold
the Godhead of our Lord, but rather to compare the statements of the one
with the other; and, inasmuch as to cite the passages in which Justin
Martyr assumes that our Blessed Lord possesses all Divine attributes
would far exceed the limits which I have proposed to myself, I shall not
further cite the passages in St. John, which only _imply_ our Lord's
Godhead, but proceed to cite the _direct_ statements of Justin (or
rather some of them) on this head.

Whereas, then, St. John categorically asserts the Godhead of our Lord in
one, or, at the most, two places, Justin directly asserts it nearly
forty times. The following are noticeable:--

"And Trypho said, You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh
impossible thing; [namely] that God endured to be born and become
man. [69:1] If I undertook, said I, [Justin] to prove this by
doctrines or arguments of men, you should not bear with me. But if I
quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this
point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the
recognition of the mind and will of God." (Dial. ch. lxviii.)

Again:--

"This very Man Who was crucified is proved to have been set forth
expressly as God and Man, and as being crucified and as dying."
[69:2] (Dial. ch. lxxi.)

Again, Justin accuses the Jews of having mutilated the Prophetical
Scriptures, by having cut out of them the following prophecy respecting
our Lord's descent into hell:--

"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the
graves; and He descended to preach to them His own Salvation."
(Dial. ch. lxxii.)

Again:--

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and
Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born, and first made subject
to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with
glory." (Dial. xxxiv.)

Again:--

"Now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I
wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God, and
Lord of Hosts, and Jacob in parable, by the Holy Spirit." (Dial. ch.
xxxvi.)

Again, Justin makes Trypho to say:--

"When you [Justin] say that this Christ existed as God before the
ages, then that He submitted to be born, and become man, yet that He
is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely
paradoxical, but also foolish. And I replied to this, I know that
the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of
your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the
[requirements] of God." (Dial. ch. xlviii.)

Again, Justin makes Trypho demand:--

"Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God
besides the Maker of all things; [70:1] and then you will show
[further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.

"I replied, Give me permission first of all to quote certain passages
from the Prophecy of Isaiah which refer to the office of forerunner
discharged by John the Baptist." (Dial. I.)

Lastly:--

"Now, assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses,
this same One alone, Who is called an Angel, and Who is God,
appeared to and communed with Moses.... Even so here, the
Scriptures, in announcing that the angel of the Lord appeared unto
Moses, and in afterwards declaring Him to be Lord and God, speaks of
the same One, Whom it declares by the many testimonies already
quoted to be minister to God, Who is above the world, above Whom
there is no other." (Dial. ch. lx.)

In order not to weary the reader, I give the remainder in a note. [71:1]

The reader will observe that the assertions of Justin, which I have
given, are the strongest that could be made by any one who holds the
Godhead of Christ, and yet holds that that Godhead is not an independent
Divine Existence, but derived from the Father Who begat Him, and, by
begetting, fully communicated to His Son or Offspring His own Godhead.

From these extracts the reader will be able to judge for himself whether
the doctrine of St. John is the expansion or development of that of
Justin, or the doctrine of Justin the development of that of St. John.

He will also be able to judge of the absurdity of supposing that after
the time of Justin the cause of Orthodoxy demanded the forgery of a
Gospel, in order to set forth more fully the Divine Glory of the
Redeemer.

SECTION XII.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS.

We have now to compare Justin's doctrine of the Logos with that of the
Fourth Gospel.

The doctrine or dogma of the Logos is declared in the Fourth Gospel in a
short paragraph of fourteen verses, a part of which is occupied with the
mission of the Baptist.

The doctrine, as I have said before, is rather oracular enunciation than
doctrine; _i.e._ it is not doctrine elaborately drawn out and explained
and guarded, but simply laid down as by the authority of Almighty God.

It is contained in four or five direct statements:--

"In the beginning was the Logos."

In the beginning--that is, before all created things--when there was no
finite existence by which time could be measured; in that fathomless
abyss of duration when there was God only:--

"The Logos was with God."

Though numerically distinct from Him, [73:1] He was so "by" or "with"
Him as to be His fellow:--

"The Logos was God."

That is, though numerically distinct, He partook of the same Divine
Nature:

"All Things were made by Him."

Because, partaking fully of the nature, He partook fully of the power of
God, and so of His creating power.

"That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into
the world."

"The Logos was made flesh."

He was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

The first enunciation, then, of St. John is that--

"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD."

In Justin we read:--

"His Son, Who alone is properly called Son, the Word, Who also was
with Him, and was begotten before the works." (Apol. ii. ch. vi.)

Again:--

"When you [Justin] say that this Christ existed as God before the
ages." (Dial. ch. xlviii.)

Again:--

"God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [74:1] [who was] a
certain rational Power from Himself, Who is called by the Holy
Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again
an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos." (Dial. ch. lxi.)

Now it is to be here remarked, that though the Logos is continually
declared to be "begotten of," "derived from," "an offspring of" the
Father, yet in no case is He declared to be "created" or "made,"
anticipating the declaration which we confess in our Creed, "The Son is
of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten."

St. John proceeds:--

"THE WORD WAS WITH GOD."

In Justin we read:--

"This Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was
with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed
with Him." (Dial. ch. lxii.)

Again, a little before, in the same chapter:--

"From which we can indisputably learn that God conversed with some
One who was numerically distinct from Himself."

Again:--

"The Word, Who also was with Him." (Apol. ii. ch. vi.)

Again, Trypho says:--

"You maintain Him to be pre-existent God." (Ch. lxxxvii.)

Again:--

"I asserted that this Power was begotten from the Father, by His
Power and Will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the
Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are
not the same after as before they were divided; and for the sake of
example I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see
to be distinct from it," &c. (Dial. cxxviii.)

"THE WORD WAS GOD."

Justin writes:--

"The Word of Wisdom, Who is Himself this God begotten of the Father
of all things" (Dial. ch. lxi.) (See previous page.)

Again:--

"They who affirm that the Son is the Father are proved neither to
have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father
of the Universe has a Son; Who also, being the first-begotten Word
of God, is even God." (Apol. I. ch. lxiii.)

Again:--

"It must be admitted absolutely that some other One is called Lord
by the Holy Spirit besides Him Who is considered Maker of all
things." (Dial. ch. lvi.)

But it is useless to multiply quotations, seeing that all those in pages
69-71 are the echoes of this declaration of the Fourth Evangelist.

St. John writes:--

"ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM."

And Justin writes:--

"Knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word." (Apol.
I. ch. lxiv.)

Again:--

"When at first He created and arranged all things by Him." (Apol.
II. ch. vi.)

Again St. John writes:--

"THAT (_i.e._ THE WORD) WAS THE TRUE LIGHT THAT LIGHTETH EVERY MAN
THAT COMETH INTO THE WORLD."

I have given above (p. 51) sufficient illustrations from Justin of this
truth. I again draw attention to:--

"He is the Word of Whom every race of men were partakers." (Apol. I.
ch. xlvi.)

Again:--

"He was and is the Word Who is in every man." (Apol. II. ch. x.)
"For whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they
elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But
since they did not know the whole of the Word which is Christ, they
often contradicted themselves." [77:1] (Apol. II. ch. x.)

Again:--

"These men who believe in Him, in whom [Greek: en hois] abideth the
seed of God, the Word." (Apol. I. ch. xxxii.)

Again:--

"I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be
found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different
from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects
similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and
historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he
had of the spermatic Word." [77:2] (Apol. II. ch. xiii.)

Lastly, St. John writes:--

"THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH."

And Justin writes:--

"The Logos Himself, Who took shape and became man and was called
Jesus Christ." (Apol. II. ch. v.)

Again:--

"The Word, Who is also the Son; and of Him we will in what follows
relate how He took flesh, and became Man." (Apol. II. ch. xxxii.)

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son Who has been begotten by God,
being His Word, and First-begotten, and Power, and becoming man
according to His Will He taught us these things," &c. (Apol. I. ch.
xxiii.)

Again:--

"In order that you may recognize Him as God coming forth from above,
and Man living among men." (Dial. lxiv.)

Again:--

"He was the Only-begotten of the Father of all things, being
begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having
afterwards become Man through the Virgin." (Dial. ch. cv.)

After considering the above extracts, the reader will be able to judge
of the truth of some assertions of the author of "Supernatural
Religion," as, for instance:--

"We are, in fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to
other sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the Fourth Gospel,
with which his tone and terminology in no way agree." (Vol. ii. p.
293)

Again:--

"We must see that Justin's terminology, as well as his views of the
Word become Man, is thoroughly different from that Gospel." (Vol.
ii. p. 296)

Also:--

"It must be apparent to every one who seriously examines the
subject, that Justin's terminology is thoroughly different from, and
in spirit opposed to, that of the Fourth Gospel, and in fact that
the peculiarities of the Gospel are not found in Justin's writings
at all." (!!) (P. 297.) [78:1]

On the contrary, we assert that every Divine Truth respecting the Logos,
which appears in the germ in St. John, is expanded in Justin. St. John's
short and pithy sentences are the text, and Justin's remarks are the
exposition of that text, and of nothing less or more.

So far from Justin's doctrine being contrary to the spirit of St. John's,
Justin, whilst deviating somewhat from the strict letter, seizes and
reproduces the very spirit. I will give in the next section two or three
remarkable instances of this; which instances, strange to say, the
author of "Supernatural Religion" quotes for the purpose of showing the
absolute divergence and opposition between the two writers.

SECTION XIII.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON OUR LORD AS KING, PRIEST, AND ANGEL.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" quotes the passage in Dial.
xxxiv.:--

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and
Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born," &c.

And he remarks, with what I cannot but characterize as astonishing
effrontery, or (to use his own language with respect to Tischendorf) "an
assurance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than an
unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers." (Vol. ii.
p. 56.)

"Now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout
Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the spirit of the Fourth
Gospel." (Vol. ii. p. 288.)

He first of all takes the title "King," and arbitrarily and unwarrantably
restricts Justin's derivation of it to the seventy-second Psalm,
apparently being ignorant of the fact that St. John, in his very
first chapter, records that Christ was addressed by Nathanael as "King
of Israel"--that the Fourth Gospel alone describes how the crowd on His
entry into Jerusalem cried, "Osanna, Blessed be the King of Israel, Who
cometh in the name of the Lord" (xii. 13)--that this Gospel more fully
than any other records how Pilate questioned our Lord respecting His
Kingship, and recognized Him as King, "Behold your King;" and that those
who mocked our Lord are recorded by St. John to have mocked Him as the
"King of Israel."

So that this term King, so far from being contrary to the spirit of the
Fourth Gospel, is not even contrary to its letter.

But this, gross though it seems, is to my mind as nothing to two other
assertions founded on this passage of Justin:--

"If we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest, which is quite
foreign to the Fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by Justin."

Now, it is quite true that the title "priest" is not given to our Lord
in St. John, just as it is not given to Him in any one of the three
Synoptics, or indeed in any book of the New Testament, except the
Epistle to the Hebrews: yet, notwithstanding this, of all the books of
the New Testament, this Gospel is the one which sets forth the reality
of Christ's Priesthood. For what is the distinguishing function of the
Priesthood? Is it not Mediation and Intercession, and the Fourth Gospel
more than all sets forth Christ as Mediator and Intercessor? As Mediator
when He says so absolutely: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me;"
"As my Father sent me so send I you; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them."

Again, the idea of Priesthood is actually inherent in the figure of the
good Shepherd "Who giveth His Life for the sheep;" for how does He give
His life?--not in the way of physical defence against enemies, as an
earthly "good shepherd" might do, but in the way of atoning Sacrifice,
as the author of "Supernatural Religion" truly asserts, where he writes
(vol. ii. p. 352):--

"The representation of Jesus as the Lamb of God taking away the sins
of the world is the very basis of the Fourth Gospel."

Again, in the same page:--

"He died for the sin of the world, and is the object of faith, by
which alone forgiveness and justification before God can be
secured."

Again, with reference to His Intercession, we have not only the truth
set forth in such expressions as "I will pray the Father," but we have
the actual exercise of the great act of priestly Intercession, as
recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Fourth Gospel. If we look to
words only (which the author of "Supernatural Religion" too often does),
then, of course, we allow that the epithet "priest" is quite foreign not
only to the Fourth Gospel, but to every other book of the New Testament,
except the Epistle to the Hebrews; but if we look to the things implied
in the idea of Priesthood, such as Mediation and Intercession, in fact
Intervention between God and Man, then we find that the whole New
Testament is pervaded with the idea, and it culminates in the Fourth
Gospel.

The next assertion of the author of "Supernatural Religion" on the same
passage betrays still more ignorance of the contents of St. John's
Gospel, and a far greater eagerness to fasten on a seeming omission of
the letter, and to ignore a pervadence of the spirit. He asserts:--

"It is scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of
the Logos as Angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed to, the
spirit of the Fourth Gospel." (Vol. ii. p. 293)

Now just as in the former case we had to ask, "What is the
characteristic of the priest?" so in order to answer this we have only
to ask, "What is the characteristic of the angel?"

An angel is simply "one sent." Such is the meaning of the word both in
the Old and New Testament. The Hebrew word [Hebrew: mlakh] is applied
indifferently to a messenger sent by man (see Job i. 14; 1 Sam. xi. 3; 2
Sam. xi. 19-20), and to God's messengers the Holy Angels, that is, the
Holy Messengers, the Holy ones sent. And similarly, in the New
Testament, the word [Greek: angelos] is applied to human messengers in
Luke vii. 24, [Greek: apelthontôn de tôn angelôn Iôannou], also in Luke
ix. 52, and James ii. 25. That the characteristic of the angel is to be
"sent" is implied in such common phrases as, "The Lord _sent_ His
Angel," "I will _send_ mine angel," "Are they not all ministering
spirits _sent_ forth to minister?" &c.

Now one of the characteristic expressions of the Fourth Gospel--we might
almost have said _the_ characteristic expression--respecting Jesus, is
that He is "sent." To use the noun instead of the verb, He is God's
special messenger, His [Greek: angelos], sent by Him to declare and to
do His will: but this does not imply that He has, or has assumed, the
nature of an angel; just as the application of the same word [Greek:
angelos] to mere human messengers in no way implies that they have any
other nature than human nature. Just as men sent their fellow-men as
their [Greek: angeloi], so God sends One Who, according to Justin, fully
partakes of His Nature, to be His [Greek: angelos].

This sending of our Lord on the part of His Father is one of the chief
characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and the reader, if he cannot
examine this Gospel for himself, comparing it with the others, has only
to turn to any concordance, Greek or English, to satisfy himself
respecting this matter.

Jesus Christ is said to be "sent of God," _i.e._ to be His [Greek:
angelos], only once in St. Matthew's Gospel (Matthew x. 40: "He that
receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me"), only once in St. Mark (ix.
37), only twice in St. Luke (ix. 48; xx. 13), but in the Fourth Gospel
He is said to be sent of God about forty times. [84:1] In one discourse
alone, that in John vi., Jesus asserts no less than six times that He is
sent of God, or that God sent Him; so that the dictum, "This
representation of the Logos as angel is not only foreign to, but opposed
to, the spirit of the Fourth Gospel," is absolutely contrary to the
truth.

SECTION XIV.

THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" asserts:--

"The Fourth Gospel proclaims the doctrine of an hypostatic Trinity
in a more advanced form than any other writing of the New
Testament." [85:1]

This is hardly true if we consider what is meant by the proclamation of
the doctrine of a Trinity.

Such a doctrine can be set forth by inference, or it can be distinctly
and broadly stated, as it is, for instance, in the First Article of the
Church of England, or in the Creed of St. Athanasius.

The doctrine of the Trinity is set forth by implication in every place
in Scripture where the attributes or works of God are ascribed to two
other Persons besides The Father. But it is still more directly set
forth in those places where the Three Persons are mentioned together
as acting conjointly in some Divine Work, or receiving conjointly
some divine honour. In this sense the most explicit declarations of
the doctrine of the Trinity are the Baptismal formula at the end of
St. Matthew's Gospel, and the "grace," as it is called, at the end of
St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

St. John, by asserting in different places the Godhead of the Word, and
the Divine Works of the Holy Ghost, implicitly proves the doctrine of
the Trinity, but, as far as I can remember, he but twice mentions the
Three adorable Persons together: Once in the words, "I will pray the
Father and He shall give you another Comforter." And again, "But the
Paraclete, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send in My
name, He shall teach you all things."

Now, in respect of the explicit declaration of the doctrine of the
Trinity, the statements of Justin are the necessary [86:1] developments
not only of St. John's statements, but of those of the rest of the New
Testament writers.

I have given two passages in page 10.

One of these is in the First Apology, and reads thus:--

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, Who also was born for
this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, Procurator of
Judea in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably
worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God
Himself, and holding Him in the Second place, and the Prophetic
Spirit in the Third, we will prove." (Apol. I. ch. xiii.)

Again, he endeavours to show that Plato held the doctrine of a Trinity.
He is proving that Plato had read the books of Moses:--

"And, as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as
we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, 'that the Spirit of
God moved over the waters.' For he gives the second place to the
Logos which is with God, who he (Plato) said, was placed crosswise
in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to
be borne upon the water, saying, 'and the third around the third.'"
(Apol. I. ch. lx.)

Now unquestionably, so far as expression of doctrine is concerned, these
passages from Justin are the developments of the Johannean statements.
The statements in St. John contain, in germ, the whole of what Justin
develops; but it is absurd to assert that, after Justin had written the
above, it was necessary, in order to bolster up a later, and
consequently, in the eyes of Rationalists, a mere human development, to
forge a now Gospel, containing nothing like so explicit a declaration of
the Trinity as we find in writings which are supposed to precede it, and
weighting its doctrinal statements with a large amount of historical
matter very difficult, in many cases, to reconcile perfectly with the
history in the older Synoptics.

SECTION XV.

JUSTIN AND ST. JOHN ON THE INCARNATION.

Two further matters, bearing upon the relations of the doctrine of
Justin to that of St. John, must now be considered. The Author of
"Supernatural Religion" asserts that the doctrine of Justin respecting
the Incarnation of the Word is essentially different from that of St.
John:--

"It must be borne in mind that the terminology of John i. 14, 'And
the Word became flesh ([Greek: sarx egeneto]) is different from that
of Justin, who uses the word [Greek: sarkopoiêtheis]." (Vol. ii. p.
276.)

Again, with reference to the word [Greek: monogenês], he writes:--

"The phrase in Justin is quite different from that in the Fourth
Gospel, i. 14, 'And the Word became flesh' ([Greek: sarx egeneto])
and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the
Only-begotten from the Father' ([Greek: hôs monogenous para patros],
&c.) In Justin he is 'the Only-begotten of the Father of all'
([Greek: monogenês tô Patri tôn holôn)], 'and He became man'
([Greek: anthrôpos genomenos]) 'through the Virgin,' and Justin
never once employs the peculiar terminology of the Fourth Gospel,
[Greek: sarx egeneto], in any part of his writings." (Vol. ii. p.
280.)

Again:--

"He [Justin] is, in fact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of
the Logos doctrine and its earlier enunciation under the symbol of
Wisdom, and his knowledge of it is clearly independent of, and
antecedent to, the statements of the Fourth Gospel." (Vol. ii. p.
284)

This passage is important. I think we cannot be wrong in deducing from
it that the Author of "Supernatural Religion" considers that the Gospel
of St. John was published subsequently to the time of Justin Martyr,
that is, some time after A.D. 160 or 165.

Again:--

"The peculiarity of his terminology in all these passages [all which
I have given above in pages 73-78], so markedly different, and even
opposed to that of the Fourth Gospel, will naturally strike the
reader." (Vol. ii. p. 286.)

Again, and lastly:--

"We must see that Justin's terminology, as well as his views of the
Word become man, is thoroughly different from that Gospel. We have
remarked that, although the passages are innumerable in which Justin
speaks of the Word having become man through the Virgin, he never
once throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expression of
the Fourth Gospel: 'The word became flesh' ([Greek: ho logos sarx
egeneto]). On the few occasions on which he speaks of the Word
having been _made_ flesh, he uses the term, [Greek: sarkopoiêtheis.]
In one instance he has [Greek: sarka echein], and speaking of the
Eucharist, Justin once explains that it is in memory of Christ being
made _body_, [Greek: sômatopoiêsasthai]. Justin's most common
phrase, however, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is that
the Logos submitted to be born, and become man [Greek: gennêthênai
anthrôpon genomenon hypemeinen] by a Virgin, or he uses variously
the expressions: [Greek: anthrôpos gegone, anthrôpos genomenos,
genesthai anthrôpon.]" (Vol. ii. p. 296.)

Here, then, we have the differences specified by which the Author of
"Supernatural Religion" thinks that he is justified in describing the
terminology and views of Justin respecting the Incarnation as "markedly
different and even opposed to," and as "thoroughly different from,"
those of the Fourth Gospel.

So that, because Justin, instead of embodying the sentence, [Greek: ho
logos sarx egeneto], substitutes for it the participle, [Greek:
sarkopoiêtheis], or the phrase, [Greek: sarka echein], or the
infinitive, [Greek: sômatopoiêsasthai], or the expression, [Greek:
anthrôpos gegone] he holds views thoroughly different from those of
St. John respecting the most momentous of Christian truths.

This is a fair specimen of the utterly reckless assertions in which this
author indulges respecting the foundation truth of Christianity.

If such terms, implying such divergences, can be applied to these
statements of Justin's _belief_ in the Incarnation, what words of human
language could be got to express his flat denial of the truth held in
common by him and by St. John, if he had been an unbeliever? If Justin,
with most other persons, considers that being "in the flesh" is the
characteristic difference between men and spirits such as the angels,
and expresses himself accordingly by saying that the Word "became man,"
what sense is there in saying that he "is opposed to the spirit of the
Fourth Gospel," in which we have the Word not only as the "Son of Man,"
but possessing all the sinless weaknesses of human nature, so that He is
weary, and weeps, and groans, and is troubled in spirit?

And now we will make, if the reader will allow, a supposition analogous
to some which the author of "Supernatural Religion" has made in pages
360 and following of his first volume. We will suppose that all the
ecclesiastical literature, inspired and uninspired, previous to the
Council of Nice, had been blotted out utterly, and the Four Gospels
alone preserved. And we will suppose some critic taking upon himself to
argue that the Gospel of St. John was written after the Nicene Creed. On
the principles and mode of argument of the author of "Supernatural
Religion," he would actually be able to prove his absurdity, for he
would be able to allege that the doctrine and terminology of the Fathers
of the first General Council was "opposed to" that of the Fourth Gospel;
and so they could not possibly have acknowledged its authority if they
had even "seen" it. For he (the critic) would allege that the words of
St. John respecting the Incarnation are not adopted by the Creed which
the Nicene Fathers put forth; instead of inserting into the Creed the
words [Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto], which, the critic would urge, they
_must have done_ if they would successfully oppose foes who appealed to
the letter of Scripture, they used other terms, as the participles
[Greek: sarkôthenta] and [Greek: enanthrôpêsanta]. [91:1] Again, the
supposed critic would urge, they applied to our Lord the phrase [Greek:
gennêthenta pro pantôn tôn aiônôn], a phrase "so markedly different and
indeed opposed to that of the Fourth Gospel," as the author of
"Supernatural Religion" urges with respect to [Greek: gennêma pro pantôn
tôn poiêmaton], and [Greek: apo tou Patros tôn holôn gennêtheis.] Again,
the critic would urge that instead of calling the Son "God" absolutely,
as in the sentence "the Word was God," they confess Him only as [Greek:
Theos ek Theou], and this because He is [Greek: gennêtheis], and so he
would say, with the author of "Supernatural Religion," "This is a
totally different view from that of the Fourth Gospel, which in so
emphatic a manner enunciates the doctrine, 'In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word;'" and so our
supposed critic will exclaim, "See what abundant proof that these
Fathers had 'never even seen' the Fourth Gospel;" and according to all
rules of Rationalistic criticism they had not, or, at least, they
thought nothing of its authenticity; whilst all the time this same
Gospel was open before them, and they devoutly reverenced every word as
the word of the Holy Ghost, and would have summarily anathematized any
one who had expressed the smallest doubt respecting its plenary
Inspiration.

SECTION XVI.

JUSTIN AND ST. JOHN ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON.

The second matter connected with the relations of the doctrine of Justin
Martyr to that of St. John, is the subordination of the Son to the
Father.

I have already noticed this truth (page 49), but, owing to its
importance it may be well to devote to it a few further remarks. The
author of "Supernatural Religion" does not seem to realize that in
perfect Sonship two things are inherent, viz., absolute sameness (and
therefore equality) of nature with the Father, and perfect subordination
in the submission of His will to that of the Father.

He consequently asserts:--

"It is certain, however, that both Justin and Philo, unlike the
prelude to the Fourth Gospel, place the Logos in a secondary
position to God the Father, another point indicating a less advanced
stage of the doctrine. Both Justin and Philo apply the term [Greek:
theos] to the Logos without the article. Justin distinctly says,
that Christians worship Jesus Christ as the Son of the True God,
holding Him in the Second Place [Greek: en deutera chôra echontes],
and this secondary position is systematically defined through
Justin's writings in a very decided way, as it is in the works of
Philo, by the contrast of the begotten Logos with the unbegotten
God. Justin speaks of the Word as the 'first born of the unbegotten
God' ([Greek: prôtotokos tô agennêtô Theô]), and the distinctive
appellation of the 'unbegotten God,' applied to the Father, is most
common in all his writings." (Vol. ii. p. 291)

Now, when Justin speaks of holding Christ "in the Second Place," he does
no more nor less than any Trinitarian Christian of the present day, when
such an one speaks of the Son as the _Second_ Person of the Trinity, and
as the only begotten Son and the Word of the Father.

When we speak of Him as being the Second Person, we necessarily rank Him
in the second place in point of numerical order. When we speak of Him as
being the Son, we naturally place Him as, in the order of conception,
second to, or after, Him that begat Him; [94:1] and, when we speak of
Him as the Word, we also place Him in order of conception as after Him
Who utters or gives forth the Word.

Justin says no more than this in any expression which he uses.

When he speaks of the Father as the unbegotten God, and the Son as the
Begotten God, he does no more than the most uncompromising believer in
the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity in the present day does, when,
in the words of the Creed of St. Athanasius, that believer confesses
that

"The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

"The Son is of the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but
begotten."

But we have not now so much to do with the orthodoxy of Justin as with
the question as to whether his doctrine is anterior to St. John's, as
being less decided in its assertions of our Lord's equality.

Now there are no words in Justin on the side of our Lord's subordination
at all equal to the words of Christ as given in St. John, "My Father is
greater than I."

The Gospel of St. John is pervaded by two great truths which underlie
every part, and are the necessary complements of one another; these are,
the perfect equality or identity of the nature of the Son with that of
the Father, because He is the true begotten Son of His Father; and the
perfect submission of the Will of the Son to that of the Father because
He is His Father.

The former appears in such assertions as "The Word was with God," "The
Word was God," "My Lord and My God," "I and the Father are one," "He
that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," "The glory which I had with
Thee before the world was," "All things that the Father hath are mine,"
&c.

The latter is inherent in the idea of perfect Sonship, and is asserted
in such statements as

God "gave His only begotten Son" (iii. 16).

"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His
hands" (iii. 35).

"The Son can do nothing of Himself" (v. 19).

"The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself
doeth" (v. 20).

The Father hath "given to the Son to have life in Himself" (v. 26).

The Father "hath given Him authority to execute judgment also" (v.
27).

"I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father" (v. 30).

"The works which the Father hath given me to finish" (v. 36).

"I am come in my Father's name" (v. 43).

"Him [the Son of Man] hath God the Father sealed" (vi. 27).

"I live by the Father" (v. 57).

"My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me" (vii. 16).

"He that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true" (vii.
18).

"I am from Him, and He hath sent me" (vii. 29).

"I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak
these things" (viii. 28).

"Neither came I of myself, but He sent me" (viii. 42).

"I have power to take it [my life] again; this commandment have I
received of my Father" (x. 18).

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all" (x. 29).

"I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love" (xv.
10).

I have read Justin carefully for the purpose of marking every expression
in his writings bearing upon the relations of the Son to the Father, and
I find none so strongly expressing subordination as these, and the
declarations of this kind in the works of Justin are nothing like so
numerous as they are in the short Gospel of St. John.

The reader who knows anything about the history of Christian doctrine
will see at a glance how impossible it would have been for a Gospel
ascribing these expressions to Jesus to have been received by the
Christian Church long before Justin's time, except that Gospel had been
fully authenticated as the work of the last surviving Apostle.

SECTION XVII.

JUSTIN AND PHILO.

The writer of "Supernatural Religion" asserts that Justin derived his
Logos doctrine from Philo, and also that his doctrine was identical with
that of Philo and opposed to that of St. John.

But respecting this assertion two questions may be asked.

From whom did Philo derive _his_ doctrine of the Logos? and

From whom did Justin derive his identification of the Logos with Jesus?

The Christian, all whose conceptions of salvation rest ultimately upon
the truth that "The Word was God," believes (if, that is, he has any
knowledge of the history of human thought), that God prepared men for
the reception of so momentous a truth long before that truth was fully
revealed. He believes that God prepared the Gentiles for the reception
of this truth by familiarizing them with some idea of the Logos through
the speculations of Plato; and he also believes that God prepared His
chosen people for receiving the same truth by such means as the
personification of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs, and in the Apocryphal
moral books, and, above all, by the identification of the active
presence and power of God with the Meymera or Word, as set forth in the
Chaldee paraphrases.

Both these lines of thought seem to have coalesced and to have reached
their full development (so far as they could, at least, apart from
Christianity) in Alexandrian Judaism, which is principally known to us
in the pages of Philo; but how much of Philo's own speculation is
contained in the extracts from his writings given by the author of
"Supernatural Religion" it is impossible to say, as we know very little
of the Alexandrian Jewish literature except from him. He seems, however,
to write as if what he enunciated was commonly known and accepted by
those for whom he wrote.

There are two reasons which make me think that Justin, if he derived any
part of his Logos doctrines from Alexandrian sources (which I much
doubt), derived them from writings or traditions to which Philo, equally
with himself, was indebted.

One is that, in his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, he never mentions
Philo, whose name would have been a tower of strength to him in
disputing with a Jew, and convincing him that there might be another
Person Who might be rightly called God besides the Father.

Surely if Justin had known that Philo had spoken of God

"Appointing His true Logos, his first begotten Son, to have the care
of this sacred flock as the substitute of the great King" (quoted in
p. 274);

and that--

"The most ancient Word is the image of God" (p. 274);

and that

"The Word is the image of God by which the whole world was created"
(p. 275);

surely, I say, he would have used the name of one who had been in his
day such a champion of the Jewish people, and had suffered such insults
from Caligula on their account. [100:1]

Nothing seems more appropriate for the conversion of Trypho than many of
the extracts from Philo given by the author of "Supernatural Religion."
Herein, too, in this matter of Philo and Justin, the author of
"Supernatural Religion" betrays his surprising inconsistency and refutes
himself. He desires it to be inferred that Justin need not have
seen--probably had not seen, even one of our present Gospels, because he
does not name the authors, though there is abundant reason why the names
of four authors of the Memoirs should not be paraded before unbelievers
as suggesting differences in the testimony; whereas it would have been
the greatest assistance to him in his argument with Trypho to have named
Philo; and he does not. We would not infer from this, as the author of
"Supernatural Religion" does most absurdly in parallel cases, that
Justin "knew nothing" of Philo; had not even seen his books, and need
not have heard of him; but we must gather from it that Justin did not
associate the name of Philo with the Logos doctrine in its most advanced
stage of development. Many other facts tend to show that Justin made
little or no use of Philo. In the extracts given by the author of
"Supernatural Religion" from Philo, all culled out to serve his purpose,
the reader will notice many words and phrases "foreign" to Justin; for
instance, [Greek: deuteros Theos, organon de Logon Theou, di' hou sympas
ho kosmos edêmiourgeito]. More particularly the reader will notice that
such adjectives as [Greek: orthos, hieros (hierôtatos)] and [Greek:
presbys (presbytatos)] are applied to the Word in the short extracts
from Philo given by the author of "Supernatural Religion," which are
never applied to the Second Person of the Trinity in Justin. In fact,
though there are some slight resemblances, the terminology of Philo is,
to use the words of "Supernatural Religion," "totally different from"
and "opposed to" that of Justin, and the more closely it is examined,
the more clearly it will be seen that Justin cannot have derived his
Logos doctrine from Philo.

The other question is, "from whom did Justin derive his identification
of the Logos with Jesus?"

Not from Philo, certainly. We have shown above how St. John lays down
with authority the identity of the Logos with the pre-existent Divine
Nature of Jesus, not in long, elaborate, carefully reasoned
philosophical dissertation, but in four short, clear, decisive
enunciations. "In the beginning was the Word"--"The Word was with
God"--"The Word was God"--"The Word was made flesh."

We have seen how these were the manifest germs of Justin's teaching.
Now, if at the time when Justin wrote the Fourth Gospel, as we shall
shortly prove, must have been in use in the Church in every part of the
world, why should Justin be supposed to derive from Philo a truth which
he, being a Jew, would repudiate? Justin himself most certainly was not
the first to identify the Logos with Jesus. The identification was
asserted long before in the Apocalypse, which the author of
"Supernatural Religion" shows to have been written about A.D. 70, or so.
In fact, he ascertains its date to "a few weeks." Supposing, then, that
the Apocalypse was anterior to St. John, on whose lines, so to speak,
does Justin develope the Logos doctrine? Most assuredly not on Philo's
lines (for his whole terminology essentially differs from that of the
Alexandrian), but on the lines of the fourth Gospel, and on no other.

Let the reader turn to some extracts which the author of "Supernatural
Religion" gives out of Philo. In p. 265, he gives some very striking
passages indeed, in which Philo speaks of the Logos as the Bread from
heaven:--

"He is 'the substitute ([Greek: hyparchos]) of God,' 'the heavenly
incorruptible food of the soul,' 'the bread from heaven.' In one
place he says, 'and they who inquire what nourishes the soul ...
learnt at last that it is the Word of God, and the Divine Reason'
... This is the heavenly nourishment to which the Holy Scripture
refers ... saying, 'Lo I rain upon you bread ([Greek: artos]) from
heaven' (Exod. xvi. 4). 'This is the bread ([Greek: artos]) which
the Lord has given them to eat.'" (Exod. xvi. 15)

And again:--

"For the one indeed raises his eyes to the sky, perceiving the
Manna, the Divine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the
longing soul." Elsewhere ... "but it is taught by the initiating
priest and prophet Moses, who declares, 'This is the bread ([Greek:
artos]), the nourishment which God has given to the soul.' His own
Reason and His own Word which He has offered; for this bread
([Greek: artos]) which He has given us to eat is Reason." (Vol. ii.
p. 265.)

Now the Fourth Gospel also makes Jesus speak of Himself as the "Bread of
Life," and "given by the Father;" but what is the bread defined by Jesus
Himself to be? Not a mere intellectual apprehension, _i.e._ Reason, as
Philo asserts; but the very opposite, no other than "His Flesh;" the
product of His Incarnation. "The bread that I will give is My Flesh,"
and He adds to it His Blood. "Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you."

Now this also Justin reproduces, not after the conception of Philo,
which is but a natural conception, but after the conception of Jesus in
the Fourth Gospel, which is an infinitely mysterious and supernatural
one.

"In like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh
by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our Salvation, so
likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the
prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh are by
transmutation nourished is the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was
made flesh." (Apol. I. ch. lxvi.)

I trust the reader will acquit me, in making this quotation, of any
desire to enunciate any Eucharistic theory of the presence of Christ's
Flesh in the Eucharist. All I have to do with is the simple fact that
both Philo and St. John speak of the Word as the Bread of Life; but
Philo explains that bread to be "reason," and St. John makes our Lord to
set it forth as His Flesh, and Justin takes no notice of the idea of
Philo, and reproduces the idea of the fourth Gospel.

And yet we are to be told that Justin "knew nothing" of the Fourth
Gospel, and that his Logos doctrine was "identical" with that of Philo.

SECTION XVIII.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ST. JOHN AND THE SYNOPTICS.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" devotes a large portion of his
second volume to setting forth the discrepancies, real or alleged,
between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel.

In many of these remarks he seems to me to betray extraordinary
ignorance of the mere contents of the Fourth Gospel. I shall notice two
or three remarkable misconceptions; but, before doing this, I desire to
call the reader's attention to the only inference respecting the
authorship of this Gospel which can be drawn from these discrepancies.

St. John's Gospel is undoubtedly the last Gospel published; in fact, the
last work of the sacred canon. The more patent, then, the differences
between St. John and the Synoptics, the more difficult it is to believe
that a Gospel, containing subject-matter so different from the works
already accepted as giving a true account of Christ, should have been
accepted by the whole Church at so comparatively recent a date, unless
that Church had every reason for believing that it was the work of the
last surviving Apostle.

Take, for instance, the [apparent] differences between St. John and the
Synoptics respecting the scene of our Lord's ministry, the character of
His discourses, the miracles ascribed to Him, and the day of His
Crucifixion, or rather of His partaking of the Paschal feast. The most
ignorant and unobservant would notice these differences; and the more
labour required to reconcile the statements or representations of the
last Gospel with the three preceding ones, the more certain it is that
none would have ventured to put forth a document containing such
differences except an Apostle who, being the last surviving one, might
be said to inherit the prestige and authority of the whole college.

It would far exceed the limits which I have prescribed to myself to
examine the Fourth Gospel with the view of reconciling the discrepancies
between it and the Synoptics, and also of bringing out the numberless
undesigned coincidences between the earlier and the later account, of
which the writer of "Supernatural Religion," led away by his usual
dogmatic prejudices, has taken not the smallest notice.

The reader will find this very ably treated in Mr. Sanday's "Authorship
of the Fourth Gospel" (Macmillan).

My object at present is of a far humbler nature, simply to show the
utter untrustworthiness of some of the most confidently asserted
statements of the writer of "Supernatural Religion."

I shall take two:

1. The difference between Christ's mode of teaching and the structure
of His discourses, as represented by St. John and the Synoptics
respectively.

2. The intellectual impossibility that St. John should have written the
Fourth Gospel.

1. Respecting the difference of Christ's mode of teaching as recorded in
St. John and in the Synoptics, he remarks:--

"It is impossible that Jesus can have had two such diametrically
opposed systems of teaching; one purely moral, the other wholly
dogmatic; one expressed in wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings
and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses;
one clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed
in obscure, philosophic terminology; and that these should have been
kept so distinct as they are in the Synoptics, on the one hand, and
the Fourth Gospel on the other. The tradition of Justin Martyr
applies solely to the system of the Synoptics, 'Brief and concise
were the sentences uttered by Him: for He was no Sophist, but His
word was the power of God.'" [106:1] (Vol. ii. p. 468)

To take the first of those assertions. So far from its being
"impossible" that Jesus "can have had two such diametrically opposite
modes of teaching," it is not only possible, but we have undeniable
proof of the fact in that remarkable saying of Christ recorded by both
St. Matthew and St. Luke: "All things are delivered unto Me of My
Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any
man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him." (Matth. xi. 27). The author of "Supernatural Religion" has studied
the letter of this passage very carefully, for he devotes no less than
ten pages to a minute examination of the supposed quotations of it in
Justin and other Fathers (vol. i. pp. 402-412); but he does not draw
attention to the fact that it is conceived in the spirit and expressed
in the terms of the Fourth Gospel, and totally unlike the general style
of the discourses in the Synoptics. [107:1] The Fourth Gospel shows us
that such words as these, almost unique in the Synoptics, are not the
only words uttered in a style so different from the usual teaching of
our Lord--that at times, when He was on the theme of His relations to
His Father, He adopted other diction more suited to the nature of the
deeper truths He was enunciating.

Then take the second assertion:--

"One [system] expressed in wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings
and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses."

Again:--

"The description which Justin gives of the manner of teaching of
Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the Fourth Gospel. 'Brief and
concise were the sentences uttered by Him, for He was no Sophist,
but His word was the power of God.' (Apol. I. 14) No one could for a
moment assert that this description applies to the long and
artificial discourses of the Fourth Gospel, whilst, on the other
hand, it eminently describes the style of teaching with which we are
acquainted in the Synoptics, with which the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, in all its forms, was so closely allied." (Vol. ii. p. 315)

Now I assert, and the reader can with very little trouble verify the
truth of the assertion, that the mode of our Lord's teaching, as set
forth in St. John, is more terse, axiomatic, and sententious--more in
accordance with these words of Justin, "brief and concise were the
sentences uttered by Him," than it appears in the Synoptics.

To advert for a moment to the mere length of the discourses. The Sermon
on the Mount is considerably longer than the longest discourse in St.
John's Gospel (viz., that occupying chapters xiv., xv., xvi.). This is
the only unbroken discourse of any length in this Gospel. The others,
viz., those with Nicodemus, with the woman at Sychem, with the Jews in
the Temple, and the one in the Synagogue at Capernaum, are much shorter
than many in the Synoptics, and none of them are continuous discourses,
but rather conversations. And, with respect to the composition, those in
St. John are mainly made up of short, terse, axiomatic deliverances just
such as Justin describes.

Take, for instance, the sentences in the sixth chapter:--

"I am the bread of life."

"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

"I am that bread of life."

"This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man should
eat thereof and not die."

"My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

"It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing."

And those in the tenth:--

"I am the door of the sheep."

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the
sheep."

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine."

Then, if we compare parables, the passage in the Fourth Gospel most
resembling a parable, viz., the similitude of the Vine and the branches,
is made up of detached sentences more "terse" and "concise" than those
of most parables in the Synoptics.

The discourses in St. John are upon subjects very distasteful to the
author of "Supernatural Religion," and he loses no opportunity of
expressing his dislike to them; but it is a gross misrepresentation to
say that the instruction, whatever it be, is conveyed in other than
sentences as simple, terse, and concise as those of the Synoptics,
though the subject-matter is different.

We will now proceed to the last assertion:--

"One [system of teaching] clothed in the great language of humanity,
the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology."

What can this writer mean by the "philosophic terminology" of our Lord's
sayings as reported in the Fourth Gospel? If the use of the term "Logos"
be "philosophic terminology," it is confined to four sentences; and
these not the words of Jesus Himself, but of the Evangelist. I do not
remember throughout the rest of the Gospel a single sentence which can
be properly called "philosophical."

The author must confound "philosophical" with "mysterious." Each and
every discourse in the fourth Gospel is upon, or leads to, some deep
mystery; but that mystery is in no case set forth in philosophical, but
in what the author of "Supernatural Religion" calls the "great language
of humanity." Take the most mysterious by far of all the enunciations in
St. John's Gospel, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink
His Blood, ye have no life in you." What are the words of which this
sentence is composed? "Eat," "flesh," "blood," "Son of man," "life." Are
not these the commonest words of daily life? but, then, their use and
association here is the very thing which constitutes the mystery.

Again, take the salient words of each discourse--"Except a man be born
again"--"be born of water and of the Spirit." "Whosoever drinketh of the
water that I shall give him shall never thirst." "As the Father hath
life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself."
"All that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall come forth."
"The bread that I will give is My flesh." "If ye believe not that I am
He, ye shall die in your sins." "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know
I the Father." "I am the Resurrection and the Life." "Whatsoever ye
shall ask in My name, that will I do." "If I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you but: if I depart, I will send Him unto you."

It is the deepest of all mysteries that one in flesh and blood can say
such things of Himself; but it is a perversion of language to speak of
these sayings as "philosophical terminology." They are in a different
sphere from all more _human_ philosophy, and, indeed, are opposed to
every form of it. Philosophy herself requires a new birth before she can
so much as see them.

I must recur, however, to the author's first remark, in which he
characterizes the discourses of the Synoptics as "purely moral," and
those of St. John as "wholly dogmatic." This is by no means true. The
discourses in the Synoptics are on moral subjects, but they continually
make dogmatic assertions or implications as pronounced as those in the
Fourth Gospel. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, the preacher
authoritatively adds to and modifies the teaching of the very Decalogue
itself. "Ye have heard that it was said TO them of old time" (for so
[Greek: errhethê tois archaiois] must properly be translated); "but I
say unto you." Again, Jesus assumes in the same discourse to be the
Object of worship and the Judge of quick and dead, and that His
recognition is salvation itself, when He says, "Not every one that saith
unto Me Lord, Lord, shall enter," &c. "Many shall say to me in that day,
Lord, Lord," &c., "then will I profess unto them, I never knew you,
depart from me all ye that work iniquity."

Take the following expressions out of a number of similar ones in St.
Matthew:--

"I will make you (ignorant fishermen) fishers of men" (implying, I
will give you power over souls such as no philosopher or leader of
men has had before you). (iv. 21.)

"Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you for My sake." (v. 11.)

"If they have called the master of the house (_i.e._ Jesus)
Beelzebub, how much wore shall they call them of His household." (x.
25.)

"He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of me"
(so that the holiest of human ties are to give way to His personal
demands on the human heart). (x. 37.)

"He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." (x. 39)

"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father." (xi. 27.)

"In this place is One greater than the temple." (xii. 6.)

"The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath Day." (xii. 8.)

"In His (Christ's) Name shall the Gentiles trust." (xii. 21.)

"In the time of harvest I will say to the reapers," _i.e._ the
angels. (xiii. 30.)

"The Son of man shall send forth his angels." (xiii. 41.)

"I will give unto Thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (xvi.
19.)

"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name there am I in
the midst of them." (xviii. 21.)

"He, [God], sent His servants--He sent other servants--Last of all
He sent unto them His Son, saying, they will reverence My Son."
(xxi. 37.)

These places assert, by implication, the highest dogma respecting the
Person of Christ. Who is He Who has such power in heaven and earth that
He commands the angels in heaven, and gives the keys of the kingdom of
God to His servant on earth? What Son is this Whom none but the Father
knoweth, and Who alone knoweth the Father, and Who reveals the Father to
whomsoever He will? What Son is this compared with Whom such saints as
Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and Daniel are "servants?" Those dogmatic
assertions of the first Gospel suggest the question; and the Fourth
Gospel gives the full and perfect answer--that He is the Word with God,
that He is God, and the Only-begotten of the Father. The Epistles assume
the answer where one speaks of "Jesus, who, being in the form of God,
thought it not a thing to be tenaciously grasped to be equal with God,"
and another speaks of God's own Son, and another compares Moses the
servant with Christ the Son; but the fullest revelation is reserved to
the last Gospel. And herein the order of God's dealings is observed, Who
gives the lesser revelation to prepare for the fuller and more perfect.
The design of the Gospel is to restore men to the image of God by
revealing to them God Himself. But, before this can be done, they must
be taught what goodness is, their very moral sense must be renewed.
Hence the moral discourses of the Synoptics. Till this foundation is
laid, first in the world, and then in the soul, the Gospel has nothing
to lay hold of and to work upon; so it was laid first in the Sermon on
the Mount, which, far beyond all other teaching, stops every mouth and
brings in all the world guilty before God; and then the way is prepared
for fuller revelations, such as that of the Atonement by the Death of
Christ as set forth in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the
revelation culminates in the knowledge of the Father and the Son in the
Fourth Gospel.

With respect to the assertion of the author of "Supernatural Religion,"
that the discourses in this Gospel are, as compared with those in the
Synoptics, _wholly_ dogmatic, as opposed to moral, the reader may judge
of the truth of this by the following sayings of the Fourth Gospel:--

"Every one that doeth evil hateth the light."

"He that doeth truth cometh to the light."

"God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth."

"They that have done good [shall come forth] to the Resurrection of
Life."

"How can ye believe who receive honour one of another, and seek not
the honour that cometh of God only?"

"If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether
it be of God."

"The truth shall make you free," coupled with

"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

"If I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to
wash one another's feet."

"A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I
have loved you."

"He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
Me."

These sayings, the reader will perceive, embody the deepest and highest
moral teaching conceivable.

One more point remains to be considered--the impossibility that St.
John, taking into account his education and intellect, should have been
the author of the Fourth Gospel. This is stated in the following
passage:--

"The philosophical statements with which the Gospel commences, it
will be admitted, are anything but characteristic of the son of
thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of Galilee, who, to a
comparatively late period of life, continued preaching in his native
country to his brethren of the circumcision.... In the Alexandrian
philosophy, everything was prepared for the final application of the
doctrine, and nothing is more clear than the fact that the writer of
the Fourth Gospel was well acquainted with the teaching of the
Alexandrian school, from which he derived his philosophy, and its
elaborate and systematic application to Jesus alone indicates a late
development of Christian doctrine, which, we maintain, could not
have been attained by the Judaistic son of Zebedee." (Vol. ii. p.
415)

Again, in the preceding page:--

"Now, although there is no certain information as to the time when,
if ever, the Apostle removed into Asia Minor, it is pretty certain
that he did not leave Palestine before A.D. 60. ... If we consider
the Apocalypse to be his work, we find positive evidence of such
markedly different thought and language actually existing when the
Apostle must have been at least sixty or seventy years of age, that
it is quite impossible to conceive that he could have subsequently
acquired the language and mental characteristics of the Fourth
Gospel."

This, though written principally with reference to the diction, applies
still more to the philosophy of the author of the Fourth Gospel. And,
indeed, from his using the words "mental characteristics," we have no
doubt that he desires such an application.

Now, what are the facts? We must assume that St. John, though "unlearned
and ignorant," compared with the leaders of the Jewish commonwealth, at
the commencement of his thirty years' sojourn in the Jewish capital, was
a man of average intellect. Here, then, we have a member of a sect more
aggressive than any before known in the promulgation of its opinions,
taking the lead in the teaching and defence of these opinions in a city
to which the Jews of all nationalities resorted periodically to keep the
great feasts. If the holding of any position would sharpen a man's
natural intellect and give him a power over words, and a mental grasp of
ideas to which in youth he had been a stranger, that position would be
the leading one he held in the Church of such a city as Jerusalem.

In the course of the thirty years which, according to the author of
"Supernatural Religion," he lived there, he must have constantly had
intercourse with Alexandrian Jews and Christians. It is as probable as
not that during this period he had had converse with Philo himself, for
the distance between Jerusalem and Alexandria was comparatively
trifling. At Pentecost there were present Jews and proselytes from Egypt
and the parts of Libya about Cyrene. There was also a Synagogue of the
Alexandrians. Now I assert that a few hours' conversation with any
Alexandrian Jew, or with any Christian convert from Alexandrian Judaism,
would have, _humanly speaking_, enabled the Apostle, even if he knew not
a word of the doctrine before, to write the four sentences in which are
contained the whole Logos expression of the Fourth Gospel.

St. John must have been familiar with the teaching of traditional
interpretation respecting the Meymera as contained in the Chaldee
paraphrases; indeed, the more "unlearned" and "ignorant" he was, the
more he must have relied upon the Chaldee paraphrases for the knowledge
of the Old Testament, the Hebrew having been for centuries a dead
language. We have a Chaldee paraphrase of great antiquity on so early
and familiar a chapter as the third of Genesis, explaining the voice of
the Lord God by the voice of the Meymera, or Word of the Lord God
(Genesis iii.).

The natural rendering of this word into Greek would be Logos. I repeat,
then, that, humanly speaking, if he had never entertained the idea
before, a very short conversation with an Alexandrian Jew would have
furnished him with all the "philosophy" required to make the four
statements in which he simply identifies the Logos with the Divine
Nature of his Lord.

Of course, I do not for a moment believe that the Apostle was enabled to
write the exordium of his Gospel by any such inspiration. There is not a
more direct utterance of the Holy Spirit in all Scripture than that
which we have in the prelude to the Fourth Gospel.

But in the eyes of a Christian the grace of the Holy Spirit is shown in
the power and explicitness, and above all in the simplicity of the
assertions which identify the human conception, if such it can be
called, of Platonism, or Judaism, with the highest divine truth.

I believe that if the Apostle wrote those sentences at the time handed
down by the Church's tradition, that is, when Cerinthian and other
heresies respecting our Lord's nature were beginning to be felt, the
power of the Holy Spirit was put forth to restrict him to these few
simple utterances, and to restrain his human intellect from overloading
them with philosophical or controversial applications of them, which
would have marred their simplicity and diminished their power. [117:1]

SECTION XIX.

EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF OUR FOUR GOSPELS.

We have now shown that Justin Martyr, the principal witness brought
forward by the author of "Supernatural Religion" to discredit the Four
Evangelists, either made use of the very books which we now possess, or
books which contain exactly the same information respecting our Lord's
miraculous Birth, Death, Resurrection, and moral teaching. We have seen,
also, that Justin gives us, along with the teaching of the Synoptics,
that peculiar teaching respecting the pre-existent Divine nature of
Jesus which, as far as can be ascertained, was to be found only in the
Fourth Gospel, and which is consequently called Johannean; and that,
besides this, he refers to the history, and adopts the language, and
urges the arguments which are to be found only in St. John.

We have also shown that there are no internal considerations whatsoever
for supposing that Justin did not make use of the Fourth Gospel.
Instead, for instance, of the doctrine of St. John being a development
of that held by Justin Martyr, the facts of the case all point to the
contrary.

We must now see whether there is external evidence which makes it not
only probable, but as certain as any fact in literary history can be,
that Justin must have known and made use of our present Evangelists;
that if he was a teacher in such an acknowledged centre of
ecclesiastical information or tradition as Rome, and _appears_ to quote
our Gospels (with no matter what minor variations and inaccuracies), he
did actually quote the same and no other; and if his inaccuracies, and
discrepancies, and omissions of what we suppose he ought to have
mentioned, were doubled or trebled, it would still be as certain as any
fact of such a nature can be, that he quoted the Four Evangelists,
because they must have been read and commented on in his day and in his
church as the Memoirs of the Apostles, which took their place by the
side of the prophets of the Old Testament in the public instruction of
the Church. In order to this I shall have to examine the external
evidence for the Canon of the New Testament--so far, that is, as the
Four Gospels are concerned.

In doing this I shall not take the usual method of tracing the evidence
for the various books in question downwards from the Apostolic time--the
reader will find this treated exhaustively in "Dr. Westcott on the
Canon"--but I shall trace it upwards, beginning at a time at which there
cannot be the smallest doubt that the New Testament was exactly the same
as that which we now possess.

For this purpose I shall take the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius as
the starting-point. The reader is, of course, aware that he is the
earliest ecclesiastical writer whose history has come down to us, the
historians who wrote before his time being principally known to us
through fragments preserved in his book. He was born of Christian
parents about the year A.D. 270, and died about 340. He probably wrote
his history about or before the year 325.

The reader, though he may not have read his history, will be aware, from
the quotations from it in "Supernatural Religion," that Eusebius
carefully investigated the history of the Canon of Scripture, and also
the succession of ecclesiastical writers. His history is, in fact, to a
great extent, a sketch of early Church literature. In dealing with the
history of the Canon, he particularly notices whether a large number of
writers have quoted certain books of Scripture, of whose acceptance by
the whole Church doubts were entertained. This is important, as it shows
that not only himself, but the Church, during the three ages whose
history he has recorded, did not receive books of Scripture except upon
what they deemed to be sufficient evidence, and that evidence was the
reception of each book from Apostolic times by the whole Church. I will
now give the testimony of Eusebius to the authenticity of the Four
Gospels.

First of all he describes the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark in the
following words:--

"So greatly, however, did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds
of Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor
to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God, but they
persevered, in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the
companion of Peter, and whose Gospel we have, that he should leave
them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in
writing. Nor did they cease with their solicitations until they had
prevailed with the man, and thus become the means of that history
which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that
the Apostle (Peter), having ascertained what was done by the
revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour
expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority
for the purpose of being read in the Churches. This account is given
by Clement in the Sixth Book of his Institutions, whose testimony
also is corroborated by that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis." (Bk.
ii. chap. xv. Crusé's translation.)

This is narrated as having taken place in the reign of Claudius, _i.e._,
between A.D. 41 and A.D. 54.

The next Gospel whose origin he describes is that of St. Luke, in the
following words:--

"But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician,
being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly
acquainted with the rest of the Apostles, has left us two inspired
books, the institutes of that spiritual healing art which he
obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he
testifies that he has recorded, 'as those who were from the
beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,' delivered to
him, whom also, he says, he has in all things followed. The other is
his Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, not from what he had
heard from others, but from what he had seen himself. It is also
said that Paul usually referred to his Gospel, whenever in his
Epistles he spoke of some particular Gospel of his own, saying,
'according to my Gospel.'" (Bk. iii. ch. iv. Crusé's translation.)

Further on, he describes the publication of the First and Fourth
Gospels, thus:--

"Of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have
left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook
it from necessity. Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel
in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations,
committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the
want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and
Luke had already published their Gospels they say that John, who,
during all this time, was proclaiming the Gospel without writing, at
length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three
Gospels previously written had been distributed among all, and also
handed to him; they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony
to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the
account of the things done by Christ among the first of His deeds,
and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. For
it is evident that the other three Evangelists only wrote the deeds
of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,
and intimated this in the very beginning of their history. For after
the fasting of forty days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew
indeed specifies the time of his history in these words, 'But,
hearing that John was delivered up, he returned from Judea into
Galilee.' Mark in like manner writes: 'But, after John was delivered
up, Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before he commenced the
deeds of Jesus, in much the same way designates the time, saying,
'Herod thus added this wickedness above all he had committed, and
that he shut up John in prison.' For these reasons the Apostle John,
it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of
the time not recorded by the former Evangelists, and the deeds done
by our Saviour, which they have passed by (for these were the events
that occurred before the imprisonment of John), and this very fact
is intimated by him when he says, 'This beginning of miracles Jesus
made,' and then proceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the
midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at that time 'baptizing at
Aenon, near to Salim.' He plainly also shows this in the words,
'John was not yet cast into prison.' The Apostle, therefore, in his
Gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into
prison, but the other three Evangelists mention the circumstances
after that event," &c. (Bk. iii. c. xxiv.)

The last extract which I shall give is from the next chapter, when he
mentions "The sacred Scriptures which are acknowledged as genuine, and
those that are not:"--

"This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary
statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And
here among the first must be placed _the Holy Quaternion of the
Gospels_; these are followed by the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles; after this must be mentioned the Epistles of Paul, which
are followed by the acknowledged First Epistle of John, also the
First of Peter to be admitted in like manner. After these are to be
placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall
offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are
acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although they are
well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the Epistle
of James and [that] of Jude. Also the Second Epistle of Peter, and
those called the Second and Third of John, whether they are of the
Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious
must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that
called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books
called the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Institutions
of the Apostles. Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear
right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject,
but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who
number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly
delighted." (Bk. iii. ch. xxv.)

Such are the statements of the oldest ecclesiastical historian whose
work has come down to us.

With respect to the Gospels, he knows but four as canonical, and has
never heard of any other as accepted by the Church. He mentions
Apocryphal and disputed books. Amongst the latter he mentions the Gospel
to the Hebrews as acceptable to a local church; but he is wholly
ignorant of any doubt having ever been cast upon the authority of the
four in any branch of the Catholic Church.

Now let the reader remember, that however Eusebius, like all other
writers, _might_ be liable to be mistaken through carelessness, or
prejudice, or any other cause of inaccuracy; yet that each of these
statements respecting the authorship of the various Gospels is, on all
principles of common sense, worth all the conjectural criticisms of the
German and other writers, so copiously cited in "Supernatural Religion,"
put together.

For, in the first place, Eusebius flourished about 1500 years nearer to
the original source of the truth than these critics, and had come to
man's estate within 200 years of the publication of the Fourth Gospel.

Now, at a time when tradition was far more relied upon, and so much more
perfectly preserved and transmitted than in such an age of printed books
and public journals as the present, this alone would make an enormous
difference between a direct statement of Eusebius and the conjecture of
a modern theorist. But far more than this, Eusebius had access to, and
was well acquainted with, a vast mass of ecclesiastical literature which
has altogether perished; and the greater part of which is only known to
have existed through notices or extracts to be found in his work. For
instance, in a few pages he gives accounts of writings which have
perished of Papias (iii. c. 39), Quadratus and Aristides (iv. ch. 3),
Hegesippus (iv. ch. 8 and 22), Tatian (iv. ch. 16), Dionysius of Corinth
(iv. ch. 23), Pinytus (iv. ch. 23), Philip and Modestus (ch. 25), Melito
(ch. 26), Apollinaris (ch. 27), Bardesanes (ch. 30).

These are all writers who flourished in the first three quarters of the
second century, and I have only mentioned those whose writings, from the
wording of his notices, Eusebius appears to have seen himself.

It is clear, I repeat, that the evidence of such an one on the
authorship of the Gospels is worth all the conjectures and theories of
modern critics of all classes put together.

We shall pass over very briefly the first sixty years of the third
century, _i.e._ between A.D. 200 and the time of Eusebius. During these
years flourished Cyprian, martyred A.D. 257; Hippolytus, martyred about
A.D. 240; and Origen, died A.D. 254.

Respecting the latter, it appears from Eusebius that he published
commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of the latter
Eusebius says the first five books wore composed at Alexandria, but of
the whole work on St. John only twenty-two books have come down to us.
(Bk. vi. ch. 24.) Now Origen was born a few years (at the most twenty)
after the death of Justin; and we have seen how the author of
"Supernatural Religion" evidently considers the works of Justin to be
anterior to the Fourth Gospel. Is it credible, or oven conceivable, that
a man of Origen's intellect, learning, and research should write twenty
or thirty books of commentaries on a false Gospel which was forged
shortly before his own time?

He expressly states that the Church knew of but four Gospels:--

"As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels,
which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God
throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the
same that was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it
in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter
explained to him, whom he [Peter] also acknowledged as his son in
his general epistle, saying, 'The elect Church in Babylon salutes
you, as also Mark, my son.' And the third according to Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from
the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John."
Extract from Origen's first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew,
quoted by Eusebius (vi. 25)

As regards Cyprian, the following quotation will suffice:--

"The Church, setting forth the likeness of Paradise, includes within
her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring
forth good fruit is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees
she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels,
wherewith, by a celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of
saying baptism." Cyprian, Letter lxxii. to Jubaianus.

As regards Hippolytus I have counted above fifty references to St.
Matthew and forty to St. John, in his work on the "Refutation of
Heresies," and "Fragments." I append in a note a passage taken from his
comment on the Second Psalm, preserved to us by Theodoret. The reader
will be able to judge from it from what sources he derived his knowledge
of Christ. I give it rather for its devotional spirit than its evidence
for the four. [126:1]

We now come to the conclusion of the second century. Between the years
180 and 200 or 210 A.D., there flourished three writers of whom we
possess somewhat voluminous remains. Irenaeus, who was born about 140 at
the latest, who was in youth the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself
the disciple of St. John. Irenaeus wrote his work against heresies about
the year 180, a little after he had succeeded Pothinus as Bishop of
Lyons, and was martyred at the beginning of the next century (202).

Clement of Alexandria, the date of whose birth or death is uncertain,
flourished long before the end of the second century, for he became head
of the catechetical school of Alexandria about the year 190.

Tertullian was born about 150, was converted to Christianity about 185,
was admitted to the priesthood in 192, and adopted the opinions of
Montanus about the end of the century.

I shall first of all give the testimony of these three writers to the
universal reception of the Four Gospels by the Church, and consider to
what time previous to their own day their testimony upon such a subject
must, of necessity, reach.

First of all, Irenaeus, in a well-known passage, asserts that--

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in
number than they are."

He then refers to the four zones of the earth, and the four principal
winds, and remarks that, in accordance with this,

"He Who was manifest to men has given us the Gospel under four
aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

Then he refers to the four living creatures of the vision in the
Revelation, and proceeds,--

"And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things, among
which Christ is seated. For that according to John relates His
original effectual and glorious generation from the Father, thus
declaring, 'In the beginning was the word,' &c.... But that
according to Luke, taking up His priestly character, commences with
Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made
ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again
of the younger son. Matthew again relates His generation as a man,
saying, 'The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of
David, the Son of Abraham;' and also, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was
on this wise.' This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity, for which
reason it is, too, that the character of an humble and meek man is
kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences
with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high
to men, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it
is written in Esaias the prophet,' pointing to the winged aspect of
the Gospel: and on this account he made a compendious and cursory
narrative, for such is the prophetical character." (Iren., Bk. iii.
ch. xi.)

Clement of Alexandria, speaking of a saying ascribed to our Lord,
writes:--

"In the first place, then, in the four Gospels handed down amongst
us, we have not this saying; but in that which is according to the
Egyptians." (Miscellanies, iii. ch. xiii.)

Tertullian writes thus:--

"Of the Apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith
into us; whilst, of Apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it
afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith,
so far as relates to the one only God the Creator, and His Christ,
how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and
the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the
order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the
essential matter of the faith in which there is disagreement with
Marcion." (Tertullian against Marcion, iv. c. ii.)

Such are the explicit declarations of these three writers respecting the
number and authorship of the Four. I shall give at the conclusion of
this section some of the references to be found in these writers to the
first two or three chapters in each Gospel.

It is but very little to say that they quote the Four as frequently, and
with as firm a belief in their being the Scriptures of God, as any
modern divine. They quote them far more copiously, and reproduce the
history contained in them far more fully than any modern divine whom I
have ever read, who is not writing specifically on the Life of our Lord,
or on some part of His teaching contained in the Gospels.

But I have now to consider the question, "To what time, previous to
their own day, or rather to the time at which they wrote, does their
testimony to such a matter as the general reception of the Four Gospels
of necessity reach back?"

Clement wrote in Alexandria, Tertullian in Rome or Africa, Irenaeus in
Gaul. They all flourished about A.D. 190. They all speak of the Gospels,
not only as well known and received, but as being the only Gospels
acknowledged and received by the Church. One of them uses very
"uncritical" arguments to prove that the Gospels could only be four in
number; but the very absurdity of his analogies is a witness to the
universal tradition of his day. To what date before their time must this
tradition reach, so that it must be relied upon as exhibiting the true
state of things?

Now this tradition is not respecting a matter of opinion, but a matter
of fact--the fact being no other than the reading of the Gospels or
Memoirs of our Lord in the public service of the Church. The "Memoirs of
our Lord," with other books, formed the Lectionary of the Church. So
that every Christian, who attended the public assemblies for worship,
must know whether he heard the Gospels read there or not.

Now any two men who lived successively to the age of sixty-five would be
able to transmit irrefragable testimony, which would cover a hundred
years, to the use of the Gospels in the lectionary of the Church.

During the last five years we have had a change in our Lectionary, which
change only affects the rearrangement of the portions read each day out
of the same Gospels, and every boy and girl of fifteen years old at the
time would recognize the alteration when it took place. If it had
occurred fifty years ago, any man or woman of sixty-five would perfectly
remember the change. If it had occurred within the last hundred years,
any person of sixty-five could bear testimony to the fact that, when he
first began to be instructed in the nature of the Church Services he was
told by his elders that up to a time which they could perfectly
recollect certain selections from Scripture had been read in Church, but
that at such a period during their lifetime a change had been brought
about after certain public debates, and that it received such or such
opposition and was not at once universally adopted, which change was the
reading in public of the present selection. It is clear then, that if
all public documents were destroyed, yet any two men, who could scarcely
be called old men, would be able to transmit with perfect certainty the
record of any change in the public reading of Scripture during the last
one hundred years.

But, supposing that instead of a change in the mere selections from the
Gospels, the very Gospels themselves had been changed, could such a
thing have occurred unnoticed, and the memory of it be so absolutely
forgotten that neither history nor tradition preserved the smallest hint
of it at the end of a short century?

Now this, and far more than this, is what the author of "Supernatural
Religion" asks his readers to believe throughout his whole work.

We have seen how, before the end of this century, no other authoritative
memoirs of Christ were known by the Church, and these were known and
recognized as so essential a part of the Christian system, that their
very number as four, and only four, was supposed to be prefigured from
the very beginning of the world.

Now Justin lived till the year 165 in this century. He was martyred when
Irenaeus must have been twenty-five years old. Both Clement and
Tertullian must have been born before his martyrdom, perhaps several
years, and yet the author of "Supernatural Religion" would have us
believe that the books of Christians which were accounted most sacred in
the year 190, and used in that year as frequently, and with as firm a
belief in their authenticity as they are by any Christians now, were
unused by Justin Martyr, and that one of the four was absolutely unknown
to him--in all probability forged after his time.

We are persistently told all this, too, in spite of the fact that he
reproduces the account of the Birth, Teaching, Death, and Resurrection
of Christ exactly as they are contained in the Four, without a single
additional circumstance worth speaking of, making only such alterations
as would be natural in the reproduction of such an account for those who
were without the pale of the Church.

But even this is not the climax of the absurdity which we are told that,
if we are reasonable persons, we must accept. It appears that the
"Memoirs" which, we are told, Justin heard read every Sunday in the
place of assembly in Rome or Ephesus which he frequented, was a
Palestinian Gospel, which combined, in one narrative, the accounts of
the Birth, Life, Death, and moral Teaching of Jesus, together with the
peculiar doctrine and history now only to be found in the Fourth Gospel.
Consequently this Gospel was not only far more valuable than any one of
our present Evangelists, but, we might almost say, more worthy of
preservation than all put together, for it combined the teaching of the
four, and no doubt reconciled their seeming discrepancies, thus
obviating one of the greatest difficulties connected with their
authority and inspiration; a difficulty which, we learn from history,
was felt from the first. And yet, within less than twenty years, this
Gospel had been supplanted by four others so effectually that it was all
but forgotten at the end of the century, and is referred to by the first
ecclesiastical historian as one of many apocrypha valued only by a local
Church, and has now perished so utterly that not one fragment of it can
be proved to be authentic.

But enough of this absurdity.

Taking with us the patent fact, that before the end of the second
century, and during the first half of the third, the Four Gospels were
accepted by the Church generally, and quoted by every Christian writer
as fully as they are at this moment, can there be the shadow of a doubt
that when Justin wrote the account of our Lord's Birth, which I have
given in page 22, he had before him the first and third Evangelists, and
combined these two accounts in one narrative? Whether he does this
consciously and of set purpose I leave to the author of "Supernatural
Religion," but combine the two accounts he certainly does.

Again, when, in the accounts of the events preceding our Lord's Death,
Justin notices that Jesus commanded the disciples to bring forth an ass
and its foal (page 33), can any reasonable man doubt but that he owed
this to St. Matthew, in whose Gospel alone it appears?

Or when, in the extract I have given in page 20, he notices that our
Lord called the sons of Zebedee Boanerges, can there be any reasonable
doubt that he derived this from St. Mark, the only Evangelist who
records it, whose Gospel (in accordance with universal tradition), he
there designates as the "Memoirs of Peter?"

Or again, when, in the extract I have given in page 34, he records that
our Lord in His Agony sweat great drops [of blood], can there be a doubt
but that he made use of St. Luke, especially since he mentions two or
three other matters connected with our Lord's Death, only to be found in
St. Luke? Or, again, why should we assume the extreme improbability of a
defunct Gospel to account for all the references to, and reminiscences
of, St. John's Gospel, which I have given in Sections VIII. and IX. of
this work?

So far for Justin Martyr.

We will now turn to references in three or four other writers.

In the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons we find the following:--

"And thus was fulfilled the saying of our Lord: 'The time shall come
in which every one that killeth you shall think that he offereth a
service to God.'"

This seems like a reference to John xvi. 2. The words, with some very
slight variation, are to be found there and not to be found elsewhere.
The letter of the Churches was written about A.D. 178 "at the earliest,"
we are told by the author of "Supernatural Religion." Well, we will make
him a present of a few years, and suppose that it was written ten or
twelve years later, _i.e._ about A.D. 190. Now we find that Irenaeus had
written his great work, "Against Heresies," before this date. Surely,
then, the notion of the writer of "Supernatural Religion," that we are
to suppose that this was taken from some lost Apocryphal Gospel when
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, had actually used a written Gospel which
contains it, refutes itself.

We turn to Athenagoras.

We find in his work, "Plea (or Embassy) for the Christians" (ch. x.),
the following:--

"But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father in idea and in
operation, for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things
made, the Father and the Son being one [I and My Father are one],
and the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, in
oneness and power of spirit," &c. (John xiv. 10.)

Again (ch. xii.):--

"Men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who
are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they
know God and His Logos." [This is life eternal, that they may know
Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.]

Can the writer of "Supernatural Religion" be serious when he writes, "He
nowhere identifies the Logos with Jesus?" Does the writer of
"Supernatural Religion" seriously think that a Christian writer, living
in 177, and presenting to the emperor a plea for Christians, would have
any difficulty about identifying Jesus with that Son of God Whom he
expressly states to be the Logos of God?

The following also are seeming quotations from the Synoptics in
Athenagoras.

"What, then, are those precepts in which we are instructed? 'I say
unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them
that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father which is in
the heavens, who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.'

"'For if ye love them which love you, and lend to them which lend to
you, what reward shall ye have?'

"'For whosoever, He says, looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath
committed adultery already in his heart.'

"'For whosoever, says He, putteth away his wife and marrieth
another, committeth adultery.'"

When we consider that in the time of Athenagoras, or very soon after,
there were three authors living who spoke of the Gospels in the way we
have shown, and quoted them in the way we shall now show, why assign
these quotations to defunct Gospels of whose contents we are perfectly
ignorant, when we have them substantially in Gospels which occupied the
same place in the Church then as now?

NOTE ON SECTION XIX.

I have asserted that the three authors, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, and Irenaeus, all flourishing before the close of the second
century, quote the four Gospels, if anything, more frequently than most
modern Christian authors do. I append, in proof of this, some of the
references in these authors to the first two or three chapters of our
present Gospels.

IRENAEUS.

Matthew, i.

"And Matthew, too, recognizing one and the same Jesus Christ,
exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin ... says, 'The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of
Abraham.' Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding
Joseph, he says, 'But the birth of Christ was on this wise: when His
mother was espoused,'" &c. (iii. xvi.)

Then he proceeds to quote and remark upon the whole of the remainder of
the chapter.

"Matthew again relates His generation as a man." For remainder, see
page 128.

"For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jeconiah, as also
Matthew sets forth in his pedigree." (iii. 21, 9.)

"Born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify that
before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore
remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
(iii. 21, 4.)

"Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, 'The angel of
the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.' (iii. 9, 2.)

"The angel said to him in sleep, 'Fear not to take to thee Mary, thy
wife'" (and proceeding with several other verses of the same
chapter). (iv. 23, l.)

Matthew, ii.

"But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the East, exclaimed,
'For we have seen His star in the East, and are come to worship
Him.'" (iii. 9, 2.)

"And that having been led by the star unto the house of Jacob to
Emmanuel, they showed, by those gifts which they offered, who it was
that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
buried for the human race; gold, because He was a king," &c., &c.
(iii. 9, 2)

"He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human
infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for
the sake of Christ." (iii. 16, 4.)

Matthew, iii.

"For Matthew the apostle ... declares that John, when preparing the
way for Christ, said to them who were boasting of their relationship
according to the flesh, &c., 'O generation of vipers, who hath shown
you to flee from ... raise up children unto Abraham.' (iii. 9, 1.)

"As John the Baptist says, 'For God is able from these stones to
raise up children unto Abraham.'" (iv. 7, 2.)

There are no less than six quotations or references to the ninth and
tenth verses of this chapter, viz., iv. 24, 2; v. 34, 1; iv. 8, 3; iv.
36, 4; v. 17, 4.

"Now who this Lord is that brings such a day about, John the Baptist
points out when he says of Christ, 'He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire, having His fan in His hand,'" &c. (iv. 4,
3.)

"Having a fan in His hands, and cleansing His floor, and gathering
the wheat,'" &c. (iv. 33, 1.)

"Who gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff
with fire unquenchable." (iv. 33, ll.)

"Then, speaking of His baptism, Matthew says, 'The heavens were
opened, and He saw the Spirit of God,'" &c. (iii. 9, 3.)

Mark, i.

"Wherefore Mark also says, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets.'" (iii. 16,
3.)

"Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son, 'We know Thee
who Thou art, the Holy One of God.'" (iv. 6, 6.)

Mark iv. 28.

"His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush
forth, and the earth gives 'first the blade, then the ear, then the
full corn in the ear.'" (iv. 18, 4.)

Luke, i.

"Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what
he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, 'Even
as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.'" (iii. 14, 2.)

Another reference to same in preface to Book iv.

"Luke, also, the follower and disciple of the Apostles, referring to
Zacharias and Elizabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was
born, says, 'And they were both righteous before God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,'", &c. (iii.
10, 1.)

"And again, speaking of Zacharias, 'And it came to pass, that while
he executed the priest's office,'" &c. (_Ibid._)

"And then, speaking of John, he (the angel) says: 'For he shall be
great in the sight of the Lord,'" &c. (_Ibid._)

"In the spirit and power of Elias." (iii. 10, 6.)

"Truly it was by Him of whom Gabriel was the angel who also
announced the glad tidings of His birth ... in the spirit and power
of Elias." (iii. 11, 4.)

"But at that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God, who did also
say to the Virgin, 'Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with
God.'" (iii. 10, 2.)

"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest," &c.
(iii. 10, 2.)

"And Mary, exulting because of this, cried out; prophesying on
behalf of the Church, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord.'" (iii. 10,
2.)

"And that the angel Gabriel said unto her, 'The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee,'" &c. (iii. 21, 4.)

"In accordance with this design Mary the Virgin is found obedient,
saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to
Thy word.'" (iii. 22, 4.)

"As Elizabeth testified when fitted with the Holy Ghost, saying to
Mary, 'Blessed art thou among women,'" &c. (iii. 21, 5.)

"Wherefore the prophets ... announced His Advent ... in freeing us
from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of
wickedness, and causing us to serve Him in holiness and
righteousness all our days.'" (iv. 20, 4.)

Luke, ii.

"Wherefore Simeon also, one of his descendants, carried fully out
the rejoicing of the patriarch, and said, 'Lord, now lettest Thou
Thy servant,'" &c. (iv. 7, l.)

"And the angel in like manner announced tidings of great joy to the
shepherds who were keeping watch by night." (iv. 7, 1.)

"Wherefore he adds, 'The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising
God for all which they had seen and heard.'" (iii. 10, 4.)

"And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord, 'When the
days of purification were accomplished they brought Him up to
Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord.'" (iii. 10, 5.)

"They say also that Simeon, 'Who took Christ into his arms and gave
thanks to God,'" &c. (i. 8, 4.)

"They assert also that by Anna, who is spoken of in the Gospel as a
prophetess, and who after living seven years with her husband,
passed all the rest of her life in widowhood till she saw the
Saviour." (i. 8, 4.)

"The production, again, of the Duodecad of the aeons is indicated by
the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with
the teachers of the law," &c. (i. 3, 2.)

"Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels receive from them a
colouring of the same kind, as the answer which He gave His mother
when He was twelve years old, 'Wist ye not that I must be about My
Father's business?'" (i. 20, 2.)

Luke, iii.

"For because He knew that we should make a good use of our substance
which we should possess by receiving it from another, He says, 'He
that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none, and he
that hath meat let him do likewise.'" (iv. 30, 3.)

"For when He came to be baptized He had not yet completed His
thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age;
for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it." (ii.
22, 5.)

John, i.

"[John] thus commenced his teaching in the Gospel, 'In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,'" &c.
(iii. 11, 1.)

"He (St. John) expresses himself thus: 'In the beginning was the
Word,'" &c. (i. 8, 5.)

"Thus saith the Scripture, 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens
made,' &c. And again, 'All things were made by Him, and without Him
was nothing made that was made.'" (i. 22, 1.)

"For he styles Him 'A light which shineth in darkness, and which was
not comprehended by it.'" (i. 8, 5.)

"And that we may not have to ask 'Of what God was the Word made
flesh?' He does Himself previously teach us, saying, 'There was a
man sent from God whose name was John. The same came as a witness
that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but
that he might testify of the Light.'" (iii. 11, 4.)

"While the Gospel affirms plainly that by the Word, which was in the
beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, was
made flesh and dwelt among us." (iii. 11, 2.)

To John i. 14, "The Word was made flesh," the references are absolutely
innumerable. Those I have given already will suffice.

"For this is the knowledge of salvation which was wanting to them,
that of the Son of God, which John made known, saying, 'Behold the
Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of
whom I said, After me cometh a Man Who was made before me, because
He was prior to me.'" (iii. 10, 2.)

"By whom also Nathaniel, being taught, recognized Him; he to whom
also the Lord bare witness that he was an Israelite indeed, in whom
was no guile. The Israelite recognized his King, therefore did he
cry out to Him, 'Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King
of Israel.'" (iii. 11, 6.)

John, ii.

"But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the
moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the
marriage." (iii. 11, 5.)

"As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, 'Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' He spake this,
however, it is said, of the temple of His body." (v. 6, 2.)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

Matthew, i.

"And in the gospel according to Matthew the genealogy which begins
with Abraham is continued down to Mary, the mother of the Lord.
'For,' it is said, 'from Abraham to David are fourteen generations,
and from David to the carrying away into Babylon," &c.
(Miscellanies, i. 21.)

Matthew, iii.

"For the fan is in the Lord's hand, by which the chaff due to the
fire is separated from the wheat." (Instructor, i. 9.)

Matthew, iv.

"Therefore He Himself, urging them on to salvation, cries, 'The
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.'" (Exhortation to Heathen, ch. ix.)

Matthew, v.

"And because He brought all things to bear on the discipline of the
soul, He said, 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth.'" (Miscellanies, iv. 6.)

Mark, i.

"For he also 'ate locusts and wild honey.'" [In St. Matthew the
corresponding expression being 'His food was locusts and wild
honey.'] (Instructor, ii. 11.)

Luke, iii.

"And to prove that this is true it is written in the Gospel by Luke
as follows: 'And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius
Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias.'
And again, Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years
old,' and so on." (Miscellanies, i. 21.)

There are at least twenty more references to the accounts of the
preaching of St. John in the third of St. Matthew, first of St. Mark,
and third of St. Luke, in Clement's writings, which I have not given
simply because it is difficult to assign the quotation to a particular
Evangelist, as the account is substantially the same in the three.

Luke xii. 16-20.

"Of this man's field (the rich fool) the Lord, in the Gospel, says
that it was fertile, and afterwards, when he wished to lay by his
fruits and was about to build greater barns," &c. (Miscellanies,
iii. 6.)

Luke xiii. 32.

"Thus also in reference to Herod, 'Go tell that fox, Behold, I cast
out devils,'" &c. (Miscellanies, iv. 6.)

Luke xiv. 12, 13.

"He says accordingly, somewhere, 'When thou art called to a wedding
recline not on the highest couch.' ... And elsewhere, 'When thou
makest a dinner or a supper,' and again, 'But, when thou makest an
entertainment, call the poor.'" (Instructor, ii. 1.)

Luke, xv. Parable of Prodigal Son.

"For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's
son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts."
(Instructor, ii. ch. i.)

John, i.

"You have then God's promise; you have His love: become partakers of
His grace. And do not suppose the song of salvation to be new, as a
vessel or a house is new; for ... in the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Exhortation to
Heathen, ch. i.)

"For He has said, 'In the beginning the Word was in God, and the
Word was God." (Instructor, viii.)

"Wherefore it (the law) was only temporary; but eternal grace and
truth were by Jesus Christ. Mark the expressions of Scripture; of
the law only is it is said 'was given;' but truth, being the grace
of the Father, is the eternal work of the Word, and it is not said
to _be given_, but _to be_ by Jesus, _without whom nothing was_."
(Instructor, i. 7.)

"The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three
of the fairest ornaments ... with authority of utterance, for He is
God and Creator; for all things were made by Him, and without Him
was not anything made: and with benevolence, for He alone gave
Himself a sacrifice for us, 'For the Good Shepherd giveth His life
for the sheep.'" (John x. 11.) (Instructor, i. 11.)

"For the darkness, it is said, comprehendeth it not." (Instructor,
ii. 10.)

"Having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore
'have received power to become the sons of God.'" (Miscellanies, iv.
6.)

"For of the prophets it is said, 'We have all received of His
fulness,' that is, of Christ's." (Miscellanies, i. 17.)

"And John the apostle says, 'No man hath seen God at any time. The
only begotten God,' [oldest reading,] 'who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him." (Miscellanies, v. 12.) John, iii.

"He that believeth not is, according to the utterance of the
Saviour, condemned already." (Miscellanies, iv. 16.)

"Enslaved as you are to evil custom, and clinging to it voluntarily
till your last breath, you are hurried to destruction; because light
has come into the world, and men have loved the darkness rather than
the light." (Exhortation to Heathen, 10.)

"'I must decrease,' said the prophet John." (Miscellanies, vi. II.)

TERTULLIAN.

Matthew, i.

"There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler of
the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason
in the world than to show us clearly the fleshy original of Christ,
he thus begins, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son
of David the son of Abraham.'" (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xxii.)

"It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when
tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, 'Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, _of whom_ was born Jesus." (On
the Flesh of Christ, ch. xx.)

"You [the heretic] say that He was born _through_ a virgin, not _of_
a virgin, and _in_ a womb, not _of_ a womb; because the angel in the
dream said to Joseph, 'That which is born in her is of the Holy
Ghost.'" (_Ibid._ ch. xx.)

Matthew, ii.

"For they therefore offered to the then infant Lord that
frankincense, and myrrh, and gold, to be, as it were, the close of
worldly sacrifice and glory, which Christ was about to do away." (On
Idolatry, ch. ix.)

Mark i. 4.

"For, in that John used to preach 'baptism _for_ the remission of
sins,' the declaration was made with reference to a future
remission." (On Baptism, x.)

Mark i. 24.

"This accordingly the devils also acknowledge Him to be: 'We know
Thee Who Thou art, the Son of God.'" (Against Praxeas, ch. xxvi.)

Let the reader particularly remark this phrase. Tertullian quotes the
last clauses differently from the reading in our present copies, "The
Holy One of God." If such a quotation had occurred in Justin, the author
of "Supernatural Religion" would have cited the phrase as a quotation
from a lost Gospel, and asserted that the author had not even seen
St. Mark.

Luke, i.

"Elias was nothing else than John, who came 'in the power and spirit
of Elias.'" (On Monogamy, ch. viii.)

"I recognize, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to a
virgin; but when he is blessing her, it is 'among women.'" (On the
Veiling of Virgins, ch. vi.)

"Will not the angel's announcement be subverted, that the Virgin
should 'conceive in her womb and bring forth a son?' ... Therefore
even Elizabeth must be silent, although she is carrying in her womb
the prophetic babe, which was already conscious of his Lord, and is,
moreover, filled with the Holy Ghost. For without reason does she
say, 'And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?' If it was not as her son, but only as a stranger, that
Mary carried Jesus in her womb, how is it she says, 'Blessed is the
fruit of thy womb?'" (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xxi.)

"Away, says he [he is now putting words into the mouth of the
heretic], with that eternal plaguy taxing of Caesar, and the scanty
inn, and the squalid swaddling clothes, and the hard stable. We do
not care a jot for that multitude of the heavenly host which praised
their Lord at night. Let the shepherds take better care of their
flock ... Spare also the babe from circumcision, that He may escape
the pains thereof; nor let Him be brought into the temple, lest He
burden His parents with the expense of the offering; nor let Him be
handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of
death." (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. ii.)

"This He Himself, in those other gospels also, testifies Himself to
have been from His very boyhood, saying, 'Wist ye not, says He, that
I must be about my Father's business?'" (Against Praxeas, xxvi.)

John, i.

"In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony
to the Old Testament ... it is therein plainly revealed by Whom He
made all things. 'In the beginning was the Word,'--that is, the same
beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the
earth--'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,'" &c.
(Against Hermogenes, ch. xx.)

I give only one reference to the first few verses, as the number in
Tertullian's writings is enormous.

"It is written, 'To them that believed on Him, gave He power to be
called Sons of God.'" (On Prayer, ch. ii.)

"But by saying 'made,' he [St. Paul] not only confirmed the
statement 'the Word was made flesh,' but he also asserted the
reality," &c. (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xx.)

John, ii.

"[He Jesus] inaugurates in _water_ the first rudimentary displays of
His power, when invited to the nuptials." (On Baptism, ch. ix.)

The twenty-first chapter of the "Discourse against Praxeas" is filled
with citations from St. John. I will give a small part.

"He declared what was in the bosom of the Father alone; the Father
did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded
by another statement: 'No man hath seen God at any time.' Then
again, when He is designated by John as 'the Lamb of God.' ... This
[divine relationship] Nathanael at once recognized in Him, even as
Peter did on another occasion: 'Thou art the Son of God.' And He
affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions,
for He answered Nathanael, 'Because I said I saw thee under the
fig-tree, dost thou believe?' ... When He entered the temple He
called it 'His Father's house,' [speaking] as the Son. In His
address to Nicodemus He says, 'So God loved the world,' &c....
Moreover, when John the Baptist was asked what he happened [to know]
of Jesus, he said, 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all
things into His Hands. He that believeth,' &c. Whom, indeed, did He
reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not 'the Messias which is
called Christ?' ... He says, therefore, 'My meat is to do the will
of Him that sent me, and to finish His work,'" &c. &c. (Against
Praxeas, ch. xxi.)

SECTION XX.

THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES.

It does not come within the scope of this work to examine at any length
the general subject of miracles. The assertion that miracles, such as
those recorded in Scripture, are absolutely impossible, and so have
never taken place, must be met by the counter assertion that they are
possible, and have taken place. They are possible to the Supreme Being,
and have taken place by His will or sufferance at certain perfectly
historical periods; especially during the first century after the birth
of Christ. When to this it is replied that miracles are violations of
natural law or order, and that it is contrary to our highest idea of the
Supreme Being to suppose that He should alter the existing order of
things, we can only reply that it is in accordance with our highest idea
of Him that He should do so; and we say that in making these assertions
we are not unreasonable, but speak in accordance with natural science,
philosophy, and history.

And, in order to prove this, we have only to draw attention to the
inaccuracy which underlies the use of the term "law" by the author of
"Supernatural Religion," and those who think as he does. The author of
"Supernatural Religion" strives to bring odium on the miracles of the
Gospel by calling them "violations of law," and by asserting that it is
a false conception of the Supreme Being to suppose that He should have
made an Universe with such elements of disorder within it that it should
require such things as the violation, or even suspension, of laws to
restore it to order, and that our highest and truest idea of God is that
of One Who never can even so much as make Himself known except through
the action of the immutable laws by which this visible state of things
is governed.

Now what is a law? The laws with which in this discussion we are given
to understand we have to do, are strictly speaking limitations--the
limitations of forces or powers which, in conception at least, must
themselves be prior to the limitations.

Take the most universal of all so-called "laws," the law of gravitation.
The law of gravitation is the limitation imposed upon that mysterious
force which appears to reside in all matter, that it should attract all
other matter. This power of attraction is called gravitation; but
instead of acting at random, as it were, it acts according to certain
well-known rules which only are properly the "laws" of gravitation.

Now the very existence of our world depends upon the force of attraction
being counteracted. If, from a certain moment, gravitation were to
become the only force in the solar system, the earth would fall upon the
surface of the sun, and be annihilated; but the earth continues in
existence because of the action of another force--the projectile
force--which so far counteracts the force of the sun's attraction, that
the earth revolves around the sun instead of falling upon its surface.
In this case the _law_ of gravitation is not violated, or even
suspended, but the force of gravitation is counteracted or modified by
another force.

Again, the blood circulates through our bodies by means of another power
or force counteracting the force of gravitation, and this is the vital
power or force.

But why do we lift up our feet from the ground to go about some daily
duty? Here comes another force--the force of will, which directs the
action of some of the vital forces, but not that of others.

But, again, two courses of action are open to us, and we deliberately
choose the one because we think that it is our duty, though it may
entail danger or pain, or even death. Here is a still deeper force or
power, the force of conscience--the moral power which is clearly the
highest power within us, for it governs the very will, and sits in
judgment upon the whole man, and acquits or condemns him according to
its rule of right and wrong.

Here, then, are several gradations of power or force--any one of them as
real as the others; each one making itself felt by counteracting and
modifying the action of the one below it.

Now the question arises, is there any power or force clearly above the
highest controlling power within us, _i.e._ above our conscience? We say
that there is. There are some who on this point can reverently take up
the words of our Great Master, "We speak that we do know." We believe,
as firmly as we believe in our own existence, that this our
conscience--the highest power within us--has been itself acted upon by a
Higher Power still, a moral and spiritual Power, which has enlightened
it, purified it, strengthened it, in fact renewed it.

Now, this purifying or enlightening of our moral powers has one
remarkable effect. It makes those who have been acted upon by it to look
up out of this present state of things for a more direct revelation of
the character and designs of the Supreme Being. Minds who have
experienced this action of a Superior Power upon them cannot possibly
look upon the Supreme Being as revealing Himself merely by the laws of
gravitation, or electricity, or natural selection. We look for, we
desire a further and fuller Revelation of God, even though the
Revelation may condemn us. We cannot rest without it. It is intolerable
to those who have a sense of justice, for instance, to think that,
whilst led by their sense of what is good and right, men execute
imperfect justice, there is, after all, no Supreme Moral Governor Who
will render to each individual in another life that just retribution
which is assuredly not accorded to all in this life. [152:1]

Now this, I say, makes us desire a revelation of the Supreme Moral
Governor which is assuredly not to be found in the laws which control
mere physical forces. As Dr. Newman has somewhere said, men believe what
they wish to believe, and assuredly we desire to believe that there is a
supreme Moral Governor, and that He has not left us wholly in the dark
respecting such things as the laws and sanctions of His moral
government. But has He really revealed these? We look back through the
ages, and our eyes are arrested by the figure of One Who, according to
the author of "Supernatural Religion," taught a "sublime religion." His
teaching "carried morality to the sublimest point attained, or even
attainable, by humanity. The influence of His Spiritual Religion has
been rendered doubly great by the unparalleled purity and elevation of
His own character. He presented the rare spectacle of a life, so far as
we can estimate it, uniformly noble and consistent with His own lofty
principles, so that the 'imitation of Christ' has become almost the
final word in the preaching of His Religion, and must continue to be one
of the most powerful elements of its permanence." (Vol. ii. p. 487.)

It is quite clear from this testimony of an enemy to the Christian
religion, as it appears in the Scriptures, that if the Supreme Moral
Governor had desired to give to man a revelation of the principles and
sanctions of His moral government, He could not have chosen a more
fitting instrument. Such a character seems to have been made for the
purpose. If He has not revealed God, no one has.

Now, who is this Man Whose figure stands thus prominent above His
fellows?

We believe Him to be our Redeemer; but before He redeemed, He laid down
the necessity of Redemption by making known to men the true nature of
sin and righteousness, and the most just and inevitable Judgment of God.
He revealed to us that there is One above us Who is to the whole race,
and to every individual of the race, what our consciences are to
ourselves--a Judge pronouncing a perfect judgment, because He perfectly
knows the character of each man, perfectly observes and remembers his
conduct, and, moreover, will mete out to each one a just and perfect
retribution.

But still, how are we to know that He has authority to reveal to us such
a thing as that God will judge the race and each member of it by a just
judgment? Natural laws reveal to us no such judgment. Nature teaches us
that if we transgress certain natural laws we shall be punished. But it
teaches no certain judgement either in this life or in any future life
which will overtake the transgression of moral laws. A man may defraud,
oppress, and seduce, and yet live a prosperous life, and die a quiet,
painless death.

How, then, are we to know that Jesus of Nazareth had authority to reveal
that God will set all this right in a future state, and that He Himself
will be the direct Agent in bringing the rectification about? How are we
to know that what He says is true respecting a matter of such deep
concern to ourselves, and yet so utterly unknown to mere physical
nature, and so out of the reach of its powers? What proof have we of His
Revelation, or that it is a Revelation? The answer is, that as what He
revealed is above mere physical nature, so He attested it by the
exhibition of power above physical nature--the exhibition of the direct
power of God. He used miracles for this purpose; more particularly He
staked the truth of His whole message on the miracle of His own
Resurrection. [155:1] The Resurrection was to be the assurance of the
perfection of both His Redemption and His Judgment.

Now, against all this it is persistently alleged that even if He had the
power He could not have performed miracles, because miracles are
violations of law, and the Lawgiver cannot violate even mere physical
laws; but this specious fallacy is refuted by the simple assertion that
He introduced a new power or force to counteract or modify others, which
counteraction or modification of forces is no more than what is taking
place in every part of the world at every moment.

Before proceeding further we will illustrate the foregoing by testing
some assertions of the author of "Supernatural Religion."

"Man," he asserts, "is as much under the influence of gravitation as a
stone is" (vol. i. p. 40). Well, a marble statue is a stone. Can a
marble statue, after it is thrown down, rise up again of itself, and
stand upon its feet?

Again--

"The law of gravitation suffers no alteration, whether it cause the
fall of an apple or shape the orbit of a planet" (p. 40).

Of course the "law" suffers no alteration, but the force of gravitation
suffers considerable modification if you catch the apple in your hand,
or if the planet has an impulse given to it which compels it to career
round the sun instead of falling upon his surface. Again (page 40):--

"The harmonious action of physical laws, and their adaptability to
an infinite variety of forms, constitutes the perfection of that
code which produces the order of nature. The mere superiority of man
over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not lift him
above physical laws, and the analogy of every grade in nature
forbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt
from their control."

The number of fallacies in this short passage is remarkable. In the
first place laws never act, _i.e._ of themselves. They have to be
administered. Forces or powers act under the restraint of laws. I think
I am right in saying that all physical _laws_, as distinguished from
forces, are limitations of force. No man can conceive of a law acting by
itself. There is no such thing, for instance, as a "Reign of Law." A
power acts or, if you please, reigns, according to a law, but laws of
themselves can do nothing.

Again, the author says, "The mere superiority of man over lower forms of
organic and inorganic matter does not lift him above physical laws."

Yes, it does, partially at least, for it enables him, in his sphere, to
control the very forces whose action is limited by laws. The superiority
of man is shown in his control of the powers of nature, and making them
obey his will. All such inventions as the steam engine or the electric
telegraph lift man above certain physical laws, by enabling him to
control the forces with which those laws have to do.

Again, he writes: "The analogy of every grade in nature forbids the
presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt from their
control." On the contrary, we assert that the analogy of every grade in
nature encourages the presumption that higher forms may exist which can
control these forces of nature far more directly and perfectly than we
can.

To proceed. In page 41 we read:--

"If in animated beings we have the solitary instance of an efficient
cause acting among the forces of nature, and possessing the power of
initiation, this efficient cause produces no disturbance of physical
law."

I cite this place, in order to draw attention to what I suppose must
have struck the careful reader, which is the application of the term
"solitary instance" to the action of animated beings amongst the forces
of nature. If there had been but one animated being in existence, such
an epithet might not have been out of place; but when one considers that
the world teems with such beings, and that by their every movement they
modify or counteract, in their own case at least, the mightiest of all
nature's forces, and that no inconsiderable portion of the earth's
surface owes its conformation to their action, we are astonished at
finding all this characterized as the solitary instance of an efficient
cause. But by a sentence at the bottom of this page we are enlightened
as to the real reason for so strange a view of the place of vital powers
in the universe. In the eyes of those who persist in, as far as
possible, ignoring all laws except physical laws, even to the extent of
endeavouring to prove that moral forces themselves are but mere
developed forms of physical ones, all manifestations of powers other
than those of electricity, gravitation, magnetism, and so forth are
anomalous, and we have the very word "anomaly" applied to them. "The
only anomaly," he writes, "is our ignorance of the nature of vital
force. [158:1] But do we know much more of the physical?"

Men who thus concentrate their attention upon mere physical laws or
phenomena, get to believe in no others. They are impatient of any things
in the universe except what they can number, or measure, or weigh. They
are in danger of regarding the Supreme Being Himself as an "anomaly."
They certainly seem to do so, when they take every pains to show that
the universe can get on perfectly well without His superintending
presence and control.

Whatever odium, then, may be attached to the violation of a natural
_law_, cannot be attached to the action of a superior _force_, making
itself felt amongst lower grades of natural forces.

If it be rejoined that this superior force must act according to law, we
answer, certainly, but according to what law? Not, of course, according
to the law of the force which it counteracts, but according to the law
under which itself acts.

The question of miracles, then, is a matter of evidence; but we all know
what a power human beings have of accepting or rejecting evidence
according as they look for it or are prejudiced against it.

If men concentrate their thought upon the lower forces of the universe,
and explain the functions of life, and even such powers as affection,
will, reason, and conscience, as if they were modifications of mere
physical powers, and ignore a higher Will, and an all-controlling Mind,
and a personal superintending Providence, what wonder if they are
indisposed to receive any such direct manifestation of God as the
Resurrection of Jesus, for the Resurrection of Jesus is the pledge of a
righteous Judgment and Retribution which, however it takes place, will
be the most astounding "anomaly" amidst the mere physical phenomena of
the universe, whilst it will be the necessary completion of its moral
order.

The proof of miracles is then, as I said, a matter of evidence. When
Hume asserts that "a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature," we
meet him with the counter-assertion that it is rather the new
manifestation in this order of things of the oldest of powers, that
which originally introduced life into a lifeless world.

When he says that "a firm and unalterable experience has established
these laws," we say that science teaches us that there must have been
epochs in the history of the world when new forces made their appearance
on the scene, for it teaches us that the world was once incandescent,
and so incapable of supporting any conceivable form of animal life, but
that at a certain geological period life made its appearance.

Now, we believe that it is just as wonderful, and contrary to the
experience of a lifeless world, that life should appear on that world,
as that it is contrary to the experience of the present state of things,
that a dead body should be raised.

When he asserts that a miraculous event is contrary to uniform
experience, we can only reply that it is not contrary to the experience
of the Evangelists, of St. Peter and St. Paul, and of the other Apostles
and companions of the Lord; that it was not contrary to the experience
of the multitudes who were miraculously fed, and of the multitudes who
were miraculously healed. When it is replied to this, that we have
insufficient evidence of the fact that these persons witnessed miracles,
we rejoin that there is far greater evidence, both in quality and
amount, for these miracles, especially for the crowning one, than there
is for any fact of profane history; but, if there was twice the evidence
that there is, its reception must depend upon the state of mind of the
recipient himself.

If a man, whilst professing to believe in "a God under whose beneficent
government we know that all that is consistent with wise and omnipotent
law is prospered and brought to perfection," yet has got himself to
believe that such a God cannot introduce into any part of the universe a
new power or force, as for instance that He is bound not to introduce
vital force into a lifeless world, or mental power into a reasonless
world, or moral power into a world of free agents, but must leave these
forces to work themselves out of non-existence;--if it man, I say, has
got himself to believe in such a Being, he will not, of course, believe
in any testimony to miracles as accrediting a Revelation from Him, and
so he will do his best to get rid of them after the fashion in which we
have seen the author of "Supernatural Religion" attempt to get rid of
the testimony of Justin Martyr to the use of the Four Gospels in his
day.

SECTION XXI.

OBJECTIONS TO MIRACLES.

I will now briefly dispose of two or three of the collateral objections
against miracles.

1. The author of "Supernatural Religion" makes much of the fact that the
Scripture writers recognize that there may be, and have been, Satanic as
well as Divine Miracles, and he argues that this destroys all the
evidential value of a miracle. He writes:--

"Even taking the representation of miracles, therefore, which
Divines themselves give, they are utterly incompetent to perform
their contemplated functions. If they are super-human, they are not
super-Satanic, and there is no sense in which they can be considered
miraculously evidential of anything." (Vol. i. p. 25)

Now, this difficulty is the merest theoretical one,--a difficulty, as
the saying is, on paper; and never can be a practical one to any sincere
believer in the holiness of God and the reality of goodness. Take the
miracle of miracles, the seal of all that is supernatural in our
religion, the Resurrection of Christ. If there be a conflict now going
on between God and Satan, can there be a doubt as to the side to which
this miracle is to be assigned? It is given to prove the reality of a
Redemption which all those who accept it know to be a Redemption from
the power of Satan. It is given to confirm the sanctions of morality by
the assurance of a judgment to come. If Satan had performed it, he would
have been simply casting out himself. If this miracle of the
Resurrection be granted, all else goes along with it, and the children
of God are fortified against the influence, real or counterfeit, of any
diabolical miracle whatsoever.

The miracles of the New Testament are not performed, as far as I can
remember, in any single instance, to prove the truth of any one view of
doctrinal Christianity as against another, but to evidence the reality
of the Mission of the Divine Founder as the Son of God, and "the Son of
God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil."

2. With respect to what are called ecclesiastical miracles, _i.e._
miracles performed after the Apostolic age, the author of "Supernatural
Religion" recounts the notices of a considerable number, assumes that
they are all false, and uses this assumed falsehood as a means of
bringing odium on the accounts of the miracles of Christ.

More particularly he draws attention to certain miracles recorded in the
works of St. Augustine, of one at least of which he (Augustine) declares
he was an eye-witness.

Now, the difficulty raised upon these and similar accounts appears to me
to be as purely theoretical as the one respecting Satanic miracles. If
there be truth in the New Testament, it is evident that the Founder of
Christianity not only worked miracles Himself, but gave power to His
followers to do the same. When was this power of performing miracles
withdrawn from the Church? Our Lord, when He gave the power, gave no
intimation that it would ever be withdrawn, rather the contrary.
However, even in Apostolic times, the performance of them seems to have
become less frequent as the Church became a recognized power in the
world. For instance, in the earlier Epistles of St. Paul the exercise of
miraculous gifts seems to have been a recognized part of the Church's
system, and in the later ones (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) they are
scarcely noticed. [164:1] If we are to place any credence whatsoever in
ecclesiastical history, the performance of miracles seems never to have
ceased, though in later times very rare in comparison with what they
must have been in the first age.

Now, if the miracles recorded by Augustine, or any of them, were true
and real, the only inference is that the action of miraculous power
continued in the Church to a far later date than some modern writers
allow. If, on the contrary, they are false, then they take their place
among hosts of other counterfeits of what is good and true. They no more
go to prove the non-existence of the real miracles which they
caricature, than any other counterfeit proves the non-existence of the
thing of which it is the counterfeit. Nay, rather, the very fact that
they are counterfeits proves the existence of that of which they are
counterfeits. The Ecclesiastical miracles are clearly not independent
miracles; true or false, they depend upon the miraculous powers of the
early Church. If any of them are true, then these powers continued in
the Church to a late date; if they are false accounts (whether wilfully
or through mistake, makes no difference), their falsehood is one
testimony out of many to the miraculous origin of the dispensation.

Those recorded by Augustine are in no sense evidential. Nothing came of
them except the relief, real or supposed, granted to the sufferers. No
message from God was supposed to be accredited by them. No attempt was
made to spread the knowledge of them; indeed, so far from this, in one
case at least, Augustine is "indignant at the apathy of the friends of
one who had been miraculously cured of a cancer, that they allowed so
great a miracle to be so little known." (Vol. ii. p. 171.) In every
conceivable respect they stand in the greatest contrast to the
Resurrection of Christ.

Each case of an Ecclesiastical miracle must be examined (if one cares to
do so) apart, on its own merits. I can firmly believe in the reality of
some, whilst the greater part are doubtful, and many are wicked
impostures. These last, of course, give occasion to the enemy to
disparage the whole system of which they are assumed to be a part, but
they tell against Christianity only in the same sense in which all
tolerated falsehood or evil in the Church obscures its witness to those
eternal truths of which it is "the pillar and the ground."

Now, all this is equally applicable to Superstition generally in
relation to the supernatural. As the counterfeit miracles of the later
ages witness that there must have been true ones to account for the very
existence of the counterfeit, so the universal existence of Superstition
witnesses to the reality of those supernatural interpositions of which
it is the distorted image. If Hume's doctrine be true, that a miracle,
_i.e._ a supernatural interposition, is contrary to universal
experience and so incredible--if from the first beginning of things
there has been one continuous sequence of natural cause and effect,
unbroken by the interposition of any superior power, how is it that
mankind have ever formed a conception of a supernatural power? And yet
the conception, in the shape of superstition at least, is absolutely
universal. Tribes who have no idea of the existence of God, use charms
and incantations to propitiate unseen powers.

Now, the distortion witnesses to the reality of that of which it is the
distortion; the caricature to the existence of the feature caricatured.
And so the universality of the existence of Superstition witnesses to
the reality of these supernatural revelations and interpositions to
which alone such a thing can be referred as its origin.

SECTION XXII.

JEWISH CREDULITY.

Another argument which the author of "Supernatural Religion" uses to
discredit miracles, is the superstition of the Jews, especially in our
Lord's time, and their readiness to believe any miraculous story. He
seems to suppose that this superstition reached its extreme point in the
age in which Christ lived, which he calls "the age of miracles." He also
assumes that it was an age of strong religious feeling and excitement.
He says:--

"During the whole life of Christ, and the early propagation of the
religion, it must be borne in mind that they took place in an age,
and among a people, which superstition had made so familiar with
what were supposed to be preternatural events, that wonders awakened
no emotion, or were speedily superseded by some new demand on the
ever ready belief." (Vol. i. p. 98.)

He proceeds to devote above twenty pages to instances of the
superstition and credulity of the Jews about the time of Christ. The
contents of these pages would be amusing if they did not reveal such
deep mental degradation in a race which Christians regard as sacred,
because of God's dealings with their fathers.

Most readers, however, of these pages on the Demonology and Angelology
of the Jews will, I think, be affected by them in a totally different
way, and will draw a very different inference, from what the writer
intends. The thoughtful reader will ask, "How could the Evangelical
narratives be the outcome of such a hotbed of superstition as the author
describes that time to have been?" It is quite impossible, it is
incredible that the same natural cause, _i.e._ the prevalence of
superstition, should have produced about the same time the Book of Enoch
and the Gospel according to St. Matthew. And this is the more remarkable
from the fact that the Gospels are in no sense more Sadducean than the
Book of Enoch. The being and agency of good and evil spirits is as fully
recognized in the inspired writings as in the Apocryphal, but with what
a difference! I append in a note a part of the author's reproduction of
the Book of Enoch, that the reader may see how necessary it is, on all
principles of common sense, to look for some very different explanation
of the origin of the Evangelical narratives than that given by the
author of "Supernatural Religion." [168:1]

In the Evangelical narratives I need hardly say the angels are simply
messengers, as their name imports, and absolutely nothing more. When one
describes himself it is in the words, "I am Gabriel that stand in the
presence of God, and am sent to speak unto thee and to show thee these
glad tidings."

On the credulity of the Jews in our Lord's time, I repeat the author's
remarks:--

Now, if the records of our Lord's life in the Gospels are not a tissue
of falsehoods from beginning to end, this account of things is
absolutely untrue. The miracles of Jesus awakened the greatest
astonishment, betokening a time as unfamiliar with the actual
performance of such things as our own.

For instance, after the first casting out of a devil recorded in St.
Mark, it is said.--

"They were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among
themselves, saying, What thing is this? What new doctrine is this?
For with authority commandeth He even the unclean spirits, and they
do obey Him." (Mark i. 29.)

In the next chapter, after the account of the healing of the sick of the
palsy, it is said:--

"They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on
this fashion." (ii. 12.)

Again (St. Luke v. 26), after the casting out of a devil: "They were all
amazed." Again, Luke ix. 43 (also after the casting out of a devil),
"They were all amazed at the mighty power of God." [170:1]

From the account in St. John, the miracle of the opening of the eyes of
the man born blind seems to have excited unbounded astonishment:--

"Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes
of one that was born blind." "Can a devil open the eyes of the
blind?" (John ix. 32, x. 21.)

But more than this. If there be any truth whatsoever in the Gospel
narrative, the disciples themselves, instead of exhibiting anything
approaching to the credulity with which the author of "Supernatural
Religion" taxes the contemporaries of Christ, exhibited rather a spirit
of unbelief. If they had transmitted to us "cunningly devised fables,"
they never would have recorded such instances of their own slowness of
belief as is evinced by their conduct respecting the feeding of the four
thousand following upon the feeding of the five thousand, when they ask
the same question in the face of the same difficulty respecting the
supply of food.

Above all, their slowness of belief in the Resurrection of Christ after
their Master's direct assertion that He would rise again, is directly
opposed to the idea suggested by the author of "Supernatural Religion,"
that they were ready to believe anything which seemed to favour His
pretensions.

Now, it may be alleged that these instances of the slowness of belief on
the part of our Lord's immediate followers, and the conduct of the
multitudes who expressed such wonder at His miracles, are contrary to
one another, but, they are not; for the astonishment of the multitudes
did not arise from credulity in the least, but was the expression of
that state of mind which must exist (no matter how carefully it is
concealed), when some unlooked-for occurrence, totally inexplicable on
any natural principles, presents itself. I cite it to show how utterly
unfamiliar that age was with even the pretence of the exhibition of
miraculous powers. If there be any substratum of truth whatsoever in the
accounts of the slowness of belief on the part of the Apostles, it is a
proof that our Lord's most familiar friends were anything but the
superstitious persons which certain writers assume them to have been.

SECTION XXIII.

DEMONIACAL POSSESSION.

The question of Demoniacal Possession now demands a passing notice.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" ascribes all such phenomena to
imposture or delusion; and, inasmuch as these supposed miracles of
casting out of evil spirits are associated with other miracles of Christ
in the same narrative, he uses the odium with which this class of
miracles is in this day regarded, for the purpose of discrediting the
miracles of healing and the Resurrection of Jesus.

I cannot help expressing my surprise at the difficulty which some
writers, who desire fully and faithfully to uphold the supernatural,
seem to have respecting Demoniacal Possession. The difficulty seems to
me to be not in the action of evil spirits in this or in that way, but
in their existence. And yet the whole analogy of nature, and the state
of man in this world, would lead us to believe, not only in the
objective existence of a world of spirits, but in the separation of
their characters into good and evil.

Those who deny the fact of an actually existing spiritual world of
angels, if they are Atheists, must believe that man is the highest
rational existence in the universe; but this is absurd, for the
intellect of man in plainly very circumscribed, and he is slowly
discovering laws which account for the phenomena which he sees, which
laws were operative for ages before he discovered them, and imply
infinitely more intellect in their invention, so to speak, and
imposition and nice adjustment with one another, than he shows in their
mere discovery. A student, for instance, has a problem put before him,
say upon the adjustments of the forces of the heavenly bodies. The
solution, if it evinces intelligence in him, must evince more and older
intelligence in the man who sets him the problem; but if the conditions
of the problem truly represent the acts of certain forces and their
compensations, can we possibly deny that there is an intellect
infinitely above ours who calculated beforehand their compensations and
adjustments. All the laws of the universe must be assumed to be, even if
they are not believed to be, the work of a personal intellect absolutely
infinite, whose operations cannot be confined to this world, for it
gives laws to all bodies, no matter how distant. The same reasoning,
then, which shows that there is an intelligent will, because it can
solve a problem, necessitates an infinitely higher Intelligence which
can order the motions of distant worlds by laws of which our highest
calculative processes are perhaps very clumsy representations.

Those who, like the author of "Supernatural Religion," are good enough
to admit (with limitations) the existence of a Supreme Being, and yet
deny the existence of a spiritual world above ours, seem to me to act
still more absurdly. For the whole analogy of the world of nature would
lead as to infer that, as there is a descending scale of animated beings
below man reaching down to the lowest forms of life, so there is an
ascending scale above him, between him and God. The deniers of the
existence of such beings as angels undertake to assert that there are no
beings between ourselves and the Supreme Being, because nature (meaning
by nature certain lower brute forces, such as gravitation and
electricity), "knows nothing" of them.

The Scriptures, on the contrary, would lead us to believe that just as
in the natural world there are gradations of beings between ourselves
and the lowest forms of life, so in the spiritual world (and we belong
to both worlds) there are gradations of beings between ourselves and God
Who created all things.

The Scriptures would lead us to believe that these beings are
intelligent free agents, and, as such, have had their time of
probation--that some fell under their trial, and are now the enemies of
God as wicked men are, and that others stood in the time of trial and
continue the willing servants of God.

The Scriptures reveal that good angels act as good men do; they
endeavour, as far as lies in their power, to confirm others in goodness
and in the service of God; and that evil angels act as evil men act,
they endeavour to seduce others and to involve them in their own
condemnation.

The Scriptures say nothing to satisfy our curiosity about these beings,
as Apocryphal books do. They simply describe the one as sent on errands
of mercy, and the other as delighting in tempting men and inflicting
pain. The mystery of the fall of some of these angels, and their
consequent opposition to God, is no difficulty in itself. It is simply
the oldest form of that which is to those who believe in the reality of
the holiness and goodness of God the great problem of the universe--the
origin and continuance of evil. It is simply the counterpart amongst a
world of free agents above us of what takes place according to the
[so-called] natural order of things amongst ourselves.

That evil angels can tempt the souls of men, and in some cases injure
their bodies, is not a whit more difficult than that evil men can do the
same under the government of a God who exerts so universal a providence
as is described in the Bible, and allowed to some extent by the author
of "Supernatural Religion."

I confess that I cannot understand the difficulty which some Christian
writers evidently feel respecting the existence of such a thing as
Demoniacal _possession_, whilst they seem to feel, or at least they
_express_ no difficulty, respecting Demoniacal _temptation_. Demoniacal
possession is the infliction of a physical evil for which the man is not
accountable, but demoniacal temptation is an attempt to deprive a man of
that for the keeping of which he is accountable, viz. his own innocence.
Demoniacal possession is a temporal evil. The yielding to demoniacal
temptation may cast a man for ever out of the favour of God. And yet
demoniacal temptation is perfectly analogous to human temptation. A
human seducer has it in his power, if his suggestions are received, to
corrupt innocence, render life miserable, undermine faith in God and in
Christ, and destroy the hopes of eternity--and a diabolical seducer can
do no more.

Again, the Scriptures seem to teach us that these wicked spirits are the
authors of certain temporal evils, and I do not see that there is
anything unreasonable in the fact, if it be granted, that there are
spirits who exist independent of bodily frames--that these spirits are
free agents, and have different characters, and act according to their
characters, and also that, according to the laws (_i.e._ within the
limitations) of their nature, they have power to act upon those below
them in the scale of being, just as we can act upon creatures below us
according to the limitations, _i.e._ the laws, of our nature. We are in
our way able to inflict evil or to ward off evil from our fellow
creatures, under the limitations, or laws which a higher Power has set
over us; and the Scriptures teach us that there are other beings in the
great spiritual kingdom of God who are able to do us good or mischief
under the conditions which the same Supreme Power has imposed on their
action. So that the one thing which the Scriptures reveal to us is, that
there is a far vaster spiritual kingdom of God than the human race.

With respect to demoniacal possession, our difficulties arise from two
things--from our utter ignorance of the nature and real causes of mental
diseases, and from our ignorance of the way in which purely spiritual
beings can act upon beings such as ourselves, who ordinarily receive
impressions only through our bodily organs. We know not, for instance,
how God Himself acts upon our spirits, and yet, if He cannot, He has
less power over us than we have over one another.

Respecting the fact of God permitting such a thing as possession, there
is no more real difficulty than is involved in His permitting such a
thing as madness. The symptoms of possession seem generally to have
resembled mania, and ascribing certain sorts of mania to evil spirits is
only assigning one cause rather than another to a disease of whose
nature we are profoundly ignorant. [178:1]

Again, if we take into consideration the fact that in not a few cases
madness is produced by moral causes, by yielding to certain temptations,
as, for instance, to drunkenness, there will be still less difficulty in
believing that madness, arising from the action of an evil being, may be
the punishment of yielding to the seductions of that evil being.

The miraculous cure of demoniacal possession presents, I need hardly
say, less physical difficulty than any other cure performed by our Lord.
Assuming the presence of an evil spiritual existence in the possessed
person coming face to face with the most exalted spiritual Power and
Goodness, the natural result is that the one quails before the other.

But, in truth, all the difficulties respecting possession arise not so
much from our ignorance, as from our dogmatism. We assert the dogma, or
at least we quietly assume the dogma, that there are no spiritual or
intellectual beings between ourselves and God; or, if we shrink from an
assertion which so nearly implies our own omniscience, we lay down that
these superior beings, of whose laws we know nothing, can only act upon
us in ways precisely similar to those on which we act upon one another.

SECTION XXIV.

COMPETENT WITNESSES.

Another objection which the author of "Supernatural Religion" urges
against the credibility of our Lord's miracles, is that they were not
performed before what he considers competent witnesses.

"Their occurrence [he writes] is limited to ages which were totally
ignorant of physical laws." (Vol. i. p. 201.)

Again, he speaks of the age as one

"in which not only the grossest superstition and credulity
prevailed, but in which there was such total ignorance of natural
laws that men were incapable of judging of that reality [_i.e._ of
miracles]." (P. 204.)

Again:--

"The discussion of miracles, then, is not one regarding miracles
actually performed within our own knowledge, but merely regarding
miracles said to have been performed eighteen hundred years ago, the
reality of which was not verified at the time by any scientific
examination." (P. 208.)

From this we gather that the author of "Supernatural Religion" considers
that the miracles of Christ should have been tested by scientific men;
but we ask, By what scientific men? It is clear that if the testing was
to have been satisfactory to those who think like the author of
"Supernatural Religion," they must have been scientific men who
approached the whole matter in a spirit of scepticism. Our Blessed Lord
(I speak it with all reverence), if He cared to satisfy such men, should
have delayed His coming to the present time, or should have called up
out of the future, or created for this purpose, men who had doubts
respecting the personality of God, who held Him to be fitly described as
the Unknown and the Unknowable; who, to say the least, were in a state
of suspense as to whether, if there be a Supreme Being, He can reveal
Himself or make His will known. In fact, He must have called up, or
created for the purpose, some individuals of a school of physicists
which had no existence till 1,800 years after His time. For, if He had
called into existence such witnesses as Sir Isaac Newton, or Sir
Humphrey Davy, or Cuvier, or Faraday, they would have fallen down and
worshipped.

But, in truth, such witnesses, whether believing or sceptical, would
have found no place for their science, for the miracles of Christ were
of such a kind that the most scientific doubter could have no more
accounted for them than the most ignorant. The miracle of which, next to
our Lord's own Resurrection, we have the fullest evidence, is that of
the feeding of the 5,000; for it is recorded by each one of the four
Evangelists. Now, if this miracle had been performed in the presence of
the members of all the scientific societies now in existence, their
knowledge of natural laws could have contributed nothing to its
detection or explanation. They could have merely laid it down to trick
or deception, just as any of the unscientific persons present could have
done, and perhaps did. The miracle was performed in the open. Our Lord
must have been on some elevated ground where His voice could have
reached some considerable part of the multitude, and on which every act
of His could be observed. More than a thousand loaves would have been
necessary, requiring the assistance of, say a hundred men, to collect
them and bring them from a distance. This, too, is not one of those
miracles which can be explained by the convenient hypothesis of a
"substratum of truth." It is either a direct exhibition of the creative
power of God, or a fiction as unworthy of a moment's serious
consideration as a story in the "Arabian Nights."

It is folly to imagine that such an act required scientific men to
verify it. If the matter was either a reality, or presented that
appearance of reality which the narrative implies, then the scientific
person would have been stupefied, or in trembling and astonishment he
would have fallen on his face like another opponent of the truth; or,
may be, his very reason would have been shattered at the discovery that
here before him was that very supernatural and divine Working in Whose
existence he had been doing his best to persuade his fellow creatures to
disbelieve.

The Scripture narratives, if they are not altogether devoid of truth,
lead us to believe that our Lord performed His miracles in the face of
three sects or parties of enemies, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians;
each one rejecting His claims on grounds of its own. They were also
performed in a populous city, of which all the rulers and the mass of
the inhabitants were hostile to His pretensions. Such a place could
never have been chosen as the scene of a miraculous event, known by
those who promulgated it to have had no foundation in truth, and withal
assumed to have been known throughout the city at the time, and to have
been productive of a series of results, miraculous and ordinary, which
were asserted to have commenced at the moment of its occurrence.

The writer of "Supernatural Religion" would disparage the accounts of
our Lord's supernatural works and Resurrection, because such accounts
are to be found only in the writings of "enthusiastic followers," not in
those of indifferent persons; but the nature of the case almost excludes
all other testimony: for the miracles of our Lord were wrought for an
evidential purpose,--to convince the Jews especially that He was the
Christ, the hope of their fathers, and, as such, was not only to be
believed in, but to be obeyed and followed. The only sign of real true
belief was that the man who professed to believe joined that society
which was instituted for the purpose of propagating and keeping alive
the truth of His Messiahship. If any one who professed to believe
stopped short of joining this society, his testimony to miracles would
have been valueless, for the miracles were wrought to convince him of
the truth of a matter in which, if he believed, he was bound to profess
his belief, and, if he did not, he laid himself open to the charge of
not really believing the testimony.

Now, of course, the reader is aware that we have a signal proof of the
validity of this argument in the well-known passage in Josephus which
relates to our Lord. Josephus was the historian, and the only historian,
of the period in which our Lord flourished. The eighteenth book of his
"Antiquities of the Jews" covers the whole period of our Lord's life. If
our Lord had merely attracted attention as a teacher of righteousness,
which it is allowed on all hands that He did, it was likely that He
would have been mentioned in this book along, with others whose teaching
produced far less results. Mention appears to be made of Him in the
following words:--

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to
call him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him
both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us,
had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him at the first
did not forsake Him; for He appeared to them alive again the third
day; as the Divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand
other wonderful things concerning Him. And the tribe of Christians,
so named from Him, are not extinct at this day."

Now, on external grounds there seems little doubt of the genuineness of
this passage. It is in all copies of the historian's work, and is quoted
in full by Eusebius, though not alluded to by fathers previous to his
day. [183:1] If it is an interpolation, it must have been by the hand of
a Christian; and yet it is absolutely inconceivable that any Christian
should have noticed the Christian Church in such words as "the tribe of
Christians, so named from Him, are not extinct at this day." It would
have been absurd beyond measure to have described the Christians, so
early as Justin's time even, as "not extinct," when they were filling
the world with their doctrine, and their increase was a source of great
perplexity and trouble to the Roman Government. It is just what a Jew of
Josephus' time would have written who really believed that Jesus wrought
miracles, but expected that nothing permanent would result from them.

And yet there can be no doubt but that the passage is open to this
insurmountable objection, that if Josephus had written it he would have
professed himself a Christian, or a man of incredible inconsistency.
Setting aside the difficulty connected with the acknowledgment of Jesus
as the Christ, inasmuch as this name was frequently given to Him by
those who did not believe in Him, yet how could Josephus state that His
Resurrection was predicted by the prophets of his nation, and continue
in appearance an unbeliever?

But, whether genuine or not, this passage is decisive as to the
impossibility of what is styled an independent testimony to our Lord:
"He that is not with Me is against Me." The facts of our Lord's chief
miracles and Resurrection were such, that the nearer men lived to the
time the more impossible it would have been for them to have suspended
their judgment.

So that, instead of having the witness of men who, by their prudent
suspension of judgment, betrayed their lurking unbelief, we have the
testimony of men who, by their surrender of themselves, soul and body,
evinced their undoubting faith in a matter in which there could be
really no middle opinion.

SECTION XXV.

DATE OF TESTIMONY.

One point remains--the time to which the testimony to our Lord's
miracles reaches back. Can it be reasonably said to reach to within
fifty years of His Death, or to within twenty, or even nearer?

The author of "Supernatural Religion" asserts that it was not
contemporaneous or anything like it. In fact, one might infer from his
book that the miracles of Christ were not heard of till say a century,
or three quarters of a century, after His time, for he says, "they were
never heard of out of Palestine until long after the events are said to
have occurred." [185:1] (P. 192.)

In such a case, "long after" is very indefinite. It may be a century, or
three quarters of a century, or perhaps half a century. It cannot be
less, for every generation contains a considerable number of persons
whose memories reach back for forty or fifty years. In a place of 3,000
inhabitants, in which I am now writing, there are above fifty persons
who can perfectly remember all that took place in 1830. There are some
whose memories reach to twenty years earlier. Now let the reader try and
imagine, if he can, the possibility of ascribing a number of remarkable
acts--we will not say miraculous ones--to some one who died in 1830, and
assuming also that these events were the basis of a society which had
commenced with his death, and was now making way, and that the chief
design of the society was to make known or keep up the memory of these
events, and that there had been a literature written between the present
time and the time of the said man's death, every line of which had been
written on the assumption that the events in question were true, and yet
these events had never really taken place. We must also suppose that the
person upon whom these acts are attempted to be fastened was regarded
with intense dislike by the great majority of his contemporaries, who
did all they could to ruin him when alive, and blacken his memory after
he had died, and who looked with especial dislike on the idea that he
was supposed to have done the acts in question. Let the reader, I say,
try and imagine all this, and he will see that, in the case of our Lord,
the author's "long after" must be sixty or seventy years at the least;
more likely a hundred.

Let us now summon another witness to the supernatural, whose testimony
we promised to consider, and this shall be Clement of Rome--the earliest
author to whom it has suited the purpose of the author of "Supernatural
Religion" to refer.

If we are to rely upon the almost universal consent of ancient authors
rather than the mere conjectures of modern critics, he is the person
alluded to by St. Paul in the words, "With Clement also, and with other
my fellow labourers, whose names are written in the book of life."
(Phil. iv. 3.)

Of this man Eusebius writes:--

"In the twelfth year of the same reign (Domitian's), after Anecletus
had been bishop of Rome twelve years, he was succeeded by Clement,
whom the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Philippians, shows had been
his fellow-labourer in these words: 'With Clement also and the rest
of my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life.' Of
this Clement there is one Epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine,
of considerable length and of great merit, which he wrote in the
name of the Church at Rome, to that of Corinth, at the time when
there was a dissension in the latter. This we know to have been
publicly read for common benefit, in most of the Churches both in
former times and in our own." (Eccles. Hist. B. III. xv. xvi.)

Origen confirms this. Clement of Alexandria reproduces several pages
from his Epistle, calling him "The Apostle Clement," [187:1] and
Irenaeus speaks of him as the companion of the Apostles:--

"This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles and been conversant
with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still
echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes." (Bk.
III. ch. iii. 3)

Irenaeus, it is to be remembered, died at the end of the second century,
and his birth is placed within the first quarter of it, so that, in all
probability, he had known numbers of Christians who had conversed with
Clement.

According to the author of "Supernatural Religion," the great mass of
critics assign the Epistle of Clement to between the years A.D. 95-100.

In dealing with this Epistle I shall, for argument's sake, assume that
Clement quoted from an earlier Gospel than any one of our present ones,
and that the one he quoted might be the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
and I shall ask the same question that I asked respecting Justin
Martyr--What views of Christ's Person and work and doctrine did he
derive from this Gospel of his?

The Epistle of Clement is one in which we should scarcely expect to find
much reference to the Supernatural, for it is written throughout for the
one practical purpose of healing the divisions in the Church of Corinth.
These the writer ascribes to envy, and cites a number of Scripture
examples of the evil effects of this disposition and the good effects of
the contrary one. He adheres to this purpose throughout, and every word
he writes bears more or less directly on his subject. Yet in this
document, from which, by its design, the subject of the supernatural
seems excluded, we have all the leading features of supernatural
Christianity. We have the Father sending the Son (ch. xlii.); we have
the Son coming of the seed of Jacob according to the Flesh (ch. xxxii.);
we have the words, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of the Majesty of
God, did not come in the pomp of pride and arrogance, although He might
have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared
regarding Him" (ch. xvi.); and at the end of the same we have:--

"If the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through
Him come under the yoke of His grace?"

Clement describes Him in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews as
One--

"Who, being the brightness of His [God's] Majesty, is by so much
greater than the angels as He hath by inheritance obtained a more
excellent name than they." (Ch. xxxvi.)

We have Clement speaking continually of the Death of Jesus as taking
place for the highest of supernatural purposes,--the reconciliation of
all men to God. "Let us look," he writes, "steadfastly to the Blood of
Christ, and see how precious that Blood is to God, which, having been
shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole
world." (Ch. vii.) Again, "And thus they made it manifest that
Redemption should flow through the Blood of the Lord to all them that
believe and hope in God." (Ch. xii.) Again, "On account of the love He
bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His Blood for us by the will of God,
His Flesh for our flesh, and His Soul for our souls." (Ch. xlix.) His
sufferings are apparently said by Clement to be the sufferings of God.
(Ch. ii.) But, above all, the statement of the truth of our Lord's
Resurrection, and of ours through His, is as explicit as possible:--

"Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us
that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered
the Lord Jesus the first fruits by raising Him from the dead." (Ch.
xxiv.)

"[The Apostles] having therefore received their orders, and being
fully assured by the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
established in the Word of God, with full assurance of the Holy
Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the Kingdom of God was at
hand." (Ch. xlii.)

When we look to Clement's theology, we find it to have been what would
now be called, in the truest and best sense of the word, "Evangelical,"
thus:--

"We too, being called by His Will in Christ Jesus, are not justified
by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness,
or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that
faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified
all men." (Ch. xxxii.)

Again:--

"All these the Great Creator and Lord of all has appointed to exist
in peace and harmony; while He does good to all, but most abundantly
to us who have fled for refuge to His compassion through Jesus
Christ our Lord."

And he ends his Epistle with the following prayer:--

"May God, who seeth all things, and Who is the Ruler of all Spirits
and the Lord of all Flesh--Who chose our Lord Jesus, and us through
Him to be a peculiar people--grant to every soul that calleth upon
His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long
suffering, self-control, purity and sobriety, to the well pleasing
of His Name through our High Priest and Protector Jesus Christ."
(Ch. lviii.)

But with all this his Christianity seems to have been Ecclesiastical, in
the technical sense of the word. He seems to have had a much clearer and
firmer hold than Justin had of the truth that Christ instituted, not
merely a philosophy or system of teaching, but a mystical body or
visible Church, having its gradations of officers corresponding to the
officers of the Jewish Ecclesiastical system, and its orderly
arrangements of worship. (Ch. xl-xlii.)

Now this is the Christianity of a man who lived at least sixty or
seventy years nearer to the fountain head of Christian truth than did
Justin Martyr, whose witness to dogmatical or supernatural Christianity
we have shown at some length.

It is also gathered out of a comparatively short book, not one sixth of
the length of the writings of Justin, and composed solely for an
undogmatic purpose.

His views of Christ and His work are precisely the same as those of
Justin. By all rule of rationalistic analogy they ought to have been
less "ecclesiastical," but in some respects they are more so.

Clement certainly seems to bring out more fully our Lord's Resurrection
(taking into consideration, that is, the scope of his one remaining book
and its brevity), and the Resurrection of Christ is the crowning miracle
which stamps the whole dispensation as supernatural.

So far, then, as the Supernatural is concerned, it makes no difference
whatsoever whether Clement used the Gospel according to St. Matthew or
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. His Gospel, whatever it was, not
only filled his heart with an intense and absorbing love of Christ, and
a desire that all men should imitate Him, but it filled his mind with
that view of the religion of Christ which we call supernatural and
evangelical, but which the author of "Supernatural Religion" calls
ecclesiastical.

The question now arises, not so much from whom, but when, did he receive
this view of Christ and His system. I do not mean, of course, the more
minute features, but the substance. To what period must his
reminiscences as a Christian extend? What time must his experiences
cover? Irenaeus, in the place I have quoted, speaks of him as the
companion of Apostles, Clement of Alexandria as an Apostle, Eusebius and
Origen as the fellow-labourer of St. Paul. Now, I will not at present
insist upon the more than likelihood that such was the fact. I will, for
argument's sake, assume that he was some other Clement; but, whoever he
was, one thing respecting him is certain--that the knowledge of
Christianity was not poured into him at the moment when he wrote his
Epistle, nor did he receive it ten--twenty--thirty years before. St.
Peter and St. Paul were martyred in A.D. 68; the rest of the Apostolic
College were dispersed long before. This Epistle shows little or no
trace of the peculiar Johannean teaching or tradition of the Apostle who
survived all the others; so, unless he had received his Christian
teaching some years before the Martyrdom of the two Apostles Peter and
Paul, that is, some time before A.D. 68, probably many years, I do not
see that there can have been the smallest ground even for the tradition
of the very next generation after his own that he knew the Apostles.
Such a tradition could not possibly have been connected with the name of
a man who became a Christian late in the century.

Now, supposing that he was sixty-five years old when he wrote his
Epistle, he was born about the time of our Lord's Death: he was
consequently a contemporary of the generation that had witnessed the
Death and Resurrection of Christ and the founding of the Church. If he
had ever been in Jerusalem before its destruction, he must have fallen
in with multitudes of surviving Christians of the 5,000 who were
converted on and just after the day of Pentecost.

His Christian reminiscences, then, must have extended far into the age
of the contemporaries of Christ. A man who was twenty-five years old at
the time of the Resurrection of Christ would scarcely be reckoned an old
man at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Clement consequently
might have spent twenty of the best years of his life in the company of
persons who were old enough to have seen the Lord in the Flesh. [193:1]

So that his knowledge of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the
founding of the Church, even if he had never seen St. Paul or any other
Apostle, must have been derived from a generation of men, all the older
members of which wore Christians of the Pentecostal period.

Now when we come to compare the Epistle of Clement with the only
remaining Christian literature of the earliest period, _i.e._ the
earlier Epistles of St. Paul, we find both the account of Christ and the
Theology built upon that account, to be the same in the one and in the
other.

The supernatural fact respecting Christ to which the earliest Epistles
of St. Paul most prominently refer, was His Resurrection as the pledge
of ours, and this is the fact respecting Christ which is put most
prominently forward by Clement, and for the same purpose. The First
Epistle to the Corinthians is referred to by Clement in the words:--

"Take up the Epistle of the Blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write
to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?
Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek: pneumatikôs]) he
wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even
then parties had been formed among you." (Ch. xlvii.)

The other reproductions of the language of St. Paul's Epistles are
numerous, and I give them in a note. [194:1] The reader will see at a
glance that the Theology or Christology of Clement was that of the
earliest writings of the Church of which we have any remains, and to
these he himself frequently and unmistakably refers.

The earlier Epistles of St. Paul, as those to the Thessalonians,
Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, are acknowledged on all hands, even
by advanced German Rationalists, to be the genuine works of the Apostle
Paul; indeed one might as well deny that such a man ever existed as
question their authenticity. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, which
is the longest and most dogmatic of the earlier ones, cannot have been
written after the year 58. In a considerable number of chronological
tables to which I have referred, the earliest date is the year 52, and
the latest 58.

To the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is undoubtedly the
earliest of all, the earliest date assigned is 47, and the latest 53.

Now it is ever to be remembered that in each of these--the First to the
Thessalonians and the First to the Corinthians--we have enunciations of
the great crowning supernatural event of Scripture--the Resurrection of
Christ and our Resurrection as depending upon it, which are unsurpassed
in the rest of Scripture.

So that in the first Christian writing which has come down to us, we
have the great fact of Supernatural Religion, which carries with it all
the rest.

The fullest enunciation of the evidences of the Resurrection is in a
writing whose date cannot be later than 58, and runs thus:--

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by
which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto
you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first
of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He
rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. And that He
was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that [196:1] He was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater
part remain unto this present [twenty-five years after the event]
but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of
all the Apostles, and last of all He was seen of me also." (1 Cor.
xv. 1.)

If the reader compares this with the accounts in any one of the Four,
he will find that it gives the fullest list of our Lord's appearances
which has come down to us, and this, be it remembered, forming part of
the most categorical declaration of what the Gospel is, to be found in
the New Testament. [196:1]

A man, then, writes in A.D. 57 or earlier, that another, Who had died in
A.D. 32 had been seen by a number of persons, and among these, by 500
persons at once, of whom the greater part were alive when he wrote, and
implying that the story had been believed ever since, and received by
him (the writer) from those who had seen this Jesus, and that the fact
was so essential to the religion that it was itself called "the Gospel,"
a name continually given to the whole system of Christianity, and
moreover that he himself, when in company with others, had seen this
Jesus at noon-day, and, the history asserts, had been blinded by the
sight. Now let the reader recall to his mind any public man who died
twenty-five years ago, that is, in 1850, and imagine this man appearing,
not as a disembodied spirit, but in his resuscitated body to first one
of his friends, then to eleven or twelve, then to another, then to five
hundred persons at one time, and a flourishing and aggressive
institution founded upon this his appearance, and numbers of persons
giving up their property, and breaking with all their friends, and
adopting a new religion, and a new course of life of great self-denial,
and even encountering bitter persecution and death, simply because they
believed this man to be alive from the dead, and moreover some
professing to do miracles, and to confer the power of doing miracles in
the name and by the power of this risen man.

Let the reader, I say, try to imagine all this, and then he will be able
to judge of the credulity with which the author credits his readers when
he writes:--

"All history shows how rapidly pious memory exaggerates and
idealizes the traditions of the past, and simple actions might
readily be transformed into miracles as the narrative circulated, in
a period so prone to superstition, and so characterized by love of
the marvellous." (Vol. ii. p. 209.)

"All history," the author says; but why does he not give us a few
instances out of "all history," that we might compare them with this
Gospel account, and see if there was anything like it?

Such a story, if false, is not a myth. A myth is the slow growth of
falsehood through long ages, and this story of the Resurrection was
written circumstantially within twenty years of its promulgation, by one
who had been an unbeliever, and who had conferred with those who must
have been the original promoters of the falsehood, if it be one.

To call such a story a myth, is simply to shirk the odium of calling it
by its right name, or more probably to avoid having to meet the
astounding historical difficulty of supposing that men endured what the
Apostles endured for what they must have known to have been a falsehood,
and the still more astounding difficulty that One Whom the author of
"Supernatural Religion" allows to have been a Teacher Who "carried
morality to the sublimest point attained or even attainable by
humanity," and Whose "life, as far as we can estimate it, was uniformly
noble and consistent with his lofty principles," should have impressed a
character of such deep-rooted fraud and falsehood on His most intimate
friends.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" has, however, added another to the
many proofs of the truth of the Gospel. In his elaborate book of 1,000
pages of attack on the authenticity of the Evangelists he has shown,
with a clearness which, I think, has never been before realized, the
great fact that from the first there has been but one account of Jesus
Christ. In the writings of heathens, of Jews, of heretics, [199:1] in
lost gospels, in contemporary accounts, in the earliest traditions of
the Church, there appears but one account, the account called by its
first proclaimers the Gospel; and the only explanation of the existence
of this Gospel is its truth.

THE END.

[FOOTNOTES]

[3:1] Papias, for instance, actually mentions St. Mark by name as
writing a gospel under the influence of St. Peter. The author of
"Supernatural Religion" devotes ten pages to an attempt to prove that
this St. Mark's Gospel could not be ours. (Vol. i. pp. 448-459.)

[6:1] I need hardly say that I myself hold the genuineness of the Greek
recension. The reader who desires to see the false reasonings and
groundless assumptions of the author of "Supernatural Religion"
respecting the Ignatian epistles thoroughly exposed should read
Professor Lightfoot's article in the "Contemporary Review" of February,
1875. In pages 341-345 of this article there is an examination of the
nature and trustworthiness of the learning displayed in the footnotes of
this pretentious book, which is particularly valuable. I am glad to see
that the professor has modified, in this article, the expression of his
former opinion that the excerpta called the Curetonian recension is to
be regarded as the only genuine one. "Elsewhere," the professor writes
(referring to an essay in his commentary on the Philippians), "I had
acquiesced in the earlier opinion of Lipsius, who ascribed them (_i.e._,
the Greek or Vossian recension) to an interpolator writing about A.D.
140. Now, however, I am obliged to confess that I have grave and
increasing doubts whether, after all, they are not the genuine
utterances of Ignatius himself."

[10:1] [Greek: Ou gar monon en Hellêsi dia Sôkratous hypo logou êlenchthê
tauta, alla kai en Barbarois hyp' autou tou Logou morphôthentos kai
anthrôpou genomenou kai Iêsou Christou klêthentous.]

[10:2] Such is a perfectly allowable translation of [Greek: kai ton par'
autou hyion elthonta kai didaxanta hêmas tauta, kai ton tôn allôn
hepomenôn kai exomoioumenôn agathôn angelôn straton, pneuma te to
prophêtikon sebometha kai proskynoumen.] As there is nothing approaching
to angel worship in Justin, such a rendering seems absolutely necessary.

[15:1] "For the law promulgated in Horeb is now old, and belongs to you
alone; but this is for all universally. Now law placed against law has
abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in
like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final
law--namely, Christ--has been given to us." (Heb. viii. 6-13; Dial. ch.
xi.)

[15:2] "For the true spiritual Israel and descendants of Judah, Jacob,
Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by
God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations) are
we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be
demonstrated while we proceed." (Phil. iii. 3, compared with Romans, iv.
12-18; Dial. ch. xi.)

[17:1] This, of course, was a Jewish adversary's view of the Christian
doctrine of the Godhead of Christ, which Justin elsewhere modifies by
showing the subordination of the Son to the Father in all things.

[19:1] [Greek: En gar tois apomnêmoneumasi, ha phêmi hypo tôn apostolôn
autou kai tôn ekeinois parakolouthêsantôn syntetachthai, hoti hidrôs
hôsei thromboi katecheito autou euchomenou.] (Dial. ch. ciii.)

[20:1] [Greek: Kai to eipein metônomakenai auton Petron hena tôn
apostolôn, kai gegraphthai en tois apomnêmoneumasin autou gegenêmenon
kai touto, k.t.l.]

On this question the author of "Supernatural Religion" remarks,
"According to the usual language of Justin, and upon strictly critical
grounds, the [Greek: autou] in this passage must be ascribed to Peter;
and Justin therefore seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that Apostle, and
to speak consequently of a Gospel of Peter." (Vol. i. p. 417.)

[28:1] That of our Lord being born in a cave.

[29:1] [Greek: Iôannou gar kathezomenou.]

[34:1] Justin has [Greek: hidrôs hôsei thromboi]; St. Luke, [Greek: ho
hidrôs autou hôsei thromboi haimatos]. The author of "Supernatural
Religion" lays great stress upon the omission of [Greek: haimatos], as
indicating that Justin did not know anything about St. Luke; but we have
to remember, first, that St. Luke alone mentions _any_ sweat of our Lord
in His agony; secondly, that the account in Justin is said to be taken
from "Memoirs drawn up by Apostles and _those who followed them_," _St.
Luke being only one of those who followed_; thirdly, Justin and St. Luke
both use a very scarce word, [Greek: thromboi]; fourthly, Justin and St.
Luke both qualify this word by [Greek: hôsei]. If we add to this the
fact that [Greek: thromboi] seems naturally associated with blood in
several authors, the probability seems almost to reach certainty, that
Justin had St. Luke's account in his mind. The single omission is far
more easy to be accounted for than the four coincidences.

[37:1] And He said unto them, "These are the words which I spake unto
you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which
were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms
concerning me." (Luke xxiii. 44.)

[48:1] It is the reading of Codices B and C of the Codex Sinaiticus of
the Syriac, and of a number of Fathers and Versions.

[51:1] [Greek: Hekastos gar tis apo merous tou spermatikou theiou logou
to syngenes horôn kalôs ephthenxato.]

[63:1] For instance, in vol. ii. p. 42, &c., he speaks of one
of Tischendorf's assertions as "a conclusion the audacity of
which can scarcely be exceeded."--Then, "This is, however, almost
surpassed by the treatment of Canon Westcott."--Then, "The unwarranted
inference of Tischendorf."--"There is no ground for Tischendorf's
assumption."--"Tischendorf, the self-constituted modern Defensor Fidei,
asserts with an assurance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise
than as an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his
readers."--"Canon Westcott says, with an assurance which, considering
the nature of the evidence, is singular."--"Even Dr. Westcott states,"
&c.--For Tertullian his contempt seems unbounded: indeed we way say the
same of all the Fathers. Numberless times does he speak of their
"uncritical spirit." The only person for whom he seems to have a respect
is the heretic Marcion. Even rationalists, such as Credner and Ewald,
are handled severely when they differ from him. The above are culled
from a few pages.

[69:1] [Greek: Hoti Theos hypemeine gennêthênai kai anthrôpos
genesthai.]

[69:2] [Greek: Ex hôn diarrhêdên outous autos ho staurotheis hoti Theos
kai anthrôpos, kai stauroumenos kai apothnêskôn kekêrygmenos
apodeiknytai.]

[70:1] The reader must remember that Justin puts this expression, which
seems to imply a duality of Godhead, into the mouth of an adversary. In
other places, as I shall show, he very distinctly guards against such a
notion, by asserting the true and proper Sonship of the Word and his
perfect subordination to His Father. There is a passage precisely
similar in ch. lv.

[71:1] "I continued: Moreover, I consider it necessary to repeat to you
the words which narrate how He is both Angel and God and Lord, and Who
appeared as a Man to Abraham." (Dial. ch. lviii.)

"Permit me, further, to show you from the Book of Exodus, how this same
One, Who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and Man." (Dial. ch. lix.)

"God begat before all creatures, a Beginning, a certain rational Power
from Himself, Who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the
Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord
and Logos." (Dial. ch. lxi.)

"The Word of Wisdom, Who is Himself this God, begotten of the Father of
all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the
Begetter, will bear evidence to me," &c. (Dial. lxi.)

"Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him
Who established these things [_i.e._ the Father] as deserving to be
worshipped, as God and as Christ." (Dial. lxiii.)

The reader will find other declarations, most of which are equally
explicit, in Dial. ch. lvi. (at the end), ch. lvii. (at the end), lxii.
(middle), lxviii. (at middle and end), lxxiv. (middle), lxxv., lxxvi.
(made Him known, being Christ, as God strong and to be worshipped),
lxxxv. (twice called the Lord of Hosts), lxxxvii. (where Christ is
declared to be pre-existent God), cxiii. (he [Joshua] was neither
Christ, Who is God, nor the Son of God), cxv. (our Priest, Who is God,
and Christ, the Son of God, the Father of all), cxxiv. (Now I have
proved at length that Christ is called God), cxxv. (He ministered to the
will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God), cxxvi. (thrice in this
chapter), cxxvii., cxxviii., cxxix.

[73:1] I adopt this phrase because, it is used by Justin. His words are
[Greek: arithmô onta heteron]. (Dial. ch. lxii.)

[74:1] [Greek: Hoti archên pro pantôn tôn ktismatôn ho Theos gegennêke
dynamin tina ex heautou logikên, k.t.l.]

[77:1] Dr. Pusey translates this passage thus:--"For all that the
philosophers and legislators at any time declared or discovered aright,
they accomplished according to their portion of discovery and
contemplation of the Word; but as they did not know all the properties
of the Word which is Christ," &c.

[77:2] Translated by Dr. Pusey, "Seminal Divine Word."

[78:1] A few pages further on I shall show that the mode of reasoning
adopted by the author of "Supernatural Religion," in drawing inferences
from the ways in which Justin expresses the idea of St. John's [Greek:
ho logos sarx egeneto] would, if we adopted it, lead us to some very
startling conclusions.

[84:1] The following are some instances:--"God sent not His Son into the
world to condemn the world." "He Whom God sent."--John iii. 17, 23. "My
meat is to do the will of Him that sent me." "Jesus Christ, Whom Thou
hast sent." "As my Father sent me, so send I you," &c.

[85:1] This passage does not occur among the remarks upon Justin
Martyr's quotations, but among those on the Clementine Homilies.
However, it seems to be used to prove that the Gospel of St. John was
published after the writing of the Clementines, which the author seems
to think were themselves posterior to Justin.

[86:1] I say the "necessary" developments, because Holy Scripture is
given to the Church to be expounded and applied, and in order to this
its doctrine must be collected out of many scattered statements, and
stated and guarded, and this is its being developed. The Persons, the
attributes, and the works of the three Persons of the Godhead are so
described in Holy Scripture as Divine, and They are so conjoined in the
works of Creation, Providence, and Grace, that we cannot but contemplate
Them as associated together, and cannot but draw an impassable gulf
between Their existence and that of all creatures, and we cannot but
adoringly contemplate Their relations one to another, and hence the
necessary development of the Christian dogma as contained in the Creeds.

[91:1] [Greek: Ton di' hêmas tou anthrôpous kai dia tên hêmeteran
sôtêrian katelthonta ek tôn ouranôn, kai sarkôthenta ek Pneumatos
Hagiou kai Marias tês parthenou, kai enanthrôpêsanta, k.t.l.]

[94:1] Though of course not as regards _time_, for all Catholics hold
the Eternal Generation, that there never was a time in which the Father
was not a Father; nor as regards power or extension, for whatever the
Father does that the Son does also, and wherever the Father is there is
the Son also.

[100:1] Eusebius, B. ii. ch. v.

[106:1] Apol. i. 14.

[107:1] The spirit of this verse, and its form of expression, are quite
those of the Gospel of St. John; and it serves to form a link of union
between the three Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth, and to point to the
vast and weighty mass of discourses of the Lord which are not related
except by St. John. Alford in loco.

[117:1] If the reader desires to see Logos doctrine expressed in
philosophic terminology, he can find it in some of the extracts from
Philo given in the notes of "Supernatural Religion" vol. ii. pp.
272-298. Can there be a greater contrast than that between St. John's
terse, concise, simple, enunciations and the following: [Greek: Kai ou
monon phôs, alla kai pantos heterou phôtos archetypon mallon de
archetypou presbyteron kai anôteron, Logon echon paradeigmatos to men
gar paradeigma ho plêrestatos ên autou Logos, k.t.l.]--De Somniis, i.
15, Mang. i. 634. There is no particularly advanced philosophic
terminology here, and yet there is a profound difference between both
the thought and wording of this sentence of Philo and St. John's four
enunciations of the Logos. Again, [Greek: Dêlon de hoti kai hê
archetypos sphragis, hon phamen einai kosmon noêton, autos an eiê to
archetypon paradeigma, idea tôn ideôn, ho Theou Logos.]--De Mundi
Opificio Mang. vol. i. p. 8. "It is manifest also that the archetypal
seal, which we call that world which is perceptible only to the
intellect, must itself be the archetypal model, the idea of ideas, the
word of God." (Yonge's Translation.)

[126:1] "When He came into the world He was manifested as God and man.
And it is easy to perceive the man in Him when He hungers and shows
exhaustion, and is weary and athirst, and withdraws in fear, and is in
prayer and in grief, and sleeps on a boat's pillow, and entreats the
removal of the cup of suffering, and sweats in an agony, and is
strengthened by an angel, and betrayed by a Judas, and mocked by
Caiaphas, and set at naught by Herod, and scourged by Pilate, and
derided by the soldiers, and nailed to the tree by the Jews, and with a
cry commits His spirit to His Father, and drops His head and gives up
the ghost, and has His side pierced by a spear, and is wrapped in linen
and laid in a tomb, and is raised by the Father from the dead. And the
Divine in Him, on the other hand, is equally manifest when He is
worshipped by angels, and seen by shepherds, and waited for by Simeon,
and testified of by Anna, and inquired after by wise men, and pointed
out by a star, and at a marriage makes wine of water, and chides the sea
when tossed by the violence of winds, and walks upon the deep, and makes
one see who was blind from birth, and raises Lazarus when dead for four
days, and works many wonders, and forgives sins, and grants power to His
disciples."

[152:1] History affords multitudes of instances, but an example may be
selected from one of the most critical periods of modern history. Let it
be granted that Louis the Sixteenth of France and his Queen had all the
defects attributed to them by the most hostile of serious historians;
let all the excuses possible be made for his predecessor, Louis the
Fifteenth, and also for Madame de Pompadour, can it be pretended that
there are grounds for affirming that the vices of the two former so far
exceeded those of the latter, that their respective fates were plainly
and evidently just? That whilst the two former died in their beds, after
a life of the most extreme luxury, the others merited to stand forth
through coming time, as examples of the most appalling and calamitous
tragedy. (Mivart's "Genesis of Species," ch. ix.)

[155:1] What sign showest Thou us? Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up: but He spake of the temple of His Body. (John
ii. 19-21) An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and
there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the Prophet Jonas,
for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so
shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth. (Matt. xii. 39, 40) God commandeth all men everywhere to repent,
because He hath appointed a day on which He will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom He hath chosen, whereof He hath given
assurance unto all men in that He raised Him from the dead. (Acts xvii.
30.)

[158:1] This sentence seems extremely carelessly worded. The author
cannot possibly mean that our ignorance is the anomaly, for throughout
his whole work he assumes that ignorance is the rule in all matters,
moral, physical, historical. The Fathers of the second century knew
nothing of the Evangelists. St. John knows nothing of the writings of
his brother Evangelists. They are all assumed to be ignorant of what
they have not actually recorded. We know nothing of vital force, or
physical force, or of a revelation. In fact, God Himself is the
Unknowable.

[164:1] Perhaps 1 Tim. i. 20, iv. 14; 2 Tim i. 6, may refer to such
gifts; but the contrast between such slight intimations and the full
recognition in 1 Cor. xii. and xiv. is very great.

[168:1] "The author [of the book of Enoch] not only relates the fall of
the angels through love for the daughters of men, but gives the names of
twenty-one of them, and their leaders, of whom Jequn was he who seduced
the Holy Angels, and Ashbeel it was who gave them evil counsel and
corrupted them. A third, Gadreel, was he who seduced Eve. He also taught
to the children of men the use and manufacture of all murderous weapons,
of coats of mail, shields, swords, and of all the implements of war.
Another evil angel, named Penemue, taught them many mysteries of wisdom.
He instructed men in the art of writing, with paper and ink, by means of
which, the author remarks, many fall into sin, even to the present day.
Kaodejâ, another evil angel, taught the human race all the wicked
practices of spirits and demons, and also magic and exorcism. The
offspring of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men, were giants
whose height was 3,000 ells, of these are the demons working evil upon
earth. Azayel taught men various arts, the making of bracelets and
ornaments, the use of cosmetics, the way to beautify the eyebrows,
precious stones and all dye-stuffs and metals, &c. The stars are
represented as animated beings. Enoch sees seven stars bound together in
space like great mountains, and flaming with fire, and he enquires of
the angel who leads him on account of what sin they are so bound. Uriel
informs him that they are stars which have transgressed the commands of
the Most High, and they are thus bound until ten thousand worlds, the
number of the days of their transgression, shall be accomplished." So
far for the "Angelology." As to the demons, "Their number is infinite
... they are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a newly made
grave. It is stated that each man has 10,000 demons at his right hand,
and 1,000 on his left. The crush in the synagogue on the Sabbath arises
from them, also the dresses of the Rabbins become so old and torn
through their rubbing; in like manner also they cause the tottering of
the feet. He who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes
and strew them about his bed, and in the morning he will perceive their
footprints upon them like a cock's tread. If any one wish to see them,
he must take the after-birth of a black cat, which has been littered by
a first-born black cat, and whose mother was also a first-birth, burn
and reduce it to powder, and put some of it on his eyes, and he will see
them." (Vol. i. pp. 104 and 111). And this is the stuff which the author
would have us believe was the real origin of the supernatural in the
life of Jesus!

[170:1] See also Mark v. 42 (healing of Jairus' daughter), "They were
astonished with a great astonishment." Mark vii. 37 (healing of deaf man
with impediment in his speech), "They were beyond measure astonished."
Luke v. 9, "He was astonished at the draught of fishes;" viii. 56, "Her
parents were astonished."

[178:1] There cannot be the slightest doubt but that certain cases of
madness or mania present all the appearances of possession as it is
described in Scripture. Another personality, generally intensely evil,
has possession of the mind, speaks instead of the afflicted person,
throws the patient into convulsions,--in fact, exhibits all the symptoms
of the ancient demoniacs. I have now before me the record of five or six
such cases attested by German physicians.

[183:1] The reader will find the references to it discussed in a
dissertation at the end of Whiston's "Josephus." Lardner utterly denies
its authenticity. Daubuz, however, has, I think, clearly proved its
style and phraseology to be those of Josephus.

[185:1] Singular that he should say "out of Palestine," for if they were
false they would be first heard of at a distance from the scene of their
supposed occurrence. Jerusalem, so full of bitter enemies of Christ, was
the last place in which His Resurrection was likely to be promulgated.

[187:1] Miscellanies, IV. ch. xvii.

[193:1] Let the reader remember that, if this be an assumption, the
contrary assumption is infinitely the more unlikely. Our assumption is
founded on the direct assertion of two writers of the second century,
one of whom asserts that Clement was a close companion of Apostles,
another that he was an Apostle: meaning, of course, such an one as
Barnabas. A writer of the early part of the next century, Origen,
asserts that he was the person mentioned in St. Paul's Epistle, and the
principal Ecclesiastical Historian who lived within two hundred years of
his time corroborates this.

[194:1] "Ye ... were more willing to give than to receive" (ch. ii.). A
reminiscence of St. Paul's quotation of Christ's words to be found in
Acts xx. 35.

"Ready to every good work" (ch. ii). Titus iii. 1. "Every kind of honour
and happiness was bestowed upon you (ch. iii). Reminiscence of I
Corinth. iv. 8.

"Let us be imitators of them who in goat skins and sheep skins went
about proclaiming the coming of Christ" (ch. xvii). Heb. xi. 37.

"To us who have fled for refuge to his compassions" (ch. xx.).
Reminiscence of Heb. vii.

"Let us esteem those who have the rule over us." I Thess. v. 12, 13;
Heb. xiii. 17.

"Not by preferring one to another." 1 Tim. v. 21.

"A future Resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus the
first fruits by raising Him from the dead" (ch. xxiv.). 1 Cor. xv. 20;
Col. i. 18.

"Nothing is impossible with God except to lie" (ch. xxvii.). Tit. i. 2;
Heb. vi. 18.

"From whom [Jacob] was descended our Lord Jesus Christ according to the
flesh" (ch. xxxii.). Rom. ix. 5.

"For [Scripture] saith, 'eye hath not seen,'" &c. (ch. xxxiv.). Cor. ii.
9.

"Not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them
that do them" (ch. xxxv.). Rom. i. 32. Ch. xxxvi. contains distinct
reference to Heb. i. I gave an extract above.

"Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the
feet ... yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and
useful" (ch. xxxvii.), 1 Corinth. xii. 12, &c.

"Let every one be subject to his neighbour according to the special gift
bestowed upon him" ([Greek: kathôs kai etethê en tô charismati autou])
(ch. xxxviii.). Rom. xii. 1-4; Ephes. iv. 8-12.

"The blessed Moses, also, 'a faithful servant in all his house'" (ch.
xliii.). Heb. iii. 5.

"Have we not all one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of
grace poured upon us? Have we not one calling in Christ?" (ch. xlvi.).
Ephes. iv. 4-6.

"And have reached such a height of madness as to forget that we are
members one of another" (ch. xlvi.). Rom. xii. 5.

"Love beareth all things ... is long suffering in all things" (ch.
xlix.). 1 Cor. xiii. 4.

[196:1] One is in amazement when one reads, in the work of a man who
professes to have such a love of truth, the words, "The fact is, that we
have absolutely no contemporaneous history at all as to what the first
promulgators of Christianity actually asserted" (vol. i. p. 193). This
writer, as far as I remember, gives us no reason to believe that he
doubts the authenticity of St. Paul's earlier Epistles. Again, what is
"contemporary history?" Surely, if a man was now to write the history of
the Crimean war in 1854-5, it would be a contemporary history.

[199:1] Celsus, for instance, who had been some time dead when Origen
refuted him, knew no other account than the one which he calumniated;
Josephus the Jew knew no other, Trypho suggests no counter story. The
wild exaggerations of the heretics refuted by Irenaeus all presupposed
the one narrative, and can have had no other basis.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Lost Gospel and Its Contents - Or, The Author of "Supernatural Religion" Refuted by Himself" ***

Home